We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
badged content
recently badged: tehstone  francopoli  mk  insomniasexx  crafty  

I would definitely recommend having a first "real job." There are things she can learn at a real job that will prepare her for whatever she wants to do next. I probably would be twice as good if I had worked two different jobs, and three times as good if I had worked three. Every experience gives you more knowledge, which then guides you as you make decisions about how you want to act, what you want to be, how you want to be seen, etc. It will also teach her about about how people write emails, what makes a good manager vs a bad one, what makes a good co-worker vs a bad one, how annoying a rambling 2-hour conference call is, what makes a good client vs a bad one, etc.

There are also the itty-bitty things that I didn't even realize were things. I hired two college kids to help me part time at my old job and after their first "here's the design I did" email, I realized I had to start with the basics. I didn't even realize my first manager had taught me these things, but he had -- Here is how you start an email. Here is what the email contains. Here is what your signature should look like. No, never use your personal email address for work-related business. Here is how to determine what order email addresses go in. Here is how to CC, when to BCC, how badly BCCing can go. When to call vs email, how to set up a conference call, man the list goes on and on.

It will also give her the chance to potentially be in the other person's shoes in the future. One thing I've learned since managing my own people is that managers have a thousand different things in their head, only one is your situation. Just tell me what I absolutely need to know and move on. I really don't care why something is happening...or how it happened...or whatever. I'm sure some of the emails I wrote about a bug or something would make me cringe today.

I would also tell your niece to opt for an environment that will teach her the most and give her the most opportunities to learn, rather than just looking at the money or company-name power. You obviously have to weigh the pros and cons, but a smaller company where you are wearing multiple hats will give you a lot more opportunities to step up to the plate, interact with other departments, interact with high level management, and be that much more well-rounded. There are benefits to working in a very organized company and learning a strict process, but the reality is, you will learn more about the process and internal workings of the company than you will new skills.

I think one of the most valuable things about my old job was literally where I happened to sit. I sat upstairs with the engineers because I was too young to get a real office and the cubes were full. However, I worked mostly with the marketing department and I also reported directly to the president or CEO for projects for clients or high-level internal projects. This gave me a very unique perspective on both sides of the fence. I learned the information that marketers wanted to know as well as the engineers. A lot of times I acted as "translator"/ "e-mail rewriter" between the two departments because I could speak both languages. Later, I was able to streamline some items in our process that were pissing off the engineers and the marketers, but know one knew (1) that it was really an issue worth fixing or (2) that they both felt the same hatred for it.

Okay - last thing. Jobs also give you a network of people. Companies with high turnover rates are more valuable to you (but more dangerous) because the people you meet and make friends with today will be at a different company next year and can provide you with an in or a helping hand when you need it. You never know when the guy sitting at the cubicle next to you, that annoying sales rep, the IT guys* wife, or whoever can help you get to where you want to be. Your reputation is gold in certain industries so don't talk shit, never say no, and listen more than you talk. Save for maybe one or two truly horrid people, I would move mountains if any of my old co-workers needed assistance with anything. I even liked one of the sale's reps stupid facebook page the other day!

* Always make best friends with the IT guy / gal / team. Bring them cookies and stop in to talk about whatever they are into. (1) The lock on their door and the fact that they have more free-time than they would like anyone to know means they're room is a great place to hide when you just can't take it anymore, (2) They usually have a secret room which is glorious for hangover naps and (3) they will answer your call gladly when you need them and (4) they are always the first to know everything and they usually know all the company's dirty little secrets - this comes in handy when you need advise or can't figure something / someone out.

tehstone 12 hours ago  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: September 2, 2015

I proposed to my girlfriend last week and officially announced it to the world this morning. And we've been looking at houses. Lots of craziness right now...

God. Fucking. Dammit. I did an outreach event today and explained carbon dating to 20 people standing around me. I'll do here what I did out in the real world.

Let's start with some basics. First off, Journalists suck as science. All of 'em. Even the science reporters suck. So, we got to take a step back and explain what "carbon dating" is. Carbon has two stable isotopes C12 and C13. C12 is about 99% of all the carbon and C13 is about 1%. EXCEPT! Biology has a preference to C12 and C12 will be a higher percent of organic material. This, by the way, is how we know oil and coal are biological in origin, and how the increase in CO2 being released is from burning coal and oil.

Moving on. There is an unstable form of Carbon called C14. C14 has a half life of roughly 5700 years +/- 50 years. This means on average, 1/2 of your C14 will decay into Nitrogen14 roughly every 5700 or so years. So, why is there still C14 if it all turns into something else? C14 is made in the atmosphere due to the nitrogen in the air being bombarded by cosmic radiation. This is a fairly steady rate, and has been verified by tree ring counting, archaeology, and sediment studies. (For example, we know a house was made in 1072 from trees that were cut down at that time, so we carbon date the wood. Since we know the exact year the wood died we can calibrate the measurements. Scientists do this all over the world as each biome has different tree ring patterns) As a living plant inhales C02, it takes the carbon from the air and locks it into the plant via photosynthesis. (Trees grow by sequestering carbon from the air and turning it into wood which is why growing trees is a way to combat global warming.) Animals eat the plants and accumulate C14 as well, but the C14 in animals is not as reliable due to may reasons. C14 does not work on anything that was not alive, and works best in woody plants, trees, shrubs and other perennials that live multiple seasons. C14 also does not work well on aquatic plants and animals due to the way that the C14 is produced.

