mildtrepidation

And I see no reason for you to assume that my concern for another human being is somehow projection.

You like being alone. Congratulations. So does he. That's great, and I never said it wasn't OK. I tried to make suggestions that people for some reason didn't appreciate; that doesn't mean I was condemning him or his lifestyle (or your lifestyle).

Anyway, this is past the point of productivity. I tried, no one appreciated it, and I'm not going to apologize for other people's uncharitable misinterpretations.

An assumption I did not make. My statement about convenience was in reference to being around services central to population centers, e.g. medical facilities. Clearly most people here don't agree with me, but that does not justify projecting your own mistaken ideas about my position.

I did no such thing. I responded to someone's statement that he's a recluse with the suggestion that perhaps that's not a natural state. Somehow this is offensive?

Then I went on to make what I considered a positive and constructive suggestion, that assuming I did not understand the person, he might look in places other than zero-population areas for suitable but more convenient habitation.

I'm sorry you see that as "not OK." I see it as ridiculous that this sort of well-meaning input should somehow be so awful as to be unmentionable. But I seem to be pretty much alone there.

Downvotes for an attempt at constructive suggestions. Fly that proud introvert flag, HN!

Would be interesting to see a quality of life comparison (if such a thing can be reliably quantified)

The fact that it can't be reliably (more specifically, objectively) quantified is why we see so many nearly-worthless income comparisons instead: The content mill has to run, and less responsible journalists are often happy to print arbitrary crap masquerading as information rather than tackling hard topics with hard work (or just accepting that some things can't be accurately compared and moving on to things they can actually address in a meaningful way).

Not necessarily. As a small business owner, I aspire to this as well, if only because my experience has been "I expect my employers to get all they can out of my while paying me the bare minimum and treating me as poorly as I'll tolerate."

Granted, this is just my perspective, but that does suggest that this statement can mean various things depending on who you are and how you've been treated yourself.

I agree, with the exception of "that's how it's supposed to be." As defined by who? Knowing what happened and understanding why makes deciding on a resolution possible. The suggestion that keeping those things vague is somehow desirable is hard to fathom, unless your perspective is that of an abusive employer who doesn't want to have to change his or her practices.

Human interaction is not black and white (don't read into that). While this situation will never be totally transparent to the vast majority of us, the necessity of working within our limited knowledge does not imply our knowledge should necessarily be limited.

The idea that this is a potential haven after a man-made apocalyptic event is very much in line with the "well, we fucked up that environment, let's try this one next" way we've led most of our existence so far.

Don't get me wrong, this is interesting. But that as even a secondary motivation is fairly repulsive.

I'd have a hard time calling humanity surviving a win here. But then I am pretty good at the Fallout games (as long as you're talking about 1, 2, or Tactics), so maybe if I move to Australia I'll have a better chance in the post-nuclear wasteland. As long as I don't piss off Max, I guess.

I don't understand the outcry at "ageism" in advertising. The point of advertising is to address your target audience, not everyone.

The vast majority of products simply do not cater to every demographic. Racism might at least be reasonably considered inappropriate unless you're marketing a product that specifically targets some races and not others, but ageism? It's highly likely that whatever it is you're advertising does have a well-defined audience in terms of age.

This is just another rung on the political correctness ladder. Expecting everyone to include every possible demographic in every conceivable advertising campaign is idiotic.

Making it about "what people want to be" (from GP) misses the point as well. If you're not aiming your advertising at your target demographics, you are failing either yourself or your client. That's not discrimination; it's business. Discrimination is "you're not pretty, you don't get a discount or aren't allowed to use this service."

"It doesn't happen in America" and "it's un-American" are not the same statement. On the assumption you're being serious and not facetious, when an American uses the term "un-American," it's meant to mean that the action flies in the face of ideal American values (chiefly freedom).

It's obvious to all of us that these ideals don't reflect reality, but simply accepting that what the American government does is the ideal representation of values the American public actually holds isn't something most of us are willing to do.

Well crap. After reading the intro I hoped to find and take it (in order to, of course, confirm my own rather egotistical beliefs about my language aptitude), only to further read that it "will eventually be available for civilians." Oh well.

I'm definitely with you on the way she treated her team and what she expected from them... but seriously... please put your IQ back in your pants.

I don't believe in "learn to code if you want to manage technical people," but it is definitely true that if you don't have at least a basic understanding of what your team is building and how, you should have someone who does informing your decisions and filtering your input.

