> things are kinda complicated. Technically, charges can be brought against specific agents breaking the laws of the State
Yes, and the complicated part is federal supremacy[0]. The federal government can "convert" the case against the agent into a federal one and essentially just turn a blind eye which means no justice. No doubt that this administration would protect agents executing citizens by saying it was "part of their duty" to be there and doing that.
Maybe I'm a bit jaded, and corporate environments have taken their toll, but I see the employee-manager relationship as adversarial by default. Whether my boss wishes me happy birthday or not doesn't move the needle much. I'm there to contribute as an individual and he's there to answer to his boss about staffing, budgeting, and performance.
Although, I do feel slighted when a manager acknowledges the absurdity of all the corporatisms we hear everyday then proceeds to preach them to everyone and waste time anyway. Like, please, I thought we just agreed this is all fluff.
Maybe I'm a bit childish, but I feel neglected when I am asked to sign an work anniversary card for a colleague and next week my manager doesn't even acknowledge my work anniversary. It happened for the last 4 years and, yes, it affects my productivity in the day.
Some time ago I had my 10 year anniversary forgotten once in a company (where I had written almost the entire codebase for their core product myself) and I did feel slighted. I had felt invested in the company, to me this day was a big deal and my company was completely unaware. It felt like a disorienting mismatch of unreciprocated commitment and made me feel a bit sick in the pit of my stomach. I started looking for a new job the next day.
> see the employee-manager relationship as adversarial by default.
I don't see how anyone can be happy in their job if that were the default. Maybe I am naive or lucky, but I have a very goed relation with my boss, as well as with the boss above.
When that condition is not fulfilled, i definitely tend to slack off and I will eventually leave. I believe such should be the default.
The relationship between owners and workers has always been extractive. The adversarial relationship is built in. That doesn’t mean that you can’t have a good relationship with your employer, but there is always a conflict of interest, so to speak.
I’ve had great relationships with my bosses, but they’re always under pressure to extract more work from the workers. In turn, their bosses are also pressured to do the same.
So yes, it’s not the default and you and I have both been lucky.
This is an oversimplificstion. The relationship between the person holding the scarce resource, and the person holding the common resource, has always been adversarial.
As labor becomes more skilled and less common this dynamic changes.
I’m looking at the status quo. Which still puts vastly more negotiating power in the hands owners of capital in most economies today. I agree it’s an oversimplification and there are some markets where this is not the case.
If I consider my experience it’s clearly still in the minority, so I still consider myself fortunate.
I'm happy buying groceries at the grocery store without having to pretend that the checkout clerk loves me.
I also feel that the emotional attachment to one's source of income could cause people to compromise their morality for them, as if they were family e.g. I don't think one child should be favored over another, but I'm happy when my child is favored over others.
> I believe such should be the default.
It's delusional. Your boss is trying to pay you as little as possible for as much work as possible, and you are trying to get him to pay as much as possible for as little work as possible. You've both examined your leverage and have come to a temporary accord which may change a year from now (or a day from now if you get another offer.) The relationship is adversarial. It's not a matter of opinion.
Yeah, I am always going to interpret that sort of thing as performative. There seems to be whole corporate mythology that is absolutely sure there are a bunch of cheap, low-effort things managers can do to raise morale and get more productivity out of employees, like office birthday parties. I propose a name for adherents to this philosophy: the Pizza Party Cult.
Employee is a resource to be mined at as little cost as possible. Employment is designed to take advantage of you in every way possible. Never go above and beyond, always work enough to piss off your manager, but not enough to get you fired.
Who knew that cutting taxes while keeping government spending high AND lowering interest rates could result in so much free money going around? That coupled with the dollar losing 10% of its value in a year, of course stocks are higher than before. Inflation and dollar losing value = winning!
>Who knew that cutting taxes while keeping government spending high AND lowering interest rates could result in so much free money going around?
That's been going on for many presidents in a row, in no way unique to Trump. Bush and Obama take the cake.
>That coupled with the dollar losing 10% of its value in a year
Is this some new virtue signal on BlueSky? USD is still trading in its channel at above historic averages. This is like saying the US market is crashing because we had a -2.5% day on Tuesday. Look at DXY and zoom out. It's been flat since May.
>of course stocks are higher than before. Inflation and dollar losing value = winning!
Three consecutive years of solid double digit market growth that has outpaced inflation and dollar valuation. Tell me you know nothing about financial markets without telling me you know nothing about financial markets.
> That's been going on for many presidents in a row
You were attributing your "knowledge worker 401(k)" growth to Trump though?
> Is this some new virtue signal on BlueSky?
No, I'm not on BlueSky or any social media. Is this a poor attempt at some Trumper "own"?
> USD is still trading in its channel at above historic averages.
Look at the chart after "liberation day" in April. It's been down since then and stayed there. Not a very good sign for his policies.