While alive, the plant or animal will intake C14 at a reasonable steady rate and lock that into its body. When the plant or animal dies, it stops taking in C14, which will then decay into the N14 mentioned above. We measure the dates of C14 testings, called radiocarbon dating, from C.E. or Common era, a date set at 1950. Why 1950? Because we set off so many nukes in the 50's and 60's that it screwed up the levels of C14 in the air. We can also easily tell art forgeries due to the levels of isotopes that were only created in the 50's and 60's in the nuclear detonations.

So, basics done. What they did is they took an old piece of paper, made of wood and plant material, and radiocarbon dated it. They then got a range of dates within the expected margin of error that overlapped Mohamed's life. ALL THIS MEANS IS THAT THE PAPER WAS PRODUCED IN THIS TIME FRAME. That's it folks. There are bibles and Torahs that have been dated way earlier than they have been know to be produced due to the authors and copiers using older parchments and wooden blocks that they already had on hand. Some of the original Gutenberg bibles date to 60-70 years before they were printed as they used old materials lying around. A Torah known to have been printed in the 1400's dated to the 1300's for the same reason.

So, we have a piece of paper that was created in a date range that may be earlier than Mohamed. And journalists who either don't understand or don't care about how C14 dating works, yet are desperate for page views. This is why the news sucks and this is why I scream at a monitor watching this garbage be treated as anything other than a curiosity. Fuck the news.

Well, I think I still stand by my premise that downmarket does change art. It's true, brownies didn't denigrate Adams, but that's because Adams (and the rest of group f/64) managed to stay ahead of the advancing technical curve. Everyone knows his name today since his images are so accessible to most people, but most modernist photographers were making much more creative and interesting work, in my opinion.

Karl Blossfeldt, Adiantum Pedatum, ca. 1920s; Photogravure. 10 x 8 in.

El Lissitzky, Runner in the City, ca. 1926; Gelatin Silver Print. 5 1/4 x 5 in.

Edward Weston, Shell, 1927; Gelatin Silver Print. 9 3/8 x 7 3/8 in.

Man Ray, Anatomies, 1929; Gelatin Silver Print. 8 7/8 x 6 3/4 in.

Iwata Nakayama, Eve, 1940; Gelatin Silver Print. 18 1/8 x 13 3/8 in.

Barbara Morgan, Pure Energy and Neurotic Man, 1940; Gelatin Silver Print Mounted on Board, 13 1/2 x 10 1/2 in.

Without getting into each of these artist's work individually, I think it's fair to say they were reacting to the growing commonplace of image making through abstraction, just like painting did. They had the freedom to experiment with new ideas in an age long before photoshop and the digital darkroom made unconventional photographs commonplace.

I think a contemporary version of Adams would struggle to survive in today's image culture that's saturated with "Earth Porn". If you look at someone like Peter Lik, which is probably the closest contemporary analogue of Adams I can think of, he's managed to make a name for himself through marketing mostly. He's got a book publishing company, and a TV series that ran for a season on The Weather Channel, buzzfeed articles about him, etc., but his actual pictures, while certainly technically adept in every sense, look like only marginally better versions of the everyday clichéd smut people submit all the time to the SFW Porn subs, with the biggest difference being that he shoots with film and makes big C-prints instead of shooting digital and uploading to imgur or flickr or whatever the cool kids/"pros" use these days.

Peter Lik or SFW Earth Porn?

Peter Lik or SFW Earth Porn?

Peter Lik or SFW Earth Porn?

Were those shot with a ten thousand dollar prime lens or a kit lens? Who knows, it's anyone's guess. Lik's wasn't though, and it'd be apparent by the time we enlarge them to 30x40. If I wanted to spend a few minutes in Photoshop, I'm sure I could make imitation Ansel Adams pictures from a few cherry picked earth porn submissions that would fool most people. We're so saturated with pretty pictures, 99% are blind to the minor technical details that separate a "good" photograph from a "great" print, meanwhile the cool and interesting ("artistic") photographs are the ones which manage to stake out unique creative territory or have interesting conceptual ideas behind them.

Hiroshi Sugimoto, White Rhinoceros, 1980; Gelatin Silver Print, 13 7/16 x 23 1/16 in.

Jeff Wall, A Sudden Gust of Wind (After Hokusai), 1993; Transparency in Lightbox, 90 x 148.5 in.

Andreas Gursky, 99 Cent II Diptychon, 2001; C-Print mounted to Acrylic Glass, 207 c 307 c. each

Roland Fischer, Birmingham (Day), 2007; C-Print face-mounted to Plexiglas, 71 x 49 in.

