> It's so funny how all the business advice is about how to be a good slave rather than what really gets you ahead.
This is almost literally the opposite of what the article is advocating.
The author is suggesting that should you complete the work required of you then you should spend any spare time you might have on things that benefit _you_ rather than necessarily benefiting your employer. The author spends the first half of the article explicitly distinguishing this from doing additional, unrequested work that contributes obvious business value. The caveats the author provides are to encourage people to do this in a way that isn't going to get them into trouble, pretty much.
Relationship building for engineers nearly always happens outside of the context of the actual work, so I don't think that's particularly relevant.
> Wrong. Business is about relationships. Be competent and do what is minimally required.
Wow. this is the worst advice I've ever read on HN. As an owner, I seek out employees that are good at politics and poor workers and help them find a job at another company (ESPECIALLY COMPETITORS). A lot of times, they even think they are getting a promotion when they leave.
> The slaves stick around to do the extra work.
This is the problem. "Extra" does not mean "extra work". It means go beyond. Solve an extra problem, write that document, squash an unexpected bug or two, organize a language meetup group... something outside the necessary.
> Competence + relationship > competence + extra work
Competence is a low bar that nearly every adult professional meets. Be better than competent is what the extra is all about. Also, building relationships isn't that hard. I can't tell you the number of times that I see people who are bitter about not getting promoted say no thanks to their manager when approached with, do you want to grab lunch?
What about competence + relationship + hard work? Establishing relationships can be a part of work, and also hard work can be relationship building with a boss, who can then promote you... However, I share your aversion to being "a slave" and I also don't like to work for other people. But the only solution seems to be to work for yourself, which requires hard work just to survive. I thus feel like to satisfy the requirement of "no hard work" while working for someone else (because working for yourself is hard), requires the seeking of a position which is highly political and not really outcome dependent (otherwise your soon to be boss will have more incentive to filter you out), which sounds like the formula for some kind of bureaucratic cancerous cyst inside of a company, tbh. Which is something you would ideally not want to be a part of.
This is one of those things that everyone knows is true, but no one can acknowledge it openly. Without vested interest it is simply natural to put one's interest ahead of the company one works for.
In fact, doing extra, or normalizing extra can even make coworkers look bad.
> If the US confiscated all of the wealth of the billionaires in the US (which would absolutely wreck the economy as well as that wealth, since much of that their wealth is tied up in stocks)...it would fund less than a year of government spending and not even be able to pay for the $3.5T package that is currently being debated (maybe close...the most recent estimate wealth for US billionares is between $3T and $3.5T).
That is so deceptive. You are assuming that everyone else won't be paying their taxes. Everything would be paid for but we could use the "confiscated" wealth for additional stuff. Not that I am necessarily for or against wealth redistribution.
Nobody is saying the wealth should be used to fund the government. The american taxpayers do that. The additional money could be used for other stuff.
Considering MAD existed and most nukes would have been dropped on the US and USSR, not Germany, I don't think that's the issue. We and the russians had far more to worry about than the germans. Of course MAD pretty much ensured a 0% chance of nuclear war so really nothing to worry about. Nations truly worried about nuclear weapons develop them, not fight against them. Think about it.
Considering that Germany is an american vassal with significant russian influence, it's more likely political factions tied to US and Russia. US doesn't want Germany to develop nuclear energy because nuclear energy research is the same thing as a nuclear weapons research. A nuclear armed germany is pretty much an independent germany which is something no empire desires. Empire and freedom/independence/sovereignty don't mix. And russians don't want germany to develop nuclear energy because they want to sell more oil/gas to germany and gain more influence over germany/europe.
>Considering MAD existed and most nukes would have been dropped on the US and USSR, not Germany, I don't think that's the issue. We and the russians had far more to worry about than the germans.
