I started a new job this year. The employer and our manager have made it clear, IF you feel safe coming into an office once the company declares it safe you can. If you are never comfortable ever again with coming in to the office, you won't have to. They have dedicated themselves to what works best for each employee, zero pressure. Nobody on my team is going in it's been decided.
I am way more productive at home. I have ADHD and the distraction of an office environment is too much and makes it hard for me to concentrate. My productivity has never been higher. I don't dread going to work, I get paid enough that I do not need to find a better place. And I have been a remote worker since 2011 and never, ever want to go back to work in an office.
Heh. I’m not disagreeing with your experience (as it’s yours, obviously) but I’m amused because I also have ADHD and an way less productive with WFH because home has so much more distraction; in an office where others are working it was much easier for me to focus than at home where Netflix or hacker news is only a tab away, and there’s no risk of anyone walking by. Plus, pairing was sort of focusing by default as well, and that’s harder (though not impossible) to do now.
Reminds me of an old adage I heard in high school: If you take the frogs out of the environment, you don't have the same environment minus frogs, you have an entirely new ecosystem.
The sad thing with this "keystone species" concept is that people see it as "oh but this weird insect that's about to go extinct in south-east asia is not a keystone species, so whatever."
In the short term it's reducing the diversity of the ecosystem, yes. And the effect of that tends to pull in quite a bunch of effects that contribute to that effect even more. Only in the long run will there be more diversity again. But by that time we'll all sit in Musk Kingdom on Mars with oxygen masks and radiation suits and legends of ancestors who used to know what a summer breeze at a lake felt like, cause we succeeded to colonize another planet and that was totally worth it!!!11
I reconnected with an old friend from childhood a few years ago. I knew he was politically opposite from me so I kept politics out of our conversations... do you know how hard that is? It's hard enough that it requires effort, effort that he noted. He accused me of being closed off and never saying what I really wanted to. I made it clear we should not go there.
He told me that several years ago watching the news made him physically ill and his GP told him to avoid news. His health improved. In 2016 he admitted to me he does not watch any news, read any news, but he believes in voting. I asked him how he could vote if he hasn't educated himself on the candidates. How a person like me who thinks you either eat politics or it eats you, sees an uninformed voter, proudly ignorant of the candidates, but voting with his gut, what am I supposed to say? This deeply offended him. He then accused me of living in a bubble despite the fact I read news from all over and he reads none.
I asked him how should educated voters feel about gut-feeling voters with uneducated opinions? I think his response was "Fuck off". We do not talk anymore because any subject he brought up that had any hint of politics to it was an empty conversation. I would bring up things related to the subject and he would default to making jokes. Serious conversation was beyond him.
Tone deaf, dumb, and blind. He eventually said he found all women of my wife's race "unattractive" and then could not understand why I was upset at him. Ex-Navy man, ex-Nuclear Engineer, ex-friend.
Perhaps it was true that he was uninformed about the candidates, but that's not a conclusion you can draw solely because he did not consume any news. There are many ways one can become informed about candidates: visit their websites, read Wikipedia articles, see who endorses them, etc.
Some news sources, even "mainstream" ones, are so hopelessly biased that I think they're less informative than consuming candidate propaganda.
Of the cuff comment but it occurs to me that they may have been right.
I am pretty well informed politically and follow the news regularly, however, I still vote for the same party I voted for thirty years ago and always have done.
Knowing what is happening in the news has rarely changed my vote - pretty much whatever happens the parties are not going to substantially change relative to each other to the point where you would prefer a different party so following the news or not doesn’t really make a difference.
You may be in a bubble by thinking this is important when it really doesn’t matter as much as your bubble is telling you it does
Unfortunately I've seen been in such situations. I've politely asked to act in good faith of each other or close the topic. Some people feel better after arguing, I don't.
Fair enough if you don't want to talk about it, but the OP had basically just told the person they were ignorant so probably shouldn't be too surprised at a 'fuck off' response
I do not watch news for 20 years. I am fine if someone thinks I'm ignorant but ready to discuss that. Some people look brainwashed, aggressive, they don't answer uneasy question, they attack instead. Yes, OP provoked, I do not recommend this way. But response depends on the person and that was my message.
I mean sometimes I argue with friends for fun. And we know how to stop while it is fun. Persuasion is not fun.
Who do you think the get out the vote targets? It's people that barely have an opinion nor care enough to get off their butt and vote.