You mention Mapplethorpe, but come on, you know he rode the same 80s outrage train that brought Serrano into the limelight, and a big part of his notoriety in particular came from a premature death at the height of his popularity. I'd be willing to bet everything that if all he ever made were those (yes, technically amazing) black and white shots of lilies (Imogen Cunningham was doing that just as well fifty years prior), nobody would have paid him a second glance. His polaroids sit in a museum alongside the large format canvas prints just the same. Sure, now that the whole transgressive art movement is passé, everyone loves to buy his flower pictures as an awesome coffee table book to show off how artsy they are, but those images are certainly not what made him who he was in the art scene. Now I don't want to come off as lecturing you (I remember last time!) about art because I know you're as artistically literate as I am, but you must admit artists have always had to respond to (and push forward) the culture that they make work within.

I think we're lamenting the same things here, a low bar to entry (particularly in a place like youtube) means flooding the culture with low quality work which is a shame. Idiots like this Wong fellow can't tell the difference, and neither can most people, but simultaneously, people's consumption of media is changing; it's not just young kids that are watching youtube, I can count on one hand how many TV series I watch and one more hand for how many new movies I watch. I look at Lynch's take on watching movies on your phone and I agree with his point, but at the same time more and more content will be tailored for this new kind of casual consumption, and the forward thinking content makers will be making work in that direction. The true cinematic masters will still have their place in both the past and present, but like the portrait painters of yore, I wonder if their most popular heyday has passed. It's not the 1940s and we don't all trundle down to the local nickelodeon to watch a movie every weekend. Maybe Lynch should make some VR cinema?

Now if I were to address the the economics behind modern Hollywood TV and film, I must admit, I'd be over my head and I know you have a much better grasp of that. You mention Rome, and I watched it when it came out; I thought it was good, I was sad when they cancelled it, although it never really captivated me the way GoT did. I think with the birth of Jesus, they could have done a lot with the series, but like you say, it ran into a financial wall. It's hard to capture lighting in a bottle like that when there are so many great shows out there, not to mention all the new types of (lower-quality) entertainment. Anyone in their basement with a great idea can go out and make compelling content, content that even looks halfway decent (to most people) as Wong's video demonstrates. That means to the average consumer of media, the person paying a buck per second of film is competing on the same level as a person with a flipcam, and if the viewers can't tell the difference, on a commercial level, one is going to suffer disproportionately compared with the other.

Like you point out, costs for "professional quality" content haven't gone down all that much, and I guess it's because the best quality content is pouring money into diminishing returns to eek out that little bit of extra wow factor, and big casts, shooting on location, hyper-realistic vfx, despite all the tech, is still time consuming and expensive. In spite of that, just because the market for that specific kind of content is tightening, I don't think it will ever go away. People are enchanted by new things, fresh stories, new ways of seeing, new ways of communicating, such is life. No matter how popular low-brow youtube becomes, I think detailed and immersive audio visual experiences will always be compelling to people.

As if you can understand the depths of my soul which resides forever in shadow.

kleinbl00 5 days ago  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: The challange of making friends as an adult

Strap in, 'cuz I unshipped the Truth Cannon.


The article is a fumbling assemblage of anecdotes attempting to blast in the general direction of the truth via shotgun. To wit:

    In your 30s and 40s, plenty of new people enter your life, through work, children’s play dates and, of course, Facebook. But actual close friends — the kind you make in college, the kind you call in a crisis — those are in shorter supply.

Friends are people you are willing to obligate. We're more polite as we grow older and less needy of others' help. As such, we're less likely to obligate someone to help us - "I feel like shit, come over and cheer me up" - "I took a pounding in the market, come grab a beer with me" and thus less likely to form those "OMG he broke up with me" bonds. Doesn't mean the process isn't exactly the same with the exact same outcome.

    That thought struck Lisa Degliantoni, an educational fund-raising executive in Chicago, a few months ago when she was planning her 39th birthday party. After a move from New York to Evanston, Ill., she realized that she had 857 Facebook friends and 509 Twitter followers, but still did not know if she could fill her party’s invitation list. “I did an inventory of the phases of my life where I’ve managed to make the most friends, and it was definitely high school and my first job,” she said.

Holy shit - you mean she moved a thousand miles from home and had trouble finding in-the-flesh people to congregate with? COLOR ME SHOCKED!

    After a divorce in his 40s, Robert Glover, a psychotherapist in Bellevue, Wash., realized that his roster of friends had quietly atrophied for years as he focused on career and family.

"Man who was a shitty friend finds himself friendless"

    As external conditions change, it becomes tougher to meet the three conditions that sociologists since the 1950s have considered crucial to making close friends: proximity; repeated, unplanned interactions; and a setting that encourages people to let their guard down and confide in each other, said Rebecca G. Adams, a professor of sociology and gerontology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Keep your eye on this sentence. The author is going to pretend she didn't write it when she brings up children in a few paragraphs.

    Differences in professional status and income also complicate matters. “It really does get weird when your friends are making tons more than you, or tons less,” said Adriane Duckworth, a former marketing executive now working as an artist in Hamilton, Ontario. She recently welcomed a promising new couple into her circle of friends, but they quickly turned people off with their obsession with money.