Or you were chronically underpaid and didn't realize it. Or you were the victim of circumstances beyond your control that resulted in abnormal financial burdens. Or any of innumerable reasons someone's life can simply not go perfectly.

The idea that getting a job, keeping it, and living responsibly necessarily result in sufficient savings and assets for retirement is pretty widespread and deeply flawed. Life just is not that simple, and there are plenty of ways to end up screwed (in varying degrees) without having done anything particularly irresponsible or stupid that would warrant it.

Either you don't quite understand the purpose of a non-compete or there's an entire class of them I'm not aware of (which is entirely possible), but in my experience, their purpose is to explicitly bar employees from poaching customers from the business.

Working on something in your personal time that's similar to what you're working on for your employer -- unless your employment contract is entirely unreasonable -- isn't and shouldn't be a violation unless you are using company resources (including but not limited to trade secrets learned in the context of your employment and not legally available through other sources).

This was apparently (anecdotally) the case a while ago, but I've never seen a single employment contract that included a clause like this. I don't know whether it's just FUD, whether it's not as common as it was in the 80's or early 90's, or whether this is another case of Silicon Valley being a poor place to work in tech (or the midwest being a good one), but this is not universally common.

Somehow you've decided that, despite labeling yourself unsuccessful, people should pay attention to what you say. The only support I see you making for this is citing your IQ, which is meaningless.

You obviously believe you're telling people things that work, and the attempt to help is something I'm sure people appreciate. But based on what you're saying here, either you don't follow that advice, you don't understand it well enough to apply it correctly, or you do apply it correctly it's actually bad advice. So unless you're learning from what successful people have done (not just said), you're offering unproven advice, and even if you are, you're offering advice you don't seem to understand.

Maybe its the best we can expect of a corporation.

Corporations don't make decisions; they don't do anything at all. The people who control them do. "A corporation" isn't even a single abstraction; there are so many different kinds and even the same kind can be set up and run so many different ways that having any expectation (or lack thereof) of "a corporation" is meaningless.

A good result from bad intentions isn't admirable. A war economy can create jobs, among other things, but that result doesn't make going to war an admirable decision.

It's certainly interesting to read this sort of reflection. The author discusses Jobs' mannerisms without either worshiping or demonizing him, which is refreshing.

ABC.

Always be coding.

Always.

Be.

Coding.

This strikes me as the same sort of statistical non-information that people strive to come up with during sports games (at least in the US). "Mr. X is the first person in 17 years to bat Y% during years modulo Z while facing right-handed pitchers with only four fingers on their left hands!"

No, but your name might be. ;)

It's annoying but some people like bumps in the road.

You apparently tried to build a prototype with a framework that very explicitly tries to provide more than just prototype capabilities. Invoking "one mans trash anothers treasure [big sic]" and then citing this is ridiculous; your failure to choose the right tool for your chosen task does not reflect poorly on the tool, nor does it suggest people who do use it correctly "like bumps in the road."

Want your employees to cooperate better? Follow this ONE CRAZY RULE we learned from ants!

While I see your point, I think it's invalid to equate humans and ants in this context. I am not an entomologist, but I don't think ants have nearly the sophistication in terms of cognitive function and social interaction that humans do.

Without making a value judgment, I just don't think we're capable of being that kind of drone. We're too conscious of our situation and that of others around us -- with "around us" expanding massively following the advent of print, radio/TV, and now the internet.

As others have pointed out, it's unlikely the company did anything illegal. That aside, I have been in the same situation as you and the OP, and it's far more important to learn the obvious lesson here than to waste time trying to find recourse.

I wouldn't go so far as to make this assumption, though it could be the case. I'd say it's more important to realize that management that would come up with this sort of 'reward' in the first place is not at all likely to care about this kind of input, even if it's phrased nicely or given privately.

I can't help seeing this as a higher level in some grotesque cultural fractal that, somewhere along the line, also involves ticket middlemen monopolizing admittance to most concerts and shows.

I don't know if they're part of the same problem or the same problem expressing itself in different ways, but I have a hard time calling this coincidence.

This is a great idea! I'm terrible with names and faces, and this occurred to me as a way to improve that. It's definitely heartening to see that someone has done it with good results.

Unless you go by recent popular usage, in which case every possible interaction with anything that is not specifically laid out in that thing's accompanying instruction manual is now considered "hacking." Case in point: Life has no instructions, so people happily call almost anything "life hacking."