Pretty much insane. I'm not sure if they asked this from their other candidates but if they did, they probably eliminated 99% of all the other great candidates just because they would refuse to waste a week of PTO just to deal with this request.
The same thing happens in all of Asia. In Japan, you have to apply with a picture on your resume, and hiring managers will ask married women if they intend to get pregnant, because they won't hire them. I'm sure it's similar across other countries. My friend, who is white, and his wife who is Japanese moved to Japan and after 9 months came back to the US because the conditions were so bad compared to the US. Not only do they work you to the bone, the pay is incredibly low and you are subject to blatant sexism and racism.
I heard the other day that in Japan the employers routinely pay a percentage of a man's salary direct to his wife such that that portion money remains outside of his control. Maybe someone with a better idea of Japanese society can weigh in with some analysis.
Here in China, I don't think the problem's quite as bad as they make out in the article... only in government and some big businesses (eg. probably airline flight attendants).
I've never heard of a company paying an employee's wife directly (except after a death), but it is common for married salarymen in Japan to turn over their finances to their spouse. In return they are given kozukai or "pocket money/allowance" as a percentage as a way of curtailing unnecessary expenditures.
I think we should implement an all-solitary-confinement prison system.
We can make the initial prison terms shorter by an order of magnitude (a few days to a few weeks, depending on the nature of the crime). This should be hard enough time to scare most first-time offenders straight.
If you get repeat offenders, start increasing the length of solitary confinement exponentially.
The benefit is that you need less guards, the guards are better protected, less prison gangs because there would be no intermingling of prisoners, and it would protect the prisoners as well. It would help first-time offenders because they will probably get scared straight faster, and they wouldn't be in jail as long. And if you get a really violent criminal, it would be akin to locking them away and throwing away the key.
Thanks, that is actually a very nice article with a refreshing take on the problem. I wonder if there's actually any good arguments against what he is proposing (giving convicts a choice to be lashed to reduce jail time).
Well, it's not just punishment lashing is good for. It's also very good as a discouragement of course. He does propose that for serious (violence-involving) crimes there should always be prison for the reasons you mention.
The most succesful prison systems of the world do not have to deal with millions of prisoners in organized gangs fortunately for them.
You and me didn't read the same article, or the same HN thread.
The guys in the SHU are in one of the highest security prisons and, still, they managed to stir a huge prison strike and (If you believe the article) lead a criminal empire that extends its influence far from the prisons.
So, point me to that "strong" evidence, and make it peer reviewed, if possible.
"Oh no, a free web site isn't behaving the way that I want it to!"
I don't know if it's just because I'm old, but people need to stop whining about how free websites are behaving. If we were paying customers, then I believe we should have a voice in how the product works but if we're using it for free, then this feeling of entitlement has to stop.
Beggars can't be choosers. And whoever owns imgur has to make money as well, they're entitled to do whatever it takes to make as much money as they can, and if they lose you as a customer but make more money, that is their prerogative.
Beggars absolutely can be choosers here, because there are tons of competing sites, many of which don't have any of the annoying features that imgur has been adding in recent months.
Imgur obviously needs money to stay afloat, but there are less annoying ways they could have gone about it.
Reddit has been bleeding money for years, probably more money than Imgur has yearly and for a longer time span, but they still have not compromised the integrity or usability of their site to gain money. They rely only on non-intrusive ads, Reddit gold, and donations.
4chan is in an even worse state, and has also only been making money through their 4chan Pass semi-donation feature.
Imgur could have created a new subdomain for the "new" site, or could have setup some entirely different applications that integrate with the main site, instead of detracting from the main product. As a company, they have a right to do what they want to make money, but as users most of us will always keep moving to the best solution once the old ones start shooting themselves in the foot.
Companies whose business model is to provide only a single free service for a massive userbase will always have to balance revenue and user alienation. Reddit and Imgur are leaning on opposite sides of that scale at the moment.
Honestly, I would consider an acquisition (by Google or whoever) to be a much better solution for everyone involved compared to the things they're trying now in desperation to get more revenue.
Then switch. Stop whining about it. If this is as big of a problem as the OP purports, and if people start leaving in droves, then imgur will die. This is the risk that they are taking, and they know this and so do you and the OP. So just switch. Stop whining about it.
Whining about it is switching. Since nearly everyone views far more images than they upload, which image host they spend the most time interacting with is dictated by what other people choose. Complaining about the currently popular choice is perhaps not the most effective way to get people to switch, but it is also not entirely ineffective.