    “At our wedding, other friends of ours who were seated with them actually complained to us afterward about the couple who was asking everyone how much money they made,” said Ms. Duckworth, 32. “People who made less felt uncomfortable discussing it, and people who made the same or more just felt it was weird to talk about it so nonchalantly.”

This just in: people who are boors at weddings make terrible friends

    ADDING children to the mix muddles things further. Suddenly, you are surrounded by a new circle of parent friends — but the emotional ties can be tenuous at best, as the comedian Louis C. K. related in one stand-up routine: “I spend whole days with people, I’m like, I never would have hung out with you, I didn’t choose you. Our children chose each other. Based on no criteria, by the way. They’re the same size.”

Hmmm - this sounds familiar - I'm almost sure that "a new circle of parent friends" is "proximity; repeated, unplanned interactions; and a setting that encourages people to let their guard down and confide in each other." So how, exactly, do parent groups make it harder to make friends?

    Caryl Lyons, an event planner in Danville, Calif., and her husband found a budding friendship with a parent-friend couple hit a roadblock when their young sons, who had been close friends, drifted apart. When the families planned a barbecue together, her son would say, “Can I have my other friends over?” said Ms. Lyons, 44.

"Only if you also invite their parents!"

    External factors are not the only hurdle. After 30, people often experience internal shifts in how they approach friendship.


    Thayer Prime, a 32-year-old strategy consultant who lives in London, has even developed a playful 100-point scale (100 being “best friend forever”). In her mind, she starts to dock new friend candidates as they begin to display annoying or disloyal behavior. Nine times out of 10, she said, her new friends end up from 30 to 60, or little more than an acquaintance.

You think this bitch has a 100-point furniture rating scale? Or a 100-point chinese takeout-rating scale? No, she just sits there silently judging everyone she hangs out with and wonders why they let her down.

    “My ideas of friendship were built by ‘The Godfather’ and ‘Diner,’ ” he said. “Your friends were your brothers, and anything but total loyalty at all costs meant excommunication. As you get older, that model becomes unrealistic.”

How many friends you think this guy had as a kid? 'cuz either he's remembering things a lot more rigidly or the fucker has always been forever alone.

    Some, like Ms. Degliantoni, the fund-raising executive, simply downsize their expectations. “I take an extremely efficient approach and seek out like-minded folks to fill very specific needs,” she said of her current strategy. “I have a cocktail friend and a book friend and a parenting friend and several basketball friends and a neighbor friend and a workout friend.”

Says the chick with "857 Facebook friends and 509 Twitter followers" who "did not know if she could fill her party’s invitation list".

    After a move to New York in his 30s, Dave Cervini, a radio station executive, was so lonely that he would walk his cat in Central Park, hoping to stoke conversations.

After imitating a psychopath, Dave Cervini discovered that if he conducted his friendship quests entirely over the Internet he no longer had to leave his associations up to organic events.


Now that the NYT's merry band of psychopaths is out of the way, here's the truth of the matter:

When you're over-scheduled and under-accepting of others, you will find that you have a hard time maintaining relationships.

Los Angeles is the worst for this. The place has a remarkable amount of impedance for lack of a better term - it's just a stone-cold pain in the ass to get out and do something. Last Saturday I headed over to a co-worker's place for a couple hours. It was an eight mile drive. I was there for an hour and a half. That cooked off my afternoon from 11am until 4:30pm. If you do not make a concerted effort to see someone with regularity, you will cease to see them, despite the fact that you get along gangbusters. Worse, both sides have to be committed. If one of you calls up and says "let's go to breakfast!" the other of you needs to be willing to say "I am willing to forego eating for the next two hours and punch a 5-hour hole in my day to hang out with you for an hour and a half." It doesn't take a genius to observe that it ain't much like dorm life.

If you start going "is this person really worth 5 hours of my time" then you're already making an economic assessment and you will let that person drop from your life sooner or later. If you had fun with them last time, though, you'll have fun with them next time, and every time you revisit those social connections you reinforce them.

Two tuesdays ago I was supposed to have lunch with a buddy. It didn't work out. He suggested coffee or beer. I told him to come over for dinner and to bring his wife. Then another friend called up and wanted to know what I was up to. I told him to bring his girlfriend. So at 11am I'd already committed to spending my afternoon cooking for six people. It cost me $70 to hang out with friends on a Tuesday. And it was absolutely, positively 100% worth it, even if I stopped talking to one of them for a week two days later (deadlines that were not mentioned). That's a reinforcement of the value of friendship and you know what? I DON'T CARE that neither of them would put together a tuesday evening dinner because it isn't about reciprocity, it's about friendship. Me? I like to entertain. Thus I have a house that's great for entertaining and will throw down with the barbecue and margaritas on a moment's notice. Thus, I have a lot of friends. Thus, I think this article is utter hogwash; a ham-handed excuse for people with guarded hearts to feel better about the fact that they have no one to hang out with on weekends.