>Just because one has the right to vote does not mean just any vote is right. Citizens should not vote badly. This duty to avoid voting badly is grounded in a general duty not to engage in collectively harmful activities when the personal cost of restraint is low. Good governance is a public good. Bad governance is a public bad. We should not be contributing to public bads when the benefit to ourselves is low. Many democratic theorists agree that we shouldn’t vote badly, but that’s because they think we should vote well. This demands too much of citizens.
>Most voters have no idea what is going on–they may not even know who their leaders are, and certainly do not know who is the best candidate. Imagine that someone asks you for directions to a local restaurant. If you have no idea where the restaurant is, you should not make it up. You should not tell the person some guess that seems sort of plausible to you. You should tell them you don’t know and let them get directions from someone more knowledgeable.
>Ignorant voting is even worse than ignorant giving of directions, because voting is an exercise of political power (albeit a very small one)–to vote for a policy is not only to make a recommendation, but to request that the policy be imposed on others by force.
> He eventually said he found all women of my wife's race "unattractive" and then could not understand why I was upset at him.
Obviously, I am not aware of the full context of the conversation you had or even his tone and this could make a huge difference.
But I have to note that he did not call a whole race "stupid" or "lazy" or anything else objectively racist. He just expressed a sexual preference. What is wrong with that? If your wife was red-haired and he had said that he found red-hair unattractive, would it be offensive?
It would be very rude to say something like that to your friend. He effectively called a whole race ugly in his eyes. We don’t know the race mentioned but I think you can imagine a context where that would be considered more offensive and sensitive than red hair.
Interesting anecdote. Sounds like he didn't want to talk politics but you kept pushing, trying to take some moral high ground. Voting isn't an exam, it's actually pretty simple even for swing voters. Believe it or not, there is no right or wrong answer or else we would not have a vote. You essentially vote on a personal philosophy that is developed over your live, or primarily in your earlier years, and by studying history, consuming art like books, movies and music, and meeting people and discussing these ideas. It's something that happens in the background. Keeping up with what the candidates, parties and news outlets are saying isn't nearly as relevant.
I worked in a bookstore in the '90s and there was a fantastic series of books, for authors, about how poisons worked, how it is like to die in certain situations, all kinds of dark stuff that was designed to help Crime Fiction writers help in areas they normally would not know enough about. Now imagine looking that stuff up on the internet for writing a book.
My daughter started Kindergarten and we're doing remote learning. She' almost 5 years old and can work a computer for the things she needs. But she can't work a zoom meeting. So I am a teacher's asst. from 8am until 2:30 pm. It's exhausting and sometimes I take a 2 hour nap afterward. It's hard on her because until a few weeks ago she would wake up, come into my office with me and watch shows on a laptop, maybe play some Minecraft. Now I wake her up instead, and prep her for school, which is in the same office she used to have fun in. She has been adjusting slowly, but it has not been without breakdowns on all our parts.
Very similar experience here. It's been crushing to see how the remote is just draining for the kiddos. Seeing glimpses of hope and growth, but still painful at the same time.
Depending on the state, education isn't compulsory until 6 or 7 years. Would it be an option for you to just hold off on the structured approach for another 6-12 months and let her play?
I truly wish this were an option. I have an eight year old and a five year old. They play together wonderfully. But, since I can't let the eight year old have a gap year, I may as well have the five year old do stuff too.
The real pisser is my eight year old is one of those birthdays that can go one way or the other. She's currently the youngest in her grade. I'd love to give her a gap year from all this and just hold her back a year. She's only in the grade she is because our district in CA had strict cutoffs for kindergarten.
Young kids are not great at playing by themselves. Pretty much the only way to get a preschooler who can't read yet out of your hair for an extended period of time is to give them an iPad or TV.
This is better with more open space. A toddler I know can occupy himself for hours outside, but you have to keep a watchful eye for what he's getting into, so it's not as relaxing for a caregiver as a tablet or phone.
That's a scary prospect considering all the studies and news articles that say that putting your kids in school as early as 4 can result in life-long benefits.
It's hard to be a parent these days, you feel like nothing you do is ever "right".
Yes, and for 51% of the time it's all a priceless, privileged joy. And the other 49% is you feeling guilty because you are short of time trying to parent, work, keep and maintain a house; you want to encourage a broader palate or cook once for everyone but they gripe about what you've cooked, antagonise each other, mess up the house in creative new ways, etc.
That's assuming you are an engaged parent and intended to have them.
I imagine school is an effective piece of the puzzle because it offers peers plus dedicated, trained professionals keeping everyone on track without having to also clean the house, take client calls, cook, etc.
Back up the comment chain though, I think in a year like this and at younger ages, you can relax any homeschool attempts. Months ago when quarantine peaked in South Australia, we took our kids out of school and had a very free-form program. Get up late, make bread together, do a bit of gardening, play Lego, building challenges, drawing, screen time, etc. Combo of bumming around at home with practical, learning activities. Fine by the kids and less stress for parents.
