lostcolony

The job of a leader is to define the problem to solve. Meetings are a tool, not an outcome.

I'm not sure that ranking them makes sense.

Like, there are absolutely places I as a manager recognized a win/win/win (company/team/myself) by doing something other than what the company said to do, or to message differently than the company wanted me to.

Putting "the company's interests as #1" is a bit ambiguous. It could mean you are willing to do the things needed to save the company from itself, or it could mean that you'd uncritically do what you were told. Without context, it sounds like the latter.

Similarly, putting your own well being behind both of those sounds like a recipe for burnout. What I expect you probably mean is that you look to take on the unpleasant tasks for the team, the things that need doing but won't grow the individuals on the team, or are morale killers, or are just bitchwork to make leadership happy. But, again, ambiguous.

Hopefully people know not to ask others for factual information (unless it's an area they're actually well educated/knowledgeable in), but for opinions and subjective viewpoints. "How's your day going", "How are you feeling", "What did you think of X", etc, not "So what was the deal with the Hundred Year's War?" or whatever.

If people are treating LLMs like a random stranger and only making small talk, fair enough, but more often they're treating it like an inerrable font of knowledge, and that's concerning.

Also a missed opportunity for an obvious pun, 'plane educational failure'

> 'or be extraordinarily talented and hardworking'

Maybe you meant "and possibly", since otherwise the 'or' there detracts from the point I think you're trying to make (that ludicrous amounts of wealth requires luck regardless of what talent, skill, or determination you bring).

Or more succinctly - a quorum agreeing to a leader to serialize writes through is both less work than trying to get a quorum to agree on every individual write, and equally as consistent.

Unless, of course, someone has already monopolized the pretty rock collection market with robots.

That's really the threat; that all 'useful' labor will be conducted and collected upon by a very few, and how do we as a society handle that? I haven't seen an economic model situated in capitalism to explain how that can work.

And, of course, if you -do- agree to just let the money go, they won't actually charge you.

So the people who can afford to lose the money (criminals) get to avoid a charge just by bribing the cops, and the people who did nothing wrong have to pay the cops.

Crooked all around.

If you read the article you'd see just the opposite. People without any actual charge, or any actual evidence, who have had the state supreme court in Nebraska still side with 'law enforcement'. Because that is modern day policing. Hell, there was a Supreme Court case that sided with law enforcement that they have -no obligation- to protect citizens. It's why you get stuff like Uvalde. The police exist solely to enforce state authority, not to serve and protect.

I was living in Georgia when CNN's building in downtown was hit by a tornado. They're not nearly as bad as in the midwest, but they certainly happen. Mind you, it's a perfectly reasonable place to build up, but the likelihood of getting killed in a tornado over the past 100 years looks to be worse than the likelihood of dying in an earthquake in California over the past 100 years (slightly lower numbers from what I could gather, but dramatically lower population).

Phoenix (and Albuquerque but I'm less familiar with the specifics) is in the desert; both the water it gets and the ambient temperature are getting worse due to climate change. There are already legal fights over water rights in the greater Phoenix area, and it's just going to get worse. That is not a place to be building up.

During downturns the more sure opportunities are through my network, definitely. But I've still landed jobs during them just from searching (I've been lucky enough to avoid layoffs during downturns, so job changes have always been my own decision).

The US (SW and SE coasts mostly, though some of those jobs were for companies headquartered elsewhere), so yeah, can't speak outside of that.

I've had ~10 jobs in my career so far. 1 was via my network; the others were all just me searching.

But that said, networking makes it far easier. I've seen people be brought in even when an interview panel was meh, because they had worked with the hiring manager before (and to be fair they were fine, just bad at interviewing), as well as people bypass parts of the process due to their knowing people. And, certainly, people getting landing interview loops (and getting put in the front of the queue) all because of a referral/networking.

Could also be the increased income disparity, the huge leap in housing costs without associated pay increase, the obvious inability of the US to change the direction it (and the world) is heading...

I mean, it's rising most amongst young adults and minorities; given the political climate alone I can understand the correlation there.

I set up everything to basically turn off at 6. Close the work laptop, and either set up time based notifications for everything on my phone, or a work profile (Android) that I turn off. While meetings have had a tendency to spread out (due to more spread out teams and trying to make calendars work), so I have a bit less time detached, I still feel like I'm able to detach, even with my work area being the same as my personal PC (though I step away from that for a decent amount of time as well).