To the point here: I think people think these managers are in a position of real power. They are not. They are cogs in the wheel as are their subordinates. It's entirely possible this manager wasn't even the one doing the direct ranking, sometimes this roles up to levels beyond where the manager can give real input. Someone has to get pipped as the system demands it, it happened to land on the person in the article. The manager is then trying to get them out of it because they believe they don't actually require the pip.

So this is both a failure of the manager (it is their job to navigate the system and boost their reports during stack ranking), and also a failure of the system as a whole (this person probably shouldn't have been pipped).

I don't think it's so much doublethink as it is this manager is trying to balance competing interests in their very immediate sphere.

Absolutely amazed this isn't littered with ads for supplements. The good ol' days

I think this post lacks an understanding of heart conditions. You can have an enlarged heart or other heart issues and still be a professional athlete. Ask Reggie Lewis. It took Jason Tatum many months to get back to some kind of playing condition after he contracted Covid, etc.

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/celtics-star-jayson...

Yeah and he just won eastern conference player of the month. Article makes it sound like he's at risk of any game now dropping down with a heart attack, which on the face of it is ridiculous.

Exceptions do not contradict the rule - athletes in high demanding sports rarely have heart problems, and the idea that they are at equal risk than the gen pop is laughable.

But he only got back to being his pre-COVID self the last couple of months. Prior to that, he wasn't playing that well at all.

As a long time Celtics fan, there were games when he was close to normal and many other games where he just looked out of it.

Bottom line: he didn't just bounce back immediately after having Covid.

The article is about "one year later" - not "immediately after".

If you don't like the game, you should probably vote for politicians that change the rules. There isn't a real bound on wealth within the system we're in, until that changes this is reality and expecting people who play it to be inherently moral is naive.

Note that Im not stating a judgement either way, just pointing out how the system currently works.

as pointed out in the parent comment that started this chain, politicians are captured by the same assholes who benefit from the system, as structured. if you change the politicians, they either buy or destroy their replacements. so if the system must change, what is to be done?

On a practical level, this may or may not be true depending on the politician.

I haven't seen an actual push for "taxing the super rich" go through. Sanders ran on that and lost. Reality at the moment is that at the moment if what you said is true it wouldn't matter because Americans don't care.

Except it doesn't work since politicians themselves that benefit from the system.

Think incentives, not ideals.

This system is all encompassing, politicians are in it as well.

The only real system change is through revolution, and revolutions are never pretty.

Why would it have to be pretty?

Change needs sacrifice.

Are you ready to sacrifice yours and your family and friends convenience and comfort for system change? Because everyone will suffer in some degree until a new system takes root.

That's the hard part, I'm all up for overthrowing this shit but the consequences are always the biggest deterrent.

Or if you're on the Great British Bake Off, where they are very clearly using induction to cook.

Baking is not cooking.

You realize they use the induction burners for something, right?

I have an induction and the heat has been far more even and controllable than it has on gas. Maybe it has to do with the quality of the burner or of the pans?

So calling your employees the n-word is ok in Texas?

There's a world of difference between thinking this is okay and thinking that 137 million dollars for facing racist insults and graffiti is appropriate. For context, a worker who was cooked to death in a Tuna processing facility was awarded the largest wrongful death settlement in California of 6 million dollars.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/12/bumble-bee-f...

In some European countries you get fined based on your income. So if a billionaire is caught speeding he can get a speeding ticket for millions of dollars.

This isn't about him. It's about the company the proved negligent. Had the amount been lower they would have just moved on and added it as "the cost of doing business". The Jury did this strictly for punishment. They also want other companies to see this verdict, settle and get their act together. It was 2015 and an employee complains about sexual harassment or racism... You should have listened. At least you will from now on. This is on Tesla.

All the $137M award says is the Jury found itself really pissed off at Tesla. It's basically a notice that Tesla might consider settling these types of claims in the future instead of wasting the Jury's time.

Or they will keep handling these claims the way they always have: they go to mandatory arbitration which either decides it is not racism or awards the claimant a small amount, and in either case Tesla doesn't take any serious action to prevent future occurrences.

This one only went through the courts instead of arbitration because it involved someone who they did not have under an arbitration agreement.

I'm not sure why they did not have an arbitration agreement. The person was a contract worker employed by a staffing agency rather than directly employed by Tesla, so maybe Tesla thought for some reason that would protect them?

I find this the most reasonable answer to my comment.

So whats an appropriate amount for a company to pay out when a coworker is called the n-word repeatedly and the company opts to turn a blind eye?

This guy says the people he worked with called him racist names and he saw racist graffiti in the bathroom. It's not like Elon Musk was burning a cross on his lawn.

Rather than worry about the billionaires you might worry how companies will do business if they are subject to massive penalties for racist word use among their employees. "Hey boss, wanna call me racist names for a bit, write some in the bathroom, and split a hundred million?"

The question isn't is it okay. The question is: is it $137mm okay.

Objectively, is it a $137m offense?

Courts seem to believe so? So yeah?

How much do you think it should cost a company when a company allows blatantly racist behavior in the workplace and does nothing about it?

Do you assume that neither Tesla nor the court did due diligence in confirming the allegations before bringing this to court?

These things are easy to fake and hard to disprove, especially in the current political climate

I've been using DociQL in an automated pipeline and its been handy! Should be easy to give this a go at some point in the near future.

I made a similar change for the introspection url being set dynamically on main line dociql, so good to see it there as well.

We added a number of things that came to mind while trying to get our docs dialed in ourselves. Glad to see that others were looking for these same enhancements! Let us know if you run into any issues

Thanks for the comment! We added a lot of things that came to mind while trying to get our docs dialed in ourselves. Glad to see that others were looking for these same enhancements!

I agree. The system in place is to blame, and those people rose because they are just playing the game that is dealt to them.

I'm not so good at the Machievellian political aspect, so I personally opt to leave when I notice behaviors like this are rewarded in the current system. I also wonder if I was able to rise in an organization that functions like this, if I would b the type of person to actually root out that toxicity in the first place.

You won't be able to because the people higher are doing the same thing. Unless of course you make it to the top.

I think it's very dependent on the task. I do agree with you, building a large/high load system on lambda is bad for the reasons you're suggesting. I think a lot of the hoop jumping is due to experimentation (you won't know how much of a pain in the ass a piece of technology is until you need to deal with it).

We've mostly used it for small tasks that will get run once a day. It's been fantastic for that, as putting up a box to handle a sparsely (one or a couple of times a day) run task is a lot of work and is expensive.