Completely wrong. A NATO-Russia war could have been (and still could) be fought entirely in central Europe. This might include tactical nuclear weapons, delivered by short- and medium-range missiles and aircraft. This is why it was said that "In Germany, the towns are only two kilotons apart" (<https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/11/n...>).
To put another way, it's possible to realistically imagine a war in which Germany is hit with nuclear weapons but the US and Russia aren't. It's not realistic to imagine a war in which the US and Russia are hit with nukes but Germany isn't.
US/NATO doctrine was to use tactical nukes in the event of an invasion of West Germany. There were tactical nuclear mines, tactical nuclear bridge demolition charges, tactical nuclear artillery shells, etc. In the 50s the US reorganized around a Pentomic division [1], which was effectively highly mobile battlegroups too small to be worth nuking since the assumption was that any reasonable sized formation would get plastered.
Russia will gladly sell/build nuclear plants to Germany or any other country. I can imagine that it's politically infeasible. But the capacity is there.
Maybe it's a temporal vs spatial vs cardinal issue. I'm sitting "between or in between" two people ( open boundary or exclusive or non-inclusive ). Seems spatial is always open boundary. Park your car between those two trucks. I walked between two clowns.
> The only time it really stops working is if people start treating it as doctrine, and demanding that you accept it on faith, and take any questions as evidence that you are an enemy of science. If anything destroys science, it is this line of reasoning.
Agreed with everything you wrote. We should be especially vigilant when politics/media gets involved in science. Science is just as corruptable, especially in the short term, as any other field.
So the definition of "nonconsenting prisoners" is "killing a person without their consent...". That makes every organ transplantation of prisoners "nonconsenting" since nobody consents to their own execution. It doesn't mean the prisoners did or did not consent to donating their organs. It just says they didn't consent to be executed.
I'm against any and all organ donation. So I don't support taking the organs of prisoners. But the author's problem here isn't with organ donations but with the death penalty. He's not saying that the prisoners or their families didn't donate their organs, he's saying prisoners cannot consent because they are prisoners.
The article also said that singapore and taiwan used to allow prisoner's organ donations until their were "bullied" into dropping the practice. So it seems like it is a cultural issue. If the chinese want to allow prisoners to donate their organs, who are we to say otherwise. We use aborted fetuses for medical experiments. Should china be allowed to force us to stop such behavior? Not to mention medical testing on poor people in africa, india, etc.
Is it any better to take organs from poor and desperate people? Use poor people for medical experiments?
That's clearly not the definition the article uses, given that it at length discusses evidence that refused consent to organ use is ignored and how that's a problem with trusting Chinese claims to the contrary.
Also, we created the largest human experimentat during ww2 - hiroshima and nagasai which was used to test the short-term and long-term effects of radiation on a large sample size.
The pioneers of unethical human experimentation was the US and Britain. Germany came fairly late to the game. And unethical human experimentation continued long after ww2. You can look those up yourself.
Funny how we always have to look to the nazis for evil when all we have to do is look in the mirror. Nevermind we recruited nazi scientists to work in our institutions after ww2.
There is no assertion in my post that the nazis invented unethical medical experimentation which would be absurd. Neither did The US. It is a famous example taught in medical history classes.
> There is no assertion in my post that the nazis invented unethical medical experimentation which would be absurd.
But you asserted it's why we stopped. So your logic is we were okay with experimenting on black slaves, aborigines, natives, etc, but it was the nazis that made up stop? Even though we recruited these nazi scientists after ww2 and even though we continued with unethical human experimentation after ww2?
Why not admit you were wrong and just move on?
> It is a famous example taught in medical history classes.
Then you should ask your school to provide a broader/complete view of history.
We are still carrying out human experimentation on poor people - especially in africa and india. In case you were wondering.
It's so strange to see the same people denouncing censorship everywhere celebrating censorship here. I know, I know. Moderation isn't censorship. Moderation is censorship you agree with. Censorship is moderation you disagree with.
