This is an interesting fact and brings up a paradox I've seen at the last two major companies I've worked for.
Both saw a limit on the time someone could be at the company and still be promoted. The C-Suite people really felt if people were at the company for more than 5 years, they were no longer viable candidates to move up because they had become to "accustomed" to the corporate culture and would develop a sense of apathy with pushing their departments or employees to greater success. They have now opted to hire outside executives or managers to try and keep the ideas and approaches fresh so to speak.
I remember my director at the time wanting very much to move up into an executive position and had been at the company some 15 years. He had been a director for some 7 years and had already been passed over twice before for an executive position. He recruited me for a senior dev role and had stood up an entire cloud computing team to take on specific work the company was having a hard time getting done quickly.
6 months in and he pulls me into his office after our 1:1. He tells me he's putting in his two weeks and loved working with me and wanted me to come with him to his new company once he gets set up there. He told me his bosses boss told him she knew his aspirations of moving into an executive position, but it wasn't going to happen here. She told him in no uncertain terms he had reached his ceiling at this company and should move on if he really wanted to be an executive.
Same thing happened at another company. The VP of the company had been in that role for some 10 years and had been passed over at least three times for the CEO position which he wanted very badly. Many of the managers had told me he has just accepted he wouldn't get any higher than VP, but had no aspirations of leaving the company. This unfortunately created a huge choke point in the company because now managers would be at the company for a certain amount of time, and then know that's as high as they were going and leave.
While I agree with your point, I feel like there is some amount of time threshold you can cross where the corporate apathy can take hold and your value starts to decline. It seems that way the higher up the ladder you go.
> Both saw a limit on the time someone could be at the company and still be promoted.
this is called "up or out", maybe 10-15 years ago my little sister had this same setup at Mckinsey but she's not there anymore. The idea iirc was if you haven't been promoted in 2-3 years then you're better off leaving and trying somewhere else so you get let go. I haven't heard of that setup in a long time.
Tech companies usually have terminal levels. Meaning "up or out" exists, but once you reach Senior or Staff then it is ok to stay at that level indefinitely.
>> Kind of sad, that I was surprised they did that. It's definitely a local thing. I'd expect the police to shrug, and say it's too bad, just file a report to use for insurance.
Two years ago, WhistlinDiesel youtuber used trail camera's and his air tags to bust his neighbors stealing from him. It took a few calls, but he got it done. He was smart and used the cops as mediators and didn't just go over and start yelling at the dude to get his stuff back.
Most of the time, I've used local recruiting companies. I've had long standing relationships with several firms and they've always gotten me good gigs. Once C19 hit and companies started taking applications from everybody since remote work was the thing, I applied for a few roles on Indeed since a buddy had good luck with it.
Keep in mind, I never used any other platform like this. I never heard back from the two companies I applied to. But holy jesus and the mary chain after a few weeks I was suddenly getting up to a dozen emails a day from recruiters in India about all kinds of positions all over the country. Most of these places were sketchy AF. After trying to find some of them online, most just pointed back to a company profile on LinkedIn.
I figured I would answer a few just out of curiosity to see if what I thought was going on, was going on. The first two I answered, the recruiters immediately asked for my social and a copy of my driver's license "for verification" to prove it was me that was actually applying and interviewing.
Those two interactions alone confirmed that Indeed most likely had sold my information to either scammers or extremely sketchy recruiting companies who were making money selling their own lists to other recruiting companies.
To this day, I'm still deleting and blocking these companies - YEARS after deleting my account on Indeed.
>> Snap and Flatpacks are solving problems that don't need solving for most people. Shitty sandboxing that doesn't even work and makes my app slower? I don't want it.
After using Ubuntu for years, this change made myself and many others I know switch. I've been on MX for the past two years and love it.
That website conveys very little useful information for understanding what makes this distro unique. I don't know what antiX or Mepis are. Why would I choose this over a more well known and presumably better supported distro?
Had the same thing happen for a town home I was interested in buying. Went through their online scheduling app. Got email confirmation with agent's name, but no phone number. Got another confirmation day of. Didn't think anything was amiss. Go out to building, wait for 20 mins and leave after agent was a no-show, no-call.
I called their office and after 20 minutes of trying to go around their obnoxious automated phone menu's I finally got someone who informed me who said they don't use THAT app any more to schedule appointments I need to use their NEW app and sent me a totally different app link in an email. I told them they are probably losing a ton of business because very clearly the OTHER app is still very much out in the wild and still very much being used.
I went with a different company and had much better luck.