> Isn’t having a kid something you do exactly so you have someone to care for and nurture?
Ideally, yes.
In practice, not as often as anyone would hope.
Sometimes out of actual ill intent towards the kids.
Probably most times just due to parents being dealt a raw hand and them not having the wherewithal to give their kids the amount of attention they'd like to.
Our Kindergarten teacher made cut out images of all the buttons and walked each kid how to mute and unmute. It’s been a week and they seem to have gotten the conferencing part down. The other online tools is what we have problems with, they aren’t made for kids who can’t read. They slapped on some click to speak function that doesn’t work. Also all the services are overloaded and always throwing 500s.
I work from home and have a disabled wife plus a 5 year old doing remote learning. I never leave the house except for needed things. Losing social media would isolate me even more.
First off, hope you and your family are keeping yourself sanity through all this. As someone with kids about that age, this is rough.
I will point out that there are many really good social networks that don’t also have the same problems as Facebook. Things like instant messaging groups, subreddits, Discord servers, phone calls, Imgur, etc. Every medium and platform has its drawbacks but I find that using multiple networks that aren’t FB has been a huge boon to the quality and quantity of meaningful experiences I’ve had.
Just last week I received an email from a manager saying "Never do (this), especially with US customers."
Three days after that email I ran into (this) situation and emailed him asking what I am to do. He said frustratingly that I should do (this) since it wasn't a US customer.
I emailed him both his quotes, the ones that said never do (this) and the one that said, of course, you should do (this). I pointed out that was confusing. He said it was my fault for being confused and to email him when I am.
Middle management is often desperately trying to justify their job by creating purposeful confusion. I swear he's trying to trip me up looking for reasons to put marks on my record.
> Middle management is often desperately trying to justify their job by creating purposeful confusion. I swear he's trying to trip me up looking for reasons to put marks on my record.
Or he, like most of us, is primarily self-interested and is mostly concerned with not looking like a self-contradictory idiot (and keeping marks off his own record).
Never ascribe to malice for people you don't know and for things it is easy to explain with incompetence.
If someone is your manager for some time and you can reasonably expect competence, that is different thing.
If someone is self interested and his actions say so, this is malice, not just incompetence.
I'll be honest. I could be that guy giving seemingly contradictory advice. The first one is a general rule. To be applied in most cases. The second one is an advice in a specific situation. The situation might dictate going against the general rule. In that case I can even relate to him asking you to contact him in any case you might want to not apply the general rule. It makes sense for him to keep tabs on the exceptions. If the number of exceptions grows large even (this) might change.
If I read you correctly, I can relate to your side as well. Don't stipulate general rules if their not general. But that would mainly mean the prescription of what to do when (this) becomes not a simple rule, but a handbook. I fear the workplace with handbooks for (this) and (that).
It's a matter of leadership style and personality as well. I like clear rules. I over-generalise for speed. I like team members who give me hell for anything they don't agree with, up and until the moment we decide what to do. After that I want buy-in. Quite some people don't work that way and it's up to me to notice that and relate differently.
My final tip for keeping sane in an office environment is to never attribute to malice etc. Most environments aren't toxic so don't expect toxicity when you've not yet encountered it. If most people would act that way, the world would be a better place. Act strategically only after someone has proven to act with bad intent AND you've taken the time to try and talk the situation over and have not resolved it.
If you feel that he's trying to put marks on your record, and you can't discuss it with him, I'd look for a new boss or a new job. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean he's not out to get you.
Lots of other people are just making this up as they go along too. Trying to figure things out in the face of uncertainty and ambiguity. When you get confusing instructions from above, try to help. Not help by demanding they clarify, rather acknowledge they are trying to describe how to make a complex and subtle trade-off that isn’t easily quantified with hard rules. Offer to be their apprentice, to learn from them how to make the same trade-off decision they would make.
> Middle management is often desperately trying to justify their job by creating purposeful confusion. I swear he's trying to trip me up looking for reasons to put marks on my record.
Could be, esp. now you've called him out on something and he didn't own up to it.
My advice is to do this kind of thing in person. It's emotional - you calling someone out, and the other person accepting the mistake or not - and should be conveyed face to face. Email is a terrible medium for emotion.
Middle management is often desperately trying to justify their job by creating purposeful confusion. I swear he's trying to trip me up looking for reasons to put marks on my record.