Also, there is plenty of flamebait on HN - especially "cultural" flamebait. Some of which the moderators actively participate in. HN seems to be good at keeping certain types of flamebait in check - the national/racial flamebait ( which may or may not be a good thing ).
If people truly took a step back and assessed this post, they'd realize how sad and dystopian it really is. But people don't like to think. An entire post dedicated to praising the censorship of fellow HN poster.
> plenty of flamebait on HN - especially "cultural" flamebait. Some of which the moderators actively participate in
could you provide a link to an example?
> people don't like to think
solipsistic flamebait, and a universal negative you can’t possibly prove.
I leave showdead on while browsing hn and can tell you that the vast, vast majority of killed comments i’ve read are absolutely vulgar, or at best wildly off topic and really not worth the time it would take each individual to evaluate them, because we all have limited time to spend on hn and the opportunity cost of missing other, better comments or creating one of your own would lead to intellectual bankruptcy in this site. i leave it on because i’m curious about moderation outcomes here and about the entire distribution of thoughts going on in people’s minds (well, at least those people that’ve found their way to hn)… is that not “thinking” enough?
have you considered that a position of “no moderation” is in and of itself a moderation strategy? anarchy can be dystopian, too…
I was going to link to an example but removed it before posting because I'd get in trouble. It's the "chilling effect" of censorship. You probably think I'm lying but actually searched on algolia and got the precise thread/comment. But edited it out because of censorship.
> solipsistic flamebait, and a universal negative you can’t possibly prove.
No. I didn't say only I think. I made a general statement about people. You are reading into things.
> I leave showdead on while browsing hn
So do I. You know, it's not that bad. The world didn't end.
> anarchy can be dystopian, too…
Who is advocating for anarchy? I'm for blocking spam. I'm for giving more power to the community/user. Give users the tool to block content/speech/users they don't like. For example, give users the option to set comment thresholds to view the comments.
> I was going to link to an example but removed it before posting because I'd get in trouble
I sincerely doubt you would, since I asked you for the citation and we're discussing moderation in this thread.
In the absence of this, what is anyone reading your original comment to do with your assertion? Are we supposed to take some random internet person at their word?
If it can be used as an example to discuss further, whether for or against moderation, then I think the community here will be better for it.
Maybe you'll prove yourself wrong, and not be censored.
> I sincerely doubt you would, since I asked you for the citation and we're discussing moderation in this thread.
I will if I get assurances that I will not be penalized.
> In the absence of this, what is anyone reading your original comment to do with your assertion? Are we supposed to take some random internet person at their word?
Yes. Because it's an experience many shared. You've used this forum for a while now. You don't think there is a particular bent here? Noticed a lot of cultural posts that lean a certain way? No?
> Maybe you'll prove yourself wrong, and not be censored.
I was proven right many times already. Seems like you want to get me in trouble.
How about this, in a few weeks or maybe months, I'll get bored of HN and then I'll post it.
It's so funny people think that mods are beyond flamebait. Think about why you would want to be a mod? Especially a "tech/business" forum which is at the forefront of political/cultural issues.
I think that's an interesting perspective, you're right that this is a post praising moderation (a form of censorship.) I don't find it dystopian/thoughtless however, because the outcome of this moderation philosophy is visibly better than the vast majority of other forums I've partaken in. The forums that were better were small, and did not scale as well as HN because moderation is very hard to get right. The better part of HN also isn't seeing more of what I agree with, but seeing different perspectives presented in a way that yield actual discussion.
Moderation is censorship you agree with. Censorship is moderation you disagree with.