Ironic the media spent years debunking his laptop as disinformation and now its being used in his gun case as evidence of his crimes.
So much for having “all the hallmarks” of Russian disinformation. So much for “it could be that I was hacked.”
Almost four full years after Big Tech suppressed The Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden’s abandoned “laptop from hell” with its evidence of influence-peddling, drug use, and other lurid activity, the device will take center stage in the first son’s federal trial on gun charges next month.
Special counsel David Weiss’ team made clear that it intends to use data from the notorious hard drive as evidence against the now-54-year-old.
I wonder how people would feel if the races were reversed:
"The authors found that supersharers were disproportionately Democrat, middle-aged Black women residing in three liberal states, California, New York, and Minnesota, which are focus points of contentious anti-policing and gun control battles."
You most likely would not have read about the study if that were the outcome because it would have been remained unpublished due to self-censorship or buried.
It would be an interesting experiment indeed. Getting that result isn't hard, that's just a matter of finding the right researchers to do the study just like any other study in this field (including this one). Academia being what it is is will be harder to find the 'right' candidate but that does not make it impossible.
The whole concept of 'fake news' is fraught with error anyway given that it wholly depends on who gets to decide what is 'fake news'. Were and are the many claims that 'we only have X years left' fake news, especially where X has come and gone without the world succumbing to whatever was supposed to ail it? What about all those calls that 'politician Y will become a dictator' which turned out to be untrue, was that fake news? What does that say about similar calls being made about the same person at a later point in time, can those now be labelled 'fake news'?
Fake news and the related 'fact checkers' are just weapons in the arsenal of the propagandists in the battle with other propagandists. In the end it is propaganda all the way down.
People would probably feel confused, because that "reversal" doesn't reflect reality, and they would also probably wonder what you feel that proves, if anything.
“How would people feel if reality was other than it is?”
I mean, this seems like a slightly pointless question. Like maybe as a premise for a horribly tedious alternate history novel, but otherwise I fail to see the point.
I remember an interview with Chevy Chase who said Dan Aykroyd was an expert at this and he said he was able to read cue cards out of his peripheral vision when they were at SNL so he could read lines without turning his head in the direction of the car holder. Chevy said he never met any actor that could do it as easily as Aykroyd could.
From the movie 1992 "Singles" where one of the main characters is working on the traffic problem:
"Single people get in their cars every morning. They drive and wonder why there's gridlock. This is what I've been working on.
If you had a supertrain...you give people a reason to get out of their cars. Coffee, great music...they will park and ride. I know they will."
"But I still love my car, though."
I always thought it was interesting he thought by giving people good coffee mixed with great music, people would be more inclined to ride public transportation.
That was when people went to independent coffeehouses to hang out, talk, listen to music, read books, etc., not to plug in their laptops or work. The third place hadn't yet morphed into a shared office space.
Back in the day music wasn't an isolationist experience, nor socializing was shunned for fear of breaking off one's echo bubble and, oh the humanity!, having to listen outside one's playlist
Both saw a limit on the time someone could be at the company and still be promoted. The C-Suite people really felt if people were at the company for more than 5 years, they were no longer viable candidates to move up because they had become to "accustomed" to the corporate culture and would develop a sense of apathy with pushing their departments or employees to greater success. They have now opted to hire outside executives or managers to try and keep the ideas and approaches fresh so to speak.
I remember my director at the time wanting very much to move up into an executive position and had been at the company some 15 years. He had been a director for some 7 years and had already been passed over twice before for an executive position. He recruited me for a senior dev role and had stood up an entire cloud computing team to take on specific work the company was having a hard time getting done quickly.
6 months in and he pulls me into his office after our 1:1. He tells me he's putting in his two weeks and loved working with me and wanted me to come with him to his new company once he gets set up there. He told me his bosses boss told him she knew his aspirations of moving into an executive position, but it wasn't going to happen here. She told him in no uncertain terms he had reached his ceiling at this company and should move on if he really wanted to be an executive.
Same thing happened at another company. The VP of the company had been in that role for some 10 years and had been passed over at least three times for the CEO position which he wanted very badly. Many of the managers had told me he has just accepted he wouldn't get any higher than VP, but had no aspirations of leaving the company. This unfortunately created a huge choke point in the company because now managers would be at the company for a certain amount of time, and then know that's as high as they were going and leave.
While I agree with your point, I feel like there is some amount of time threshold you can cross where the corporate apathy can take hold and your value starts to decline. It seems that way the higher up the ladder you go.
reply