Know what I did yesterday? I braved an hour of white-lining the 405 at rush hour in 103 degree weather so I could get to work 3 hours early so I could sit outside on Ventura blvd in that same weather while two friends showed up 45 minutes late. Know why they wanted to get together? They have a friend who's moving to Seattle and they thought he should know a person or two and I'm the only person they know in Seattle (even if I'm not there yet). And it was so fucking hot it gave me a headache and I ended up sitting at a pretentious "gastropub" eating a $5 pretzel, drinking an $8 lager and reading a kindle while they failed to show up on time and I'd do it again today if they asked.

Because I like having friends.

First step. Read these. The advice in here is expansive and awesome:

edit: here's a post list w/ a few more.

Step 2: Never take a single word of advice. Take it all in. Let it simmer and stew and marinate in that brain / heart of yours and make decisions based on what you think and feel. Your decisions will be influenced by the mountains of advice but the decisions will be yours and yours alone.

Step 3: Don't make any big decisions you don't have to. Make little ones and enjoy the journey. I planned on working in television (like I did in high school) instead of going to college. I figured I would figure it out. I hated school and spent more time trying to figure out how to not go to school and keep my valedictorian status than actually going to school. Then I got into NYU Film unexpectedly. Then I dropped out of NYU film two years in because I lost my passion. Then I worked nights editing shitty movies and TV shows for next to nothing (maybe like $50/night). Then I took off to Australia for three months with some Aussies I had met at a bar while doing cocaine one night (no joke). Then I got back home, moved in with my parents, and accepted a job at $13.25/hr editing product videos. Then I taught myself web development. Then I quit my job and started my own business creating websites for people. And here I am. I just turned 25. If you had asked me where I would be at 25 when I was 16, I would have said, "Doing cocaine and producing indie films and living a rockstar lifestyle." I don't produce films (although I occasionally get a corporate video bullshit gig) and I don't do cocaine anymore. I also make websites. WTF? How did that happen?

Life changes and it changes fast. The best thing you can do is roll with the punches and make sure whatever you are doing, you are passionate about. You are never too old or too young to do something big or change the direction you are headed. There is a big difference in being non-committal and giving up, and changing directions though.

I was 100% passionate about film until I wasn't. I tried really hard to find that passion again and spent a lot of time thinking there was something terribly wrong with me and that I had some lack-of-motivation disease (there's a motivation/passion enzyme in your thyroid right?) It turns out I was just over it. I sobbed to my parents for literally an hour straight, sitting on a grimmy NYC curb, before the words, "I want to drop out of college" left my lips. Then I sobbed and tried to catch my breath for another 4 hours or so.

If you don't have passion for something right now, do what you like best and explore the surrounding areas. Eventually you will find something. You are young as shit. I have friends pushing 30 who are still running away to foreign lands and snorting coke and haven't even tried to figure out what they want to do with their life / what their passion is.

Learn as much as you can now though. Real life is not conducive to picking up new skills, FYI. Go learn to solder or some shit. I don't know. I wish I had the time to learn that right now.

I see where you're coming from and to an extent I agree. The thing is though, the responsibility of success for an individual worker falls on that individual. However, the responsibility of success for a team falls on the supervisor.

Let's say you and I work in a factory. Let's say you're a new hire and I am a floor supervisor. As a floor supervisor, it's my responsibility to make sure the whole production line moves smoothly. As a new hire, it's your responsibility to assume the role of Workman One. Workman One's role is pretty straight forward. It is your job to put Rod A into Slot B to create Unit 1. It's important that you do such proficiently, so Workman Two can put Unit 1 with Unit 2 to make construct A.

You, as Workman One, have three main purposes that can be broken down as such . . .

1) Put Rod A into Slot B as quickly and efficiently as possible without error to produce as many Unit 1s as possible in a given amount of time.

2) Understand the how Rod A and Slot B as individual pieces function, so that you may understand the final purpose of Unit 1. Knowing these, you will know how to best put together a proper and functional final product.

3) Understand Unit 1's relationship with Unit 2. Properly understanding how all of these components work together once again goes towards creating a proper and functional final product.

Now, let's say for some reason you have trouble putting Rod A into Slot B. That's okay. You're new. We're in this together. It now falls onto my shoulders that you understand your role on our team so that we can not only create a working product but also save time and minimize waste. There are many ways I can do such a thing and I will employ as many as possible. I will do everything from coaching you on your specific job to make sure you understand your individual role to partnering you with your other team members so you can see how your job and their jobs rely on each other.

Let's keep in mind this whole time though that I chose you. I see that there is value in you as an individual that makes me want you on my team. Not only that, but we've already gone through all of the initial training. At this point, you are a vested interest. As a result, your success as an individual on my team is not only your problem, but mine as well. By taking you onto my team, your success as a team member becomes my responsibility.

So let's say that you continue to struggle. When my supervisor comes to me at the end of the week to talk about my numbers, he will bring up your area of production. He will say something to the effect of "rd95, why is bfv under performing?" On the surface, it sounds very simple. What it actually is though, is a very chilling statement. What my supervisor is asking is less "Why is your team member falling short" and more "Why, as a supervisor, are you allowing your team member to fall short." You, awesome guy that you are, will be in a little bit of trouble. Me though, as a supervisor, will be in a lot of trouble, because I as an team leader have failed to take initiative to solve a problem that affects my team as a whole.