I did switch, and immediately after began complaining about it, because I've been a big supporter and user of Imgur for years until now. I switched to mediacrush weeks ago and am spreading the word to others so they can realize it's a better alternative, and then do the same.
I came in to say this. "Oncle Tom" translates to "Uncle Tom" in English, and in the US it has an extremely derogatory meaning towards African Americans. It's essentially a "black man that sold out to the White Man".
The name choice probably wasn't motivated by this, but it's an unlucky choice if the goal was to grow in North America, similar to the Chevy Nova, which in Spanish was equivalent to "No Go".
It's from a book Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe who was staunchly antislavery. In Europe it was very popular, and there was even an U-Bahn station in Berlin called "Onkel Tom's Hütte". Also, the story of the Chevy Nova in Spanish has been debunked many times, but for whatever reason it's a nice story and keeps getting retold. I suppose it's like JFK allegedly proclaiming himself a donut, coincidentally also in Berlin.
I do agree with you though that it's probably not a great choice for a name, if only because people in the US will be hypersensitive and might completely misconstrue the meaning.
The term is very loosely derived from the character from the book. Speaking as an American not given to hypersensitivity on this issue --- my immediate association was with the epithet. If I polled my block, which is majority African American, I'm guessing you'd get the same association from them. If you want to evoke the book in America, you probably use the whole title.
Not that there's anything wrong with the name, at least that I see. I'm just affirming the feedback you got previously. This isn't hypersensitivity; it's simply a cultural difference.
(PS: we chose the name "Matasano" for our software security firm because we gave up on naming and flipped through a list of cool-sounding plant names; turns out, in South America, a "Matasano" is an incompetent doctor.)
The best answer you could have given was, "it's from the name of our favorite Warrant song."
I agree. My intention in using the term "hypersensitive" was to mean "very sensitive" and not to conjure up the connotation that someone should not be sensitive about it.
Given the history of prejudice and intolerance in the US, there absolutely is reason to be sensitive about it.
Or, it could also be that Africans make up ~13% of the US population, and as much as 30-35% of the population in urban America, compared to 3% in France and less than 1% in Germany, and so we're just more familiar with African (American) cultural signifiers.
"As of 2004, French think-tank Institut Montaigne estimated that there were 51 million (85%) white people or European origin, 6 million (10%) North African people, 2 million (3.5%) Black people and 1 million (1.5%) people of Asian origin in Metropolitan France, including all generations of immigrant descendants." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Ethnic_g...]
So Africans make up 13% of the population in France as well (granting that "North African" does not typically conjure the same image as "African American"). It seems odd to deny that America's history doesn't affect its cultural sensitivity toward certain terms (especially the term in question).
You think I'm being more charitable to the US than I am. I'm implying that white people in the US aren't hypersensitive to racial stuff, which makes "Uncle Tom's" associations all the more significant.
Discussions of racism/discrimination are different in Europe than USA. Europe doesn't quite classify people by a small amount of 'races' (like white/black/etc.), instead using local ethnicities, which can get much more complex.
Haha! we named our software Marica for "Management des risques et des contrats d'assurance" (we're a French company).
We have since translated the software in several languages. It appears that marica in spanish means something like queer in English when used against homosexuals, only _more_ derogatory amongst these macho people :-(
While the name "Uncle Tom" comes from the book, the character of Uncle Tom from ~1865 onwards was portrayed almost exclusively in minstrel show retellings of the novel. Minstrel show's didn't quite... capture the anti-slavery sentiments of the book .
The novel's Uncle Tom was resistant to the harsher institutions of slavery, sometimes standing in vocal opposition to his masters. The minstrel show Uncle Tom was almost exclusively played by white men in black face, going for cheap laughs by exaggerating the perceived mannerisms of American blacks. Essentially, the novel was radical, progressive and extremely popular. In the process of turning it into a minstrel show, everything radical and progressive was stripped out and replaced with cheap, comfortable laughs for an audience with a concept of how black people are "supposed" to act.
And that's how people who have just read Uncle Tom's Cabin don't get why Uncle Tom is now an epithet for people perceived to be subservient, or cooperating with their oppressors.
Yes, I absolutely agree. Ignoring never worked, it only made it more fun and challenging for me. The best way to stop a bully is to punch them in the face early on and make them think twice about considering you a target.
As a former bully, my advice to anyone being bullied is to fight back.
