In theory if you state you are disabled, then you can also get additional assistance from the company in the form of "reasonable accommodation". As a simple example, if you are in a wheelchair, you should have (by law) access to bathrooms and any other facility you'd expect to have access to at work.
The thing is though, a wheelchair is a very easy example - it's obvious and it's understandable how acommodation can help. But when it's an invisible thing, like a cognitive issue, or hearing loss or chronic pain, it's a lot harder to address. It's easy to say "we will put in a ramp for you" for someone in a wheelchair. Not so much for the more "abstract" disabilities that aren't visible.
Being a wheelchair is also something you can't hide anyway and a prospective employer may need to know it before an in-person interview to make sure it's conducted in an accessible place.
Compared with the apparent impossibility of life being created from nothing, I just can not understand why people insist so much that the Great Filter is in the future, instead of the past.
Lying on the floor of a club curled up drooling all over yourself in a dissociated state doesn't sound very appealing to me. I'd keep that for controllable environments.
This is because it increases the danger of drug use and could cause death. But no one has ever said not to mix uppers and downers because it wasn't fun.
This has been my view for a while too. Most internet forums I use are a shadow of their former selves.
When I first started browsing hn I was blown away with how smart and insightful the posts were. Ideas I had never thought of and quite a few I struggled to even comprehend.
Are you sure it's not because you're better educated and harder to impress? I thought the same thing until I did a deep dive on some old articles and the comments weren't noticably different.
Probably a factor, I also think it's partly because the forums I use at the moment used to be programming centric, but have since broadened their appeal. Hn to Tech business, reddit to literally everything. Lobste.rs has been a fantastic alternative for decent discussion
I was the hub of a PC-Relay network (the FidoNet era), a moderator on CompuServe, and very active on various game boards. It's never been any different.
Social circles have a life cycle, span.
When the current one sours, go find the next one. Or start a new one with some friends.
I think Clay Shirky's article about a group being its own worst enemy applies. Probably monkeyspheres too.
Well, you prove my point. It's not likely that someone is going to get hit by lightning but everyone knows not to stand outside under a tree during a lightning storm. Similarly, a man should not be alone with a woman he isn't married or related to. When something has low probability, high risk, and is easily avoidable, you avoid it.
As others pointed out before, women are generally believed, as long as the men who allegedly assaulted them isn't employing a much higher position than the woman.
Is it an irrational fear? As far as probability goes I would say yes. But if you consider the stakes (your career + reputation) plus the cost of countermeasure (having someone with you) it makes sense.
How is it irrational? According to the UN, 40-50% of women in Europe experienced unwanted sexual advancement at work[1].
That is, statistically speaking without breaking it down by industry, close to half of women at your workplace are getting harassed and could report the perpetrator.
For comparison, lighting kills 0.000017% of the population per year.
> That is, statistically speaking without breaking it down by industry, close to half of women at your workplace are getting harassed and could report the perpetrator.
That is a good point! Were I a perpetrator I too would be worried about that..
Seriously though, what are you trying to say here? Because half of women have been harassed at work you're worried about being alone in the room with one because, you're afraid you'll harass one? Or because you think those reports are false and you'll be accused as well?
Talking to women, ~50% seems like a conservative figure for % who have been (legitimately[1]) harassed at work
[1] Based on their side of the story, I am not a lawyer, police detective, truth detector or omnipresent inter-dimensional being
In that case, should 50% of men at your current workplace be immediately fired for previous harassment? You are probably assuming it is one or two people doing all the harassment, but what if it's uniformly distributed?
Different people find different things offensive. Some have a very low tolerance. Some joke to build camaraderie. On the other hand, there is always a way to interpret almost any joke as offensive. Getting the gender wrong by accident is another big one.
Luckily, I haven't ever worked with anyone who might consider reporting someone for an "innocent" from my PoV mistake, but I have met a lot of people like that outside of work.
> In that case, should 50% of men at your current workplace be immediately fired for previous harassment? You are probably assuming it is one or two people doing all the harassment, but what if it's uniformly distributed?
What if!
I'm guessing there is a cultural issue here, since you've jumped onto firing, which I didn't even realise was something we were talking about . It sounds like in your (US-based) experience people can be trigger fired based on an honest miscommunication (e.g. a joke that unintentionally offended someone).
This is not anything I have ever experienced.
I guess this comes down again to why I found the statistics to be so surprising. Taking those stats by themselves, the US appears to be incredibly paranoid and puritanical about "the other sex", to the point where you're scared to be in the same room as one of them.
In my non-US experience if you make a shitty joke you are called on it, but you're not going to be insta-fired.
If you physically assault someone, or continue to be a misogynistic shit-heel, that is another story..
>It sounds like in your (US-based) experience people can be trigger fired based on an honest miscommunication (e.g. a joke that unintentionally offended someone).
Yes this can easily happen here. There are almost no employee protections in the US. For the vast majority of employees an employer can fire you at any time with no notice for nearly any reason.
If there's a he said she said situation, it's generally worth it to fire any low level employee rather than risk the slightest chance of a lawsuit or bad PR even if they know they'll likely win.
Some people - not many, but enough to be a concern - are simply toxic. They're not reactively toxic. They're as toxic as they can get away with being with as many people as possible.
They don't respond to deterrents or analyse career or personal risks rationally because they just can't help themselves.
I know there is a bill called C-16 in Canada. That is if you get the gender of someone wrong 2x, you may be in a world of trouble. Since gender is such a big part of the English language, for me it's easy to get it wrong by accident especially with someone you just met. This is just one in a million things that one might get wrong.
Also doing /clear with a md file handover if I think the next input is diverse enough from the previous work.
You get a lot more out of it.
Not sure if this is best practice though.