Like I just mentioned in another comment, they're also a way to get you back to work ASAP. Just about everyone NOT working a comfy white collar office job needs to be working in order to make money. Time off is less income, people can't afford that so they do what they need to do to get back to work.
Sprained ankle? Injured back? Headache? Broken bone? All things that people work through everyday with some NSAIDs because calling out sick means losing income
>Like I just mentioned in another comment, they're also a way to get you back to work ASAP. Just about everyone NOT working a comfy white collar office job needs to be working in order to make money. Time off is less income, people can't afford that so they do what they need to do to get back to work.
>Sprained ankle? Injured back? Headache? Broken bone? All things that people work through everyday with some NSAIDs because calling out sick means losing income
The office workers will just pop the same damn pills and show up too. Office workers are more likely to show up when in pain specifically because their job doesn't aggravate it. Most people don't have a lavish BigCo sick time policy and even if they do why burn sick time just to be in the same pain and pop the same pills at home. Most people will just have to work harder to make up for being out anyway. It makes sense to just be in pain at the office.
Yup exactly, that's what I was getting at. In the US you can't afford to _not_ work. Not to mention that if you do have actual longer-term health concerns, you also need to pay for the actual treatment, and your insurance depends on your employer. The entire system is really quite flawed.
Well for one thing, in America, you gotta get back to work.
Work a manual labor job or one where you're on your feet all day and sprained your ankle? Would you rather miss a week of pay (or worse lose your job) or take some pain killers and work through it?
Yeah I think this is the biggest difference. Here in Sweden if I get a headache that's bad enough I'll just take a sick day and there's not really much social stigma about that kind of behaviour unless it becomes a pattern that you don't seek medical help for.
I work in an office, but Swedish law protects blue- and white-collared jobs the same in this regard.
To be fair, as someone who used to manage an X account for a very small startup as part of my role (glad that's no longer the case), for a long time (probably still the case) posting direct links would penalize your reach. So making a helpful, self-contained post your followers might find useful was algorithmically discouraged.
Everything that is awful in the diff between X and Twitter is there entirely by decision and design.
Vagueposting is a different beast. There’s almost never any intention of informing etc; it’s just: QT a trending semi-controversial topic, tack on something like “imagine not knowing the real reason behind this”, and the replies are jammed full of competitive theories as to what the OP was implying.
It’s fundamentally just another way of boosting account engagement metrics by encouraging repliers to signal that they are smart and clued-in. But it seems to work exceptionally well because it’s inescapable at the moment.
Vague posting is as old as social networks. I had loads of fun back in the day responding to all the "you know who you are" posts on facebook, when it's clearly not aimed at me.
I think the response would be something about the value of enjoying art and "supporting the film industry" when streaming vs what that person sees as a totally worthless, if not degrading, activity. I'm more pro-AI than anti-AI, but I keep my opinions to myself IRL currently. The economics of the situation have really tainted being interested in the technology
I'm not sure about that: The Expanse got killed because of not good enough ratings, Altered Carbon got killed because of not good enough ratings and even then the last seasons before the axe are typically rushed and pushed out the door. Some of the incentives to me seem quite disgusting when compared with letting the creatives tell a story and producing art, even if sometimes the earnings are less than some greedy arbitrary metric.
Not at all. Submitting untested PRs is a wildly outside of my experience. Having tests written to cover your code is a pre-requisite for having your PR reviewed on our team. "Does it work" aka passing manual testing, is literally the bare minimum before submitting a PR
We don't, that's why we do review it. We also do things like communicate with teammates, have expectations of not wasting other people's time, and try to uphold standards and meet SLAs. Maybe people should worry about why their teams are so dysfunctional rather than how the code was produced
When I was in a test-driven development environment, one of our rules was that you had to see the test fail. You had to prove that it would actually test what you were trying to test.
It is really interesting to watch them for a while. QWEN keeps outputting some really abstract interpretations of a clock, KIMI is consistently very good, GPT5's results line up exactly with my experience with its code output (overly complex and never working correctly)
I've always tried to apply "The Internet gives a fuck about what you don't like" when it comes to commenting, but it's also helpful to remember it's not just the Internet.
Sprained ankle? Injured back? Headache? Broken bone? All things that people work through everyday with some NSAIDs because calling out sick means losing income
reply