I wasn't someone who would physically attack people, but I would relentlessly verbally abuse them. I'm not sure about the legal consequences these days but I know that if the person I picked on punched me in the face, I'd probably back down. This is what I have told my kids if they ever find themselves bullied. I'm not sure about the circumstances of the OP but I do think if you allow the bullying to fester, then kids who normally wouldn't bully start looking at you as a target and join in. The key is to not make yourself a target and if they know every time they bully you, that you will fight back tooth and nail, eventually they will choose someone else. It's sad and unfair, but true. It's like Lord of the Flies.
The one thing that makes me glad that I'm not younger is the fact that I didn't have the internet when I was a kid. I know for a fact I would have engaged in cyberbullying so I'm glad I never had access to a tool like this when I was at my worst.
I agree, but I don't think it is ever that easy. The problem is bullies target people who they know won't fight back, whose personality makes that particularly difficult. There is usually more than one bully involved, too, which makes one feel like s/he has to try to fight back against all of them, an overwhelming proposition.
Benjamin Franklin's solution to getting a person who hated him to like him was to get the other person to do things for him. Doing something for somebody you hate causes cognitive dissonance, as you do positive things for a "negative" person, and the way this often resolves is through a reduction of those negative feelings (empathy may also play a role). Suspension and other punishments don't solve the underlying problem, which is a lack of empathy. A punishment of service to the abused seems like it would be more useful.
Yes, but that's the point. I never picked on someone who I felt would fight back. I don't know how I developed this intuition as a kid but it was fairly accurate. The thing is if the kid fought back then I would probably have picked someone else. It must be hard for the bullying victim but it's something that has to be done.
This link you gave is interesting. My corollary to this is as a victim, never do favors for your bullier. It only makes you look weaker in their eyes and it will only spur them on. For me, the only solution is to fight back and make yourself not look an easy target.
> It must be hard for the bullying victim but it's something that has to be done.
That's another thing. I sometimes wonder if, with all these rules and regulations and protections in place, we're not taking away some of the development that kids have to do for themselves. Standing up to a bully is extremely hard, but it's something a lot of kids eventually just have to do. I honestly think it builds character to do so.
I think the Ben Franklin effect depends on the person willingly performing the favor. The cognitive dissonance arises from the conflict of their own willing action. Subconsciously the thought looks something like, "I don't like this person, but I did choose to help them, so I must not really dislike them all that much."
A punishment of service to the abused is likely forcing the attacker to do it against his will. If anything I think that would make the attacker feel even more hateful towards the abused. The subconscious thought is something like: "That little dweeb got me in trouble. Then they made me kiss up to him. I can't stand it."
Interesting. When I was a kid, verbal tactics were my defense against bullying. Whenever a bully tried to give us shit, I'd hit back with ruthless insults. Divorces, learning disabilities, etc. Nothing was off limits. For the most part, it worked, though there are still some people who avoid me today because I pushed back too hard.
The great equalizer in my life was my autistic brother. It was the 80s, before anyone knew about or understood autism. He was constantly under threat from bullies. And as a physically small kid, my verbal battery was the only tool I had to defend him.
That situation gave me a lot of perspective. If not for my brother, I imagine I may have been a verbal bully like you. Would've been interesting to put us in the same school back then.
The best line of defense against bullying is to become indifferent to bullying. And act like despite the best efforts from the bully, you are just not getting bullied. Or the bully is trying his/her level best and you just don't take them seriously at all. Nothing pisses off bullies as badly as this. You can literally enjoy the expressions on their face when you see how you have defeated them mentally. And know one thing, bullying is mind tactics. And you have to fight it out that way.
Like many innocent looking nerds. I was not only bullied by kids, but by a few teachers too.
Last year, one of my school mates called for re union at a local cafe. Everyone gathered, among them was a guy who helped my Math teacher in high school to bully me. He not only bullied me, but fed the teacher with all sorts of wrong information and got me bullied through him. Anyways the guy was present, and he doesn't seemed to done anything much in life so far. Then my other friends sort of praised as to how far I had gone among all other dudes in our class.
For whatever that brief moment. It looked like the bully's face had dried, gone cold and the expression on his face looked like a greater defeat had been handed over to him.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you fell in the same trap that I was in for a number of years after school.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but in your case, the bullies have won.
> For whatever that brief moment. It looked like the bully's face had dried, gone cold and the expression on his face looked like a greater defeat had been handed over to him.
Years later, you still care enough that hurting the bully made you feel good (and in a serious way: by making him feel that he's a failure in life. Uppercut!) That's not a victory, my friend, that's defeat. Victory is when you're free of the long-term influence and side-effects of the bullying.
