Reading this, I was assuming that this behavior was enforced by reference checks for new hires being commonplace. However, the few sources I found in a quick search make it seem like asking/requiring references is a more recent practice due to western influence.
I too was struggling to understand the problem described herr: does unilaterally quitting a job actually harm the employee's future employment prospects inside Japan, or is the problem here just a matter of culturally enforced social stigma?
There are documents that your former employer often needs to provide you for stuff like health insurance. And now suddenly it's some direct confrontation to get a document, while your future employer (Who could still just let you go!) is asking you for a document to move forward. So you're facing a bunch of time pressure in gnarly cases, without many people around to help you out.
There are procedures to get around this stuff but since it's not the common case, when it does happen suddenly you get to learn about labor law.
I think anywhere in the world, when there is active antagonism causing bureaucracy to not be able to move forward, most people freeze up like a deer caught in headlights. Turns out that being a sociopath can be quite helpful for exploiting workers!
Sometimes I wonder what a society would look like if they could very reliably identify sociopathy at an early age, and then either euthanize those people or at least blacklist them so they can never have any job higher than a janitor. Would such a society work better than current societies? Or would it be like that episode of Star Trek where Kirk gets split into good and bad versions, and the good version was too ineffectual to be a decent captain without his bad side?
More like "It's a Good Life" from the Twilight zone. Have unhappy or bad thoughts? Off to the "corn field". Disagree with the decision makers? Want to do things differently? Want to just be different? Off to the corn field!
Sociopathy is no more a single thing than cancer or the common cold are single things. Even less so, because it is only defined by subjective interpretation of outward symptoms.
In the episode, the main character is the sociopath. My use of it is to say that giving people the power to execute or blacklist sociopaths will inevitable create more, only they'll be the ones in power.
"Lack of empathy" can easily be interpreted in many ways. What you are upset about are the actions of those you accuse of not having empathy. You think that killing anyone without empathy is the solution. You clearly have no empathy for those without empathy.
At least three of the four things you listed are things we can already detect. This doesn't make much sense as a reply to "what if we could detect sociopathy". And that's on top of it being a bad analogy to swap different traits and actions arbitrarily.
Suggesting we murder ("euthanize") people who are predisposed to a lack of empathy is probably the least empathetic reaction I could think of. The proposed answer to sociopathy is itself sociopathic.
This inherent contradiction is evidence enough that no sufficiently objective metric may distinguish "sociopath" from "not-sociopath". The power offered is great enough that it would be immediately abused.
I can't believe no one seems to even understand my post, because they keep focusing on the euthanization bit. The post was a thought experiment, and was simply asking whether, hypothetically, society would be actually better off without sociopaths or not. Many people seem to assume it would, but perhaps it wouldn't, which is why I brought up the Star Trek reference. I don't know either way.
I ran a coding bootcamp school that had both your typical pay-upfront and later added an option like you outline. I can't speak for all programs, but schools use an affiliate third party lender for those "free" loan programs.
It was relatively new for us when I left, so I never saw the aftermath. I know it worked out well for some students, but my biggest concern was ensuring payments only kicked in if the job was "in-industry or field". My logic was the value isn't there if you go to a coding bootcamp only to not use the skills.
I was still worried they'd basically ask "do you use a computer?" and consider it in-field.
Another issue here is we had folks just looking to up-skill and the value return was harder to gauge if they were returning or continuing to work their job. This was mostly limited to our part-time program so we didn't offer the delayed-loan for it.
Apparently yeah at least arguably the most prominent boot camp takes a verry broad stance on 'related' occupations for income sharing: https://www.sandofsky.com/lambda-school/
Interesting. My first thought was "isn't it wind powered? What are they powering?". Turns out anything below the water line like the hydrofoils are independently battery powered. The cyclists are pedaling to pressurize a hydraulic system that is used to trim and adjust the sails as opposed to the teams working hand crank systems to make adjustments directly. I guess I am just surprised they need that much potential energy for the sails-alone. I'd imagine it's a careful balance between building and storing the energy needed for the next series of adjustments without going too-far and exhausting the crew. Based on the focus on increased wattage output and not increasing resistance with constant output, it sounds to me like they are powering a generator for pressurizing a reservoir versus pressurizing the reservoir directly.
I believe the power is used to control the wing (sail) and the foils. These boats don’t have a keel and instead rely on foils that they drive into the water. I think they’re adjusted constantly as they fly and they swap from side to side as they tack.
I'm no rocket scientist, but to me it makes sense to try and redirect asteroids to enter our atmosphere. The only thing I'd seek to "mine" on the asteroid is H2O, Hydrogen, or something that could be immediately converted to power/propulsion by the unit-itself.
I guess one risk would be introducing unknown biological or chemical nastiness. Another would be how precise we could be to target open ocean/desert/etc.
That’s insanely irresponsible. Even if everything goes perfectly you’re going to have volcano tier dust plumes altering the local climate and in the worst case you could kill millions of people by wiping out entire cities.
I'm not sure this is true. Most (~80%) large venues are owned and operated by Live Nation, who also owns Ticketmaster. They also have exclusivity agreements with hundreds of others.
It's, in effect, a shell operating as a scalper and a customer service disruptor. This has very little to do with the artist beyond selecting venues.
I expect the previous versions to stop getting compatibility updates which is a bigger problem on macOS than Windows, but that's the deal with buying a license vs monthly subscriptions.
It's so much cheaper that I'll take that trade any day. I'm guessing v3 will be an eventual AI focused update since that's an area where they haven't tried to compete with Photoshop in v2.
But you can keep using your previous version after you stop getting updates. With Adobe you have to keep paying, even if you don't care about updates anymore.
Exactly! I will say that Adobe still does add features to the CC subscription[1], but the things I spend 90% of my time using in CC haven't changed all that much in the past decade. I'd be OK with continuing to use an older version. I only have a CC subscription because it's what my employer uses. If we all used Affinity instead, I'd be perfectly OK with that and we'd have more money in the bank.
[1] Contrast that to a company like Salesforce, which charges every year for its core product then adds most of the interesting new features to outside products with separate subscriptions.
I understand and grudgingly accept the risk to the drinking water. My concern is the airborne pollutants (carbon from the generators, expelled gases, VOCs) that are a certainty and how proximity relates - how close is too close.
Why the drastically lower effective tax rate? I don't see an increase in operating expenses enough to make that big of an impact and I'd expect the increased income to raise it.
Dynamic engineering Manager and Technical Project Manager at a global FinTech enterprise with experience managing teams of up to 10 remote team members while contributing individually to the launch of critical features and platform stability. Served as de-facto Product Manager of payments, assets and identity.
Built the engineering product support team from the ground up to support millions of dollars in transactions and all core business functions.
Looking for Engineering Management, technical project management or other similar leadership roles that blend Software Engineering, management, and product management. Ideally, in the Fintech or identity sector.
I also have a strong desire to get back to a focus on the code as a backend or full stack engineer, and less managing the team/projects. Even as an EM/TPM, I still found myself putting up PRs often because I really enjoyed it. I'd happily consider a more junior engineering role where I could be a bit more of an IC. In a past life, I actually franchised a coding bootcamp and brought it to my city in an effort to eventually learn the skills myself. I did so after 4 years of building it up, but I have found my unique experience in marketing, business development and more tends to move me into positions of managing teams and working with stakeholders quickly.
I'd guess it's just guilt and shame?