> Three consecutive years of solid double digit market growth that has outpaced inflation and dollar valuation
I agree, Biden did well with covid recovery. Not sure how electing Trump did much for us other than cause a market crash in April (and subsequent dip buying) and weaken the USD?
> Tell me you know nothing about financial markets
Oh, I know plenty and I'm actually bullish on stocks because there is so much free money going around. It would be stupid not to have your money in assets with such high inflation on the horizon. I just find it funny that you're touting bad policy as a win when his whole campaign was about "Biden's inflation" causing high prices and Republicans are supposedly for being fiscally responsible yet the OBBB goes against that.
It's quite strange though when you consider the fastest way to get egg on your face is to do something badly because you didn't understand and just made it up instead of looking it up
> We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap
If shame worked, then slop reports would've stopped being made already. Public ridicule only creates a toxic environment where good faith actors are caught up in unnecessary drama because a maintainer felt their time was being wasted. Ban them, close your bug bounty program, whatever, but don't start attacking people when you feel slighted because that never ends well for anyone (including curl maintainers)
This is 100% true. I've seen this happen over and over again.
Shaming does not work, you look like an idiot, people will start to despise you and then you end up ostracizing yourself from the rest of the community and the only ones left within your bubble, are circle jerk assholes.
It's one of those cases where you end up causing more harm than the ones you were complaining about.
That's sort of the whole point of this thought exercise, no? If shame worked in an environment with anonymous/pseudonymous users, then we wouldn't be here. The only people you stand to harm are the ones who attach their real identities to their profile (and they're more likely to be good faith IMO)
Besides, I've seen plenty of profiles here on HN who advertise their real name and espouse (in my view) awful takes that would most likely not fly in real life. I'd recommend reading this article[0] for an example of when people, with their real names exposed, can still cause a shitstorm of misunderstanding.
> Anytime people criticize betting, it looks to me like some kind of utopian scheme
This is how I feel, too. Life is all about risk management and a life where you take no risk is one where you have nothing. People make bets all the time: areas they move to, people they ask out, jobs they take, what foods they eat, etc. which is clearly different than going to the casino and putting it all on red.
Gold front-runs monetary policy, meaning central banks and people use it as a hedge against currency devaluation or other uncertainty (e.g. the U.S. Federal Reserve being taken over by the executive)
Now look at the gold chart over this past year. Yeah, people are uneasy and we're likely to see a lot of printing.
It's not a lot. Multiple countries could offload hundreds of billions and the U.S. Treasury would buy them up immediately (and probably ask the Federal Reserve for some help the next day)
I can't find the program name at the moment, but the Treasury plans for situations like this regularly.
We've certainly planned for single allies going unhinged - but what we didn't plan for was us going unhinged and causing all our allies to take retaliatory actions. If France, Denmark, Germany, Britain - any one of them was swept up in nationalistic fervor and turned their back on our multi-lateral alliances we could easily weather that storm... when it's us though, that threatens the USD's acceptance as the defacto trading currency especially at a time when BRICS is semi-coherent and we're weathering a recent inflationary burst. This is like a perfect storm.
Definitely, I think there'd be a crisis if our biggest holders like the UK and Japan sold off their treasury securities but some "small" selloffs aren't outside the realm of possibilities. Trillions in selloffs though, that might get interesting.
In case you are interested in more than definitions of words: Bond investors do not care if you default by giving them a haircut, doing things like forcefully extending the term to 100 years or lowering the currency value by printing money.
In either case they will adjust their future risk premium of US govt. bonds and of course price in future inflation.
One might be able to hide the money printing for a while, though, while the haircut is explicit.
Venting all the time can actually be quite harmful to the venter. Negative energy drives change and if all you're doing is offloading then you're going to get stuck in a loop of feeling bad -> vent -> repeat while the underlying problem doesn't get solved.
The next trap is loudly announcing how you’re going to get yourself out of that situation, getting the neurotransmitter hit that comes from the announcement, and then never doing it.
I have a person who has distanced themselves from me because I don’t provide the feedback they crave when they do this for the eleventieith time. I only have so many spoons and that passion play feels like throwing them in the garbage disposal. I just can’t for my own well being. Sorry.
Being stuck in any emotional overreaction state is harmful.
There are a lot of people reciting the academic concept of validating emotions without endorsing them in this thread, but in the real world when you consistently "validate emotions" of someone who is over-reacting, it becomes an implicit endorsement.
In the real world, the people I've known to get stuck in negative emotion states did much worse when they surrounded themselves with people who constantly validated their emotions in the academic speak that's being used in this thread.
Yes, and the complicated part is federal supremacy[0]. The federal government can "convert" the case against the agent into a federal one and essentially just turn a blind eye which means no justice. No doubt that this administration would protect agents executing citizens by saying it was "part of their duty" to be there and doing that.
Relevant: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11213
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
reply