mittermayr

If Warren Buffet would do a video on how he clicks through a few stocks on Google Finance (I know he doesn't) for a minute or two, it would be more interesting to "most people" than any other anonymous pro finance dude, despite their incredible expertise with Google Finance (or Tradeview, or Bloomberg, etc.). The person behind an action does matter, as harsh as that is to some. The person represents an aggregate of proven past achievements, and therefore, we tend to value that in when checking out new things they do.

don't think of your video as the "best way to do it", we'd love a video of how you specifically go through these things rather than a hyper-optimized way to go about it. it may be true that the next guy in here has a much more advanced process, but it surely doesn't hurt seeing someone with a 'bit of history' on the matter jump-n-run their way through small projects like this. I believe it would bring some comfort to those who feel like they're a thousand years behind already.

If you wait until tomorrow, someone will have sloppy-copied this and posted here, I am sure of it.

We live reasonably frugaly, so this will be fine and pass by, you are absolutely right. Age does come into play here, so it's not "as easy" as it once was, things change dramatically the older you get. If she was 22, I couldn't be any less worried and I truly think those things are part of building a career, it provides for important life lessons and how to deal with work. It's just that in this particular case, one of many over the past few years in my circle of friends, the never-ending theme of incompetence surviving when disaster strikes kept nagging at me and I started wondering why corporations do not naturally filter for that.

Very insightful comment, thank you. I do agree and tend to critize the discounting of other people's intelligence when I read similar things (there's usually a lot more to it), but that one dude in this case really is a disaster, exceptionally so. Your argument stands however, and while I think you've written down from many years of experience looking back, it does make me sad a bit that this "assumption" is not what companies strive for, because I do believe it would ultimately be rewarded in success: "We assume it's our job to do a good job, and our bosses' job to notice and reward a good job".

I wanted to keep politics out of it, but I fully agree, politics is the primetime version of what I tried to get at.

Great advice, I'll send this to her, thank you!

Wow, thank you for that, must've been quite a bit of work to put that together and I feel sorry for not digging through the archives. I hope this brought up a few new thoughts, perhaps, I know it's mostly ramblings and us-against-the-ones-on-top banter, but here and there, I see and was hoping for some insights. I'll go through the list in a bit, thank you!

While this may make sense for the individual and their actions, I do not see how this is healthy or good for the organization. And, to my original question, I struggle to understand why organizations elevate those, or let those elevate, where the end goal is not to have a darwinistic corpus of staff, only interested in their own survival.

this is what I often hope, that this must reflect in one form or another in their actual lives, and hopefully, has some form of consequence there.

thank you for that, I'll try to find this and check it out.

The comparison to a war zone is, despite most of us sitting in front of screens and not having to live through such actual horror, quite on point, I think. A failed or misguided strategy hits those on the front first and hardest.

All good advice, I do disagree with one statement, however, mainly because I've seen this getting violated many times now:

> "Make sure that your role (as an engineer) in your company is in the most critical part of the company as you can handle."

The main problem here is how much the organization wants to think it can continue without those crucial parts, I've seen wild things go down in this regard, and I think we'll see a lot more in the near future with people hoping that AI will take care of it. And, on the flipside, and much to my surprise, how often the org can actually survive through such disaster cuts regardless, even though they'll end up at a worse place than they were at before, but the simple act of surviving it -- at that point -- is enough of a success to continue onwards.

Great comment, I like the "managing up" part, I'll share that with her. I think this is actually a solid piece of explaining part of the puzzle. Her entire focus was on her team, she's always been taking care of that part first. The dude who ran the train off the rails has zero interest in her and her peers (part of who have also been let go now), so it's likely he's been doing a great job managing the story from his level upwards. The Gervais principle was just posted a moment ago by someone else, I enjoyed reading that!

No I'm real, but I've actually refreshed here, saw the link, saw Dilbert mentioned, felt sad about how much joy that used to give me many years ago and how awkwardly that all ended, and off I was reading through it. Only note I have on the article is it'll be a bit too soon to mention to her that she's represented by the loser category in this theory :)

(p.s., my poor English should actually quickly give away that I'm even too lazy to auto-correct, that's the last thing AI will take from me, ha!)