There are a lot of things I, as a supervisor, can do. All of which has positives and negatives behind them. I can keep you in your current role hoping you pick up on it in a week or so, but in the mean time I risk the loss of material. Purchasing hates that. I could have you retrained for a different role, but as a result we're now spending time and resources on a retraining. HR hates that. I could also recommend to my supervisor to have you let go altogether, but despite your failings, everyone on the team adores you, and they'll hate me for that, building friction between me and them as a supervisor.

If that seems overwhelming, cause it is, keep in mind that's one tiny facet as a supervisor. We have to maintain everything from scheduling to variable cost control to team moral. Your decisions as an individual affect only you. My decisions as a team leader? They affect everyone.

Though I have to say, judging you as an individual, if we ever found ourselves working together, I think I'd bank on you. ;)

"Hey Fove, I hear things aren't going so well this time around. That's okay man, things have been interesting at times, I know. You probably don't want to hear me prattle on either; but there's a few things you need to hear.

I'm not going to pretend I know what your life is like. I really don't. You're in a different place to me and I respect that; I won't tell you to 'get over it' or 'just be a man and shut it out'. I tried that once and it broke me, so telling you to try it would be a bit thick. How's Mum? She good? Her and Dad still going on their wee dates every month? That's good, that's really good to hear. Have you talked to them recently though? You know how they got me through my shitty times. Mum with her "fix the problem at all costs and help my child" approach and Dad with his much more subtle "observe, listen, acknowledge, assist" method. They're bright people, that's why you are too. Yeah yeah Dad left school at 14, he's still clever as fuck. And he spent time in a mental institute remember. You know what I take from that? Mum stayed with him through it all.

No, no, I'm not saying you need to find a woman like Mum. I mean like... If that's the length she's willing to go to for the man she married, what lengths do you think she would go to for the man she helped create? She lives for you, and for your brother and sister. I know her approach is about as subtle as a sledgehammer but when your life is on the line she's the person you call for. And there is no shame in that. You don't fuck with a mumma bear and her cubs, any egg can tell you that.

Work huh? Yeah studying Psychology didn't really wind up where you wanted eh. Me neither man, it's a little funny huh? All that time for a $42,000 piece of paper saying you can stick at something. But! But... You're still working in the telco? Not where you want to be? That's cool man. I'm glad you don't want to be there. That tells me you still feel something. Where do you want to be??? That's cool if you don't know; you're in luck. You happen to be bright/talented/charismatic enough to wander to another country and land a job there. You might hate it there too, to be honest. But you did something different. You tried something and found you didn't want to be their either. That's good! Where too next? Back home, that's an idea.

No, again, no shame in coming home. You're coming back to your roots. To where your friends and family are. Your whanau. They're gonna be sooooo stoaked you're back. You know what you should do when you get back? Do some art yo, channel those feelings into the canvas like you used too. Remember how you'd paint that weird, dark shit and never really recall what led you to that? - Imagine what you'll make now!

Oh and get back into rugby. Your injuries are gone. And yes, so is that contract, but I'm going to be honest with you, I never would have made it as a professional sportsman - and given we're the same flesh, blood and bundle of nerves I think you know the same. Luck had it's way with you but to be honest, we'd have concussions and broken bones with no back up plan when all was said and done. I know it's hard not to focus on what could have been, but picture that "could have been" as a Hospital bill and faded memories.

Think of mum's grey hair and smiling face. Dad's shiny head (remember when he tried a ponytail out?! Holy shit....). Think of Bryn, and Slink, FatAids and Lewis, Bomber and Zac. All the Hardmen too! They're all here. Beers ready, it won't be your shout for another three jugs, I promise.

You got this man, you're equipped to handle everything and you have the support systems to catch you if you ever fail. And in a years time I promise you things will have colour again.

Takina te hoe kia Rite my friend, I'll see you on the 5."

I think that's how my internal conversation would go with me. Thought experiments are challenging!

kleinbl00 9 days ago  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Are you scared to post?

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about doxxing.

The first half of the violentacrez/Michael Brutsch saga was a bunch of trolls thinking it'd be hilarious to spread the notion that Dante was in jail for molesting his son... for the lulz. Since Reddit refused to do anything about it, but told me if I could catch them doing other things worthy of getting shadowbanned (important shit, like "altering their CSS") they'd hop right on it, so I spent a year drawing their fire to give them something to do other than destroy the chances of a loving father ever hanging out with his son.

Violentacrez thought this was hilarious because he thought I was way too uptight, so he modded all of those trolls in /r/jailbait, which got it banned for the first time (because reddit is nothing if not inconsistent). That wasn't quite lulzy enough, though so one of them - whom he had become Facebook friends with - sold him out to Adrien Chen.

There was no part of it that was about "consequences." It was always about "I have no power but look, yes I do." Nobody is ever doxed because they deserve it - that's always a retconned backstop so that people like you can think there's some logic to it. And four years later, the Great Reddit Hate Machine starts saying "oh yeah maybe we ought not to encourage bored Russian teenagers to googlebomb the notion that one of our future employees is a child molester" but literally - Reddit still hasn't said shit about my fun'n'games with the circlejerkers, Dante and violentacrez. Alexis apologized to me privately but only to get me to shut up.