Not quite. Moderation works at a place to form its shape. Censorship is total. At the dawn of modern internet it was an issue, because people “lived” at specific places and wanted to discuss all topics. Some places made exceptions, some were strict, some turned to the mode of no rules except legal. Bringing topics that people do not want here is just rude, because either one wants to annoy people or couldn’t find them elsewhere, where they consciously do not visit, for that exact reason. Or they do visit, but behave differently. Figuratively, nobody wants to discuss shit at the dining table, but that doesn’t mean they do not go vent out from time to time. There are enough places full of these discussions, why not enjoy it there? HN is a rare island of calmness, and you can’t take it from people in the name of something already ubiquitous. Without moderation you’ll get fed with it in a couple of months and will go look for another good place to lash its “censorship”, which is the cause of its goodness, and not an issue.
By “you” I mean average users and their usual forum dynamics, not you personally.
I reject the thesis of this comment: moderation is not the same as censorship. If I host a private party and eject someone for being unpleasant, I am not practicing censorship. How is moderation on HN (or any other private platform) qualitatively different?
> Climate science is politicized because moneyed interests have a strong incentive to continue to deny the science and conservative individuals have both a shared financial interest with liberals to conspire with those interests and a unique political interest in drawing a contrast between themselves and progressives by spreading propaganda and lies.
Except that climate change is funded and backed by wall street, banks, media, etc. The real monied interests are on the side of climate change.
> Thus while Democrats and Republicans both vote against all of our interests only Republicans because of their unique interests have an incentive to spread lies.
But monied interests back both democrats and republicans.
> Specifically people used to literally argue that warming wasn't even real and now 2/3 of people in the US hold that its an issue and that government isn't doing enough to address it.
Wonder why that is? Oh that's right, the monied interests are backing neverending ads pushing climate change.
It's funny how everyone from the world bank, goldman sachs and google is backing climate change and you are saying it's the "monied interests" who are against climate change.
Think about it. If monied interests were against climate change, then google wouldn't be banning anti-climate change ads...
At some point public interest turned against cigarettes too despite moneyed interests being in favor of poisoning millions of people forever to keep the money flowing and it became desirable to be seen to sacrifice something while actually leaving society dealing with most of the costs of obtaining that profit.
Climate change has become so overwhelmingly obvious that most people can't be persuaded that its not real so the moneyed interests are focusing on proclaiming that they are on the right side of history while trying to blunt any effective change that would hurt their pockets.
That is why for example that its super important for you to recycle that coke bottle but not important for companies to stop poisoning the planet or paying for it to be poisoned elsewhere.
Climate change is a real issue and the overwhelming fact is we have a huge hand in the multitude of maladies that plague our planet and if we don't do something beyond trivial tokens like recycling a coke bottle we are all fucked. Few with substantial wealth to be gained in the short term are considering the long term effects and they are funding both sides to keep those costs from hitting close to home.
The difference to return to the first analogy is Democrats are trying to keep cigarette taxes low while Republicans are proudly proclaiming that manly men smoke and their grandad lived to 95 smoking on whiskey and bacon and 2 packs a day!
Democrat inaction may rob us opportunities to preserve our health, wealth, prosperity, and lives but Republican lies stand to rob us of even the awareness of an actual problem that is a necessary precondition for any sort of action.
Pretending these things are the same would be a mistake.
> Your comments are so out of touch with reality it's hard to take you seriously.
You can't post swipes like that to HN and you've already posted so many flamewar comments with this account that I've banned it. (No, it's not because of your views.) If you don't want to be banned on HN, please follow the site guidelines, and please don't create accounts to break them with.
"Swipes"? The guy was claiming that monied interests isn't pro-climate. That's as out of tourch with reality as a flat earther.
> (No, it's not because of your views.)
Oh STFU you worthless rat. Everyone knows it is. There is two sides to a "flamewar" and you only seem to ban one side. Not to mention you post a bunch of flamebait garbage yourself.
> and please don't create accounts to break them with.
What a miserable garbage you are. Make HN a private forum then.
Imagine wasting your life as a moderator. Your parents must be proud.
People who get ahead build relationships. The slaves stick around to do the extra work.
Competence + relationship > competence + extra work
It's so funny how all the business advice is about how to be a good slave rather than what really gets you ahead.