I strongly encourage you to examine your life and find which parts of it and of your character have been affected by this bullying, and set to work actually undoing the influence that this has had on you. As long as you let the bullying define who you are, you've not won. That's perhaps one of the most pernicious aspects of bullying - the long-term overshadowing of all the things you do in your later life.
Actually I never went to the re union with those memories at all. But when I saw the person, I just recalled everything that happened back then.
>>Years later, you still care enough that hurting the bully made you feel good
Sorry but I never did anything to the bully, but he did it to himself. Instead of spending his time studying or making good use of the time in some meaningful way, his plan of action was pull down others.
That can work once or twice, with some helpless people. But life itself is a bigger problem, and you can't bully life. The fact that most bullies end up in prison or with permanent problems with anger and people issues. And then land up in life long economic misery, is a self infliction.
I some how get a feeling that most bullies realize the futility of physical power in a world where power and money hold the key to success. And then also realize its the innocent looking nerds who are likely to win big. There fore try to pre-screw/pre-revenge them for the likely outcome they will face in the future: "Ending up doing small time jobs for nerds themselves".
You touch upon an important point: so often teachers are simply complicit.
In my school, a PE teacher allowed other kids to bully the same guy over and over again, walking out the room when they pointed a fire-hose at him because he wouldn't shower after class (for medical reasons I found out much later). I also remember him smiling in agreement when kids laughed at the smallest kid who was a little stalled in his development and had small private parts. What a guy!
Years later I told him off at a reunion, in public, what a horrible man and disgrace to education he truly was. He left the event. Good riddens.
That's the worst thing you can possibly do. Damn near any other course of action is better than just sitting there and taking it.
The first line of defense against bullying is to fight back. More often than not, this will suffice; even if you don't win the fights, most bullies will leave you alone once it's clear picking on you is more trouble than it's worth.
But if that's not viable - if the power imbalance is too extreme, or if the level of violence is life-threatening - then you need to either get backup (parents, teachers, senior management, police, as applicable) or leave the situation, permanently. Yes, that means dropping out of school or quitting your job is the right thing to do if no other countermeasure is available.
I've been thinking about this a lot. I'm remorseful of what I did as a kid. I was at times the ringleader that would make fun of particular kids and if I were a parent now, I would do my utmost to get me kicked out of school.
I grew up in a happy household, my parents were both highly educated, and my siblings and I are all relatively successful. I don't think my parents even knew about my bullying because I was really good at making sure I didn't get in trouble for it.
I didn't bully everyone, just particular kids. The best way to describe it is that I saw weakness in some kids, it sickened me, and I wanted to crush it. I didn't do it to make myself feel better, or because I had self esteem issues or to make myself popular. I was amongst the top students in my class, had a bunch of friends, and even kind of nerdy so it wasn't like I was a stereotypical jock picking on nerds.
I can't explain why I felt this way, I just did. And to be honest, I can still feel these feelings sometimes around certain people, but I just stifle them because I know it's wrong. So I think it must be genetic and something I was born with because despite me knowing it's wrong and I don't want to act on my feelings, when I interact with some people I still get the same feelings of "God this person is weak, I want to crush them."
This is why I recommend people fight back against their bullies. If the person I bullied punched me in the face, not only would I not want to get into a fight (as I mentioned I never physically attacked anyone and never got into fights because I was really good at picking kids who wouldn't fight back) but then I would reconsider whether they were actally weak or not.
What is end goal of "crushing them?" You want them to stop being weak? You want them to not be in your life anymore? Quit their job, or quit their school?
I also sense weakness, I was in the Marines, and my impulse is also to be tough with "weak" people, but in a avuncular helpful way, leading them to be stronger. You have to give them queues that you're on their side even as you're not putting up with the bullshit. In the civilian world you have less room to do it and you have less of a standing to involve yourself even if you think you ought to. If someone doesn't like my tougher approach, and it becomes a problem, I transform into being the polar opposite, overly nice, very careful with that person. I don't think this would help them, but I can at least build a personal relationship with them that works.
I'd be proud of someone, whether I had anything to do with it or not, if a weak person stood up for themselves. I think bullying just makes weak people even less self confident and even weaker.
I was a child so I had no end goals. I hated their weakness and wanted to make them suffer.
These days, whenever I feel those same feelings albeit a lot more muted, I stifle them because I know I'm the one who is wrong. If I just can't stand being around the person because they annoy me too much, I'm still cordial and friendly but I remove myself out of the situation.
> I was a child so I had no end goals. I hated their weakness and wanted to make them suffer.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I know you already