My wife? My wife got doxed because I mentioned in /r/skeptic that she delivered babies outside of a hospital. It was the comment after "someone should put your whore wife out of her misery."

Did I seriously expect anything to happen from it? No. But there's always that niggling doubt. That's how shabnameh has always worked. Is the Taliban really going to kill your daughter for going to school once the US leaves? Mmmmmmaybe not. But better to be safe than sorry, right?

    There is a very simple rule to some stuff on the internet: if you wouldn't do something away from the keyboard, don't do it at the keyboard and expect some arbitrary internet rules to save you.

It's simpler than that, really: if you piss off someone with more time and less morality than yourself, shit can go sideways. Pretending that your actions have fuckall to do with it is dangerously delusional.

Mr. "I use random strings for my logins because I burn my identities regularly."

Of course! I guess it's a large combination of things though, definitely not one thing.

I wake up each morning with a strong urge to.. I dunno. Get things done. I wake up and the first thing on my mind is "There's work to do". Be it go to the gym, play all my various sports, actually go to my job, go be social etc. I think it's all of my interests rolled in together. I have so many things I enjoy doing, and that would likely be why I would fail at convincing this person out of his belief; we're just too dissimilar, I don't have the experience he does and I can only use examples from my own, very positive life.

Today for example, I woke up, went to the gym and busted through my routine. Came home, had some breakfast and a protein shake. Had a shower and washed my hair cause I'm getting a haircut after work and I know it'll make the job easier for them. Head down to work, listening to my "strut" playlist (these are all songs I feel good listening to). I get to work, do my thing, converse with people, get a little shitty at times, and then eventually it's the end of the day and it's Friday here so yay! I went out to get my haircut down the street, then joined up with the workmates for a Friday beer. After that I came home, organized dinner and then checked Hubski and saw your fascinating post. Now I've had dinner, am looking at some art I've been working on thinking I really need to finish that before I see my brother in November. And I'm also setting up a date tomorrow with a friend, going to the SPCA to play with the kitties.

Outside of that; I'll organize my music and find some new artists, maybe watch a movie if something cool is available (I go alone most of the time, it's easier for me to get immersed that way), practice for rugby, go see my friends elsewhere in the city. If the weather is crap I'll jump on some games on Steam and shoot things, cruise Hubski and see what Reddit has to offer. Work on art some and get new ideas. Read! Reading is a great escape for me, I'm going through the Wheel of Time and also all of Brandon Sanderson's works and I truly get lost for hours.

If my city isn't really doing it for me, I can go for a drive. 3 hours away is Queenstown http://imgur.com/gallery/czFv5Dy , where I used to live and just a truly stunning place to be; alone or with friends. New Zealand is a truly small place, everything is so local and at hand (despite being an Island).

Sorry this is truly rambling, I guess I just wanted to convey somehow that it's so many things that I live for. All these little things come together and get me out of bed, I love doing everything and I have so many things to keep me occupied that in the odd weekend where I have nothing to do, I'll feel fine about sleeping till noon.

I try and be appreciative for everything I have, and posts like yours bring to the forefront how good life is for me - so thank you for that at the very least!

And from the oh holy shit department, Ted Kaczynski's Unibomber Manifesto:

    You are shrewd, skeptical and can be perceived as indirect.

    You are philosophical: you are open to and intrigued by new ideas and love to explore them. You are unconcerned with art: you are less concerned with artistic or creative activities than most people who participated in our surveys. And you are unstructured: you do not make a lot of time for organization in your daily life.

    Your choices are driven by a desire for prestige.

    You are relatively unconcerned with both taking pleasure in life and tradition. You prefer activities with a purpose greater than just personal enjoyment. And you care more about making your own path than following what others have done.

2% agreeableness. 100% Intellect. 97% Authority Challenging. 1% Orderliness. 3% Hedonism.

This thing is more fun than a magic 8 ball.

lil 9 days ago  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Feeling sad after meeting with my old advisor today

    But I can't help but feel all weepy about everything I left behind. :(

How lucky you are to feel weepy. How beautiful it is that you do. Imagine how awful your undergraduate years would have been if all you feel is joy at getting away from it all.

Good memories of happy satisfying times will always be tinged with a little sadness because they are past. The sadness is a way of honoring the memory, deepening its meaning. Those same memories that are making you weepy are exactly the experiences, connections, and relationships that made you strong enough to take this next step of going TO something new and important, not just running away from a dark place.

Does that make sense?

steve 6 days ago  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: How Much is Music Really Worth?

steve's opinion:

Art doesn't pay.

music, literature, sculpture, film, photography, dance, painting...

Art is Art.

business is business.

The tiny fraction of artists who are able to make art they believe in whilst making a living wage are one of three things:

1 - ridiculously fortunate (lightning strikes once in a while)

2 - so talented that they have broad appeal and enough people are willing to pay

3 - making art that they may not entirely believe in - but it pays well and see point #1.

Most successful artists that I am aware of fall into one of those three buckets. There are probably more buckets. And I don't know what I'm talking about. This is just the rambling opinions of the village idiot.

If I ever go to grad school - my dissertation will be titled: God Hates Artists

crafty 7 days ago  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Has there been a recent influx of new users?

Here's my approach, maybe it can help you.

First, mentally separate out the expletives, rude puerile insults, or ad hominem attacks. If that's the majority of the response someone is giving you, perhaps you don't even need to respond at all. People get flustered all the time, it's important not to let that get under your skin. Perhaps you can even take pleasure in the fact that they're more frustrated than you, and the only way they can win is by making you as angry as they are.

Second, read their response as charitably as you can. Give them the benefit of the doubt where ever possible and point out areas of common ground; acknowledge what you can agree on first before examining points that you disagree on. Obviously this is easier if you have some prior knowledge or experience with the person, and generally speaking, this is just easier for some people more than others, but I think it's something you can practice if you make a conscious attempt to do so.

You might say, "well, this person is a racist, sexist, bigoted asshole! Why would I give him or her the benefit of the doubt? How could I possibly find any common ground with a person like that!?" However, in my experience, very rarely will you encounter a genuine person with whom you can find zero agreement with. There are (capital 'T') Trolls that will disagree with everything and say anything to get a rise, but those become apparent since most people, when encountering this approach, will mirror it back and start looking for common ground in your points. Beyond that, admit when you're using hyperbole, if the person you're talking to makes a good point, let them know, be cautious about how you rephrase the other's arguments, and be open and ready to admit if you're wrong or make a mistake. The people worth engaging with will return the favor, and those that aren't, won't.

Third, on the points you disagree with, make your case as forcefully and respectfully as you can. If the other person is making points you can't easily respond to, then just chill. You don't have to admit they're right or agree with the other person; maybe you can type out a response and leave it a draft or just think about it for a while. The important thing here is not to let heat of the moment emotions cloud your judgement.

Lastly, use the personal moderation tools however you see fit. If you want to block literally everyone on the site, save for five or six people, that is your right, and don't let anyone criticize you for it. If you just don't like a person for whatever reason, don't feel bad about blocking them. Let them complain if they want to, but ultimately, on your posts and comments, you choose what they say and who you want responding to them. My personal view is that to use the block functionality just so you can get the "last word in" on some debate is a little immature and I think slightly less of someone when I see them do that, but again, it's up to you. I can understand getting frustrated or angry and not wanting to talk to someone, in which case, just don't reply to them and block them only if they won't leave you alone.

Edit: Thanks for the badge, I'm glad you found it useful! This is the culture of friendly and open discussion I think most hubskiroos want to foster.

    I would suggest that honesty is great regarding the weakness question.

What's your greatest weakness?

I'd have to say "honesty".

I don't think honesty is a weakness.

I don't give a fuck what you think.

mk 15 days ago  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: What freedom of speech isn't

IMO it is important that people be able to discuss unpopular ideas and to share unpopular viewpoints. Many of the beliefs that are commonly held to be acceptable today were once unpopular. Also, if you haven't challenged your ideas, you likely haven't thought them through very well, which is an intellectual failing. However, as kleinbl00 states, it matters how you communicate your ideas, for if you aren't willing to respect your audience, then your audience has little reason to listen to you.

Of course, it is difficult to feel respect for those that hold some beliefs, particularly those that do not respect other groups of people a priori. For example, if someone proclaims to hate obese people, should I be expected to speak to them respectfully? Some might argue that if a person is unwilling to give respect to a group of people, then they do not deserve to be given respect in turn, even from those they do treat with respect. IMHO this is a mistake. I do not believe it is fruitful to engage ignorance with a lack of respect, and I think there is plenty of evidence to support this. Furthermore, I don't want ignorance to pull me into combative exchanges where the outcome is not in question. I'd much rather be someone that seeks to understand the cause of the ignorance, and when possible, someone that works to reduce it. I know that I have been ignorant, and continue to be ignorant. I know that the path to reducing my ignorance depends in part upon other people.

I am concerned about the extent to which political correctness and trigger warnings have stifled intellectual discourse. IMO the very concept of microaggression is microaggressive. Not one of us is without fault, and no one can understand or anticipate the complete spectra of perception that our words might elicit. To be intellectually curious means to be not so tender that words are dangerous regardless of their context.

In regards to Hubski, I am interested in creating fertile ground for thoughtful conversation. The actual topics being discussed are not unimportant, but the quality of the exchanges are of primary importance. To the extent that the parties involved are willing to tolerate combativeness or a lack of politeness, I am not concerned with the tenor of exchanges. However, if someone does not want to be a part of a conversation, or doesn't want to read it, they should have that option.

Our goal has been and will continue to be to provide fertile ground for thoughtful conversation. The freedom to discuss most any topic is an important element of that formula. However, IMHO the boundaries of the definition of freedom of speech aren't as interesting as many people make it out to be, and I am not interested in exploring the finer points of those boundaries to the significant expense of our primary goal.