No conspiracy needed. Many people simply do not think about things in sufficient depth to achieve even basic levels of rationality or consistency. They literally just say whatever springs to mind, all the time, acting on something close to instinct. These people end up being wrong about things continuously, but it doesn't matter because the people around them are the same and often don't even notice.
People like that react very badly to anyone pointing out that they've made an unambiguous mistake. They aren't used to it and tend to get upset, they may claim it's offensive, get territorial, or try to turn the blame around as you saw there.
A very modern defence is to claim that the person who pointed out the mistake is "on the spectrum" i.e. has severe social skills deficiencies. No actual evidence of medical problems is required.
We can see this in the article text itself.
People with Asperger’s syndrome, the term still commonly used for one of the most well-known forms of autism spectrum disorder, bring serious advantages to the financial markets: extreme focus, a facility with numbers, a willingness to consider unpopular opinions, a strong sense of logic, and an intense belief in fairness and justice.
This is a key paragraph because all the qualities cited here are usually understood to be desirable and strongly linked with success. Although this person is describing market traders, you could simply replace "the financial markets" with "tech firms" and it'd still be consistent.
It took me quite a few years to really understand this, but huge numbers of people in the workplace (especially outside the tech industry) cannot focus, are afraid of numbers, conflate having an unpopular opinion with being wrong, aren't interested in / don't value logic and don't care at all about fairness or justice in the sense meant here i.e. treating people consistently.
And what happens?
But, like other autistic employees, they often feel alienated from their managers, colleagues, and clients. Sometimes they simply get fired.
Well yeah. That's not a mental disorder. That's how anyone focused, logical and consistent feels when surrounded by people who aren't!
The tech world tends to attract a lot of accusations of people being weird/anti-social etc (first time I heard of it in relation to finance). But as the years go by I become more and more convinced it's not really a problem with people in tech. It's really the expected outcome of combining extreme demand for very concrete skills (so the rare people who are genuinely weird behaviour are worth tolerating) with programming machines that require correctness, to the extent that everyone routinely peer reviews each other's work. Go look at how many industries have equivalents to rigorous code review culture, and you'll see it's not many. Even in science it's anonymous strangers reviewing your paper, not your own reports.
> Just last week I received an email from a manager saying "Never do (this), especially with US customers."
> Three days after that email I ran into (this) situation and emailed him asking what I am to do. He said frustratingly that I should do (this) since it wasn't a US customer.
> I emailed him both his quotes, the ones that said never do (this) and the one that said, of course, you should do (this). I pointed out that was confusing. He said it was my fault for being confused and to email him when I am.
> Middle management is often desperately trying to justify their job by creating purposeful confusion. I swear he's trying to trip me up looking for reasons to put marks on my record.
That’s a great idea. Actively create a hostile environment with this person for no clear benefit. I mean, yeah, you’ll like like an asshole and in no way will this likely help you, but they’ll look wrong, so totally worth it.
The fact that the response was outright hostile requires escalation either to HR or to this person's manager.
> He said it was my fault for being confused and to email him when I am.
That is definitely something I'd want on HR's radar if my manager said that to me. If you've ever worked in a large organization, this is how things tend to play out.
HR isn’t there to help you out. They’re there to protect the company. This scenario is not one that HR is likely to get involved in and it’s more likely to put you on HR’s radar as a “troublemaker” than anything.
If you want to discuss it with the manager’s manager, CC on an email is the wrong way. Talk to them privately. They may or may not be sympathetic but this is more likely to work than an obvious attempt to shame your manager in front of their boss.
Or they were conditioned to this as the normal state. I grew up in a home with three TVs: living room, parent's bedroom, my bedroom. The TV in the living room was on 24 hours a day. It only went off if we left the house. My father was an insomniac and so it stayed on all night too.
The one in their bedroom was on most of the time. It usually only went off at night when my father moved to the couch in the living room to let my mother sleep.
For years after I moved out I had to have a TV on at all times or else the place I was in felt empty and too quiet. When I realized this about myself I cut cable out of my life and can barely stand the TV now. When we visit my mom, it's always on, and it's always on FOX. My father sat in front of it every day until he died of dementia. My mother can't break the habit now. Even when we visit she keeps it on and occasionally watches it instead of engaging with us and is making it very hard to visit.
You must not own capital then. If you had they would have worked hard to help you. If you had been a big box store showing the footage to the police they would have helped. But as an individual, they are not there for you.
I am way more productive at home. I have ADHD and the distraction of an office environment is too much and makes it hard for me to concentrate. My productivity has never been higher. I don't dread going to work, I get paid enough that I do not need to find a better place. And I have been a remote worker since 2011 and never, ever want to go back to work in an office.