I don't see the point of any award for people who never call in sick as it encourages people to come in sick and spread around whatever they have, even if the award is only symbolic.
Also, not getting sick is not a personal achievement that's up to you, unless you live like Bubble Boy[1], it can happen to anyone even if you're usually healthy as a horse and take care of yourself. Accidents can happen if you leave the house and viruses spread around if you socialize a lot.
It also fosters a culture where you get looked down if you have more sick days than others, as if it's a competition, even in places where sick leave is legal.
I've lost track of how many times I got sick from someone form the office who came in coughing and sneezing, even though we live in Europe where you can take sick leave without any repercussions, but NO, they felt that their work for the company was more important than their health or the health of their colleagues and didn't want to be looked down as a weakling who takes sick leave every time they get the sniffles.
The irony is that amongst food service workers, calling in sick is judged quite heavily. One or two people not showing up to a shift can completely screw up a restaurant's ability to deliver for the night. It doesn't help that calling in sick is the only surefire way to get a day off when you need one, so it's easy to assume that people are lying when they say they're too sick to work.
However, it's also pretty common for people to come to work sick, as these are jobs that don't pay you on the days you don't work, regardless of the reason. If you have a choice between taking a Sudafed and powering through, or not paying your rent that month, which are you going to choose?
The difference between how people are treated in the food service industry and tech is so stuck. I worked in the former for a decade and it eroded my self-worth. Nobody in tech would stay in a place that treated employees 1/10 as badly, not for a day.
Even worse in food service, because coming in sick doesn't only get your coworkers sick. It also gets your customers sick. And this guy works in an international airport, so those customers are then spreading that illness everywhere in the world.
No there isn't. Most teenagers don't want fast food jobs or any other job that won't help them get into college, and most of those who do already have one.
Do you have stats on that or something? When I was a teenager (late 2000s) you definitely wanted a “good on college application job”, but you probably didn’t get it. At that point you wanted a “walking around money” job like MacDonallds, but you didn’t get that either because adults were taking all the teen summer jobs since things were so tight.
Yes. It's been a gradual change, but it's become really evident over the last decade. It's not that they don't want money, but extra-curriculars have a lot more importance on college applications, and those prevent part time jobs.
Also, multi-player video games are occupying kids free time, and don't require the folding money that previous hobbies like cars did.
Yes. Places stopped paying reasonable wages as they were too busy funneling it to CXO's/shareholders while completely losing track of the plot that there is no guarantee laborers are going to back what you're doing. Frankly, I like the change.
Do those restaurants know that they can just not open on a given day for technical reasons if someone becomes sick and no replacement is available?
In some cases it probably comes down to paying rent but in others probably just the owners want to squeeze out more cash by never letting the property not make money
The owner of the restaurant is the one who would make that decision. And that would be them deciding not to make money, so fat chance.
But even ignoring the owner, not opening means that everybody else who works in the restaurant also doesn't get paid. If prep for the shift has started before the person called out, what do you do with perishable product?
On top of that, closing for a night means unexpectedly having to cancel reservations which comes with a reputation hit. Sorry to cancel your anniversary plans with 45 minutes notice!
There's no need to be so terribly offended at just a suggestion with a reasonable foundation. You know that if BK gave 50% of whatever they saved from no sick days then we'd have an npr article about how exploitative it is to incentivize these people to come into work and you'd be here severely disturbed in any event.
The downside is that you lose seigniorage (basically the "tax" the government gains from printing coin), so now the country gives that to the US and can only take money from debt and taxes
This is, of course, a different way to name the "lack of control" you mention
The idea of the language is that you describe what you want to say in order for yourself to understand what you mean by each word
The commenter thinks justice is good and about equality, do you? It's mostly a challenge in self-discovery, to know how you would describe different things with the limited dictionary
It's not really made to communicate, although it is of course possible
I figured as much but was unsure. So the gain is that you still take heap allocations, but you do it in a "novelty" heap allocator that you will probably dipose of entirely at some point?
If current top of heap + allocation size > buffer size, allocate an extra buffer for the arena.
Save the current top in a temp variable.
Add the allocation size to the top
Return the temp variable.
It's fast, and the amortized memory overhead per allocation is near zero because you don't need to track allocation sizes or free lists, since you only free the whole arena at once (one or more buffers).
It's ideal for anything where the lifetime of allocations is known to be roughly the same. E.g. a data structure you'll free all at once.
While I'm not an expert, it's probable some things directly cause addiction by modifying something in your brain, while others don't do it directly with the chemicals but by other means
The divide is probably clearer with non-drug addictions, like gambling. Gambling isn't some drug that modifies chemicals in your brain and makes you addicted, and yet some people are addicted to gambling.
It's possible some drugs function like gambling, where they don't actually modify chemicals in your brain to make you addicted, but you can get addicted anyways, psychologically
I would absolutely say that having the means to complain does not inherently give you the right to complain.
Right is earned through investment.
A creator invests a substantial amount of time and effort into something.
A complainer can invest no time or effort into something.
And specific to the gaming community, there's a distinction between investing consumption time (e.g. playing) and creation time (e.g. modding or building).
I'd allow that playing confers substantial rights ("I've played this game over 1,000 hours and I think..."), but those rights should never be confused with creator rights.
Which is what makes amateur game criticism so toxic to me ("I can't do what you do, nor have any interest in investing the effort, but let me tell you how to spend your time to do what I want").
Especially in the performance-limited era of Half Life, most gamers didn't know a damn thing about the boundary of the possible.
Regardless of knowing what's possible, this is the origin of "the customer is always right in matters of taste".
You don't have to have invested in creation to know what you like and you don't. Claiming that the creators are the only ones who understand things enough to critique them is vanity and is toxic to projects.
Every time I've seen project leaders talk like that it's been a disaster. Jensen Harris et. al used that language to dismiss feedback about the Windows 8 Star Screen, for example.
The wrinkle is zero-context internet, where there's little ability to tell what respect someone is due, which leads to people who aren't due it assuming they should get it (because they also don't know what others complaining have done).
Which I guess boils down to "Don't listen to the internet."
Rights are absolutely not earned, they are granted. You do not earn the right to vote, or to have legal protection. A right is granted either by the state, by society, or by 'god'.
History whitewashing. The right to vote was won/taken by people who fought for it. “The state” (?) then doesn’t get credit for “granting” it, as if the state was the from-nothing cause.
That kind of nonsense might be how some theoriticians discuss such things. But no normal person cares about that.
Excuse me, but you don't earn yourself the right to vote by fighting for it until you take it. However it came about in law, it is granted to you. Whether it was fought for or not, your forefathers do not come back from the grave and allow you to have it after you pass some ritual test -- the state grants it to you when you turn a certain age. In fact, voting would be completely pointless if there were no 'state' to grant it. Making this into some sort of weird history lesson and berating "the state" (?) is not helpful.
This way it's just a small thing to recognize someone who (hopefully) didn't get sick in any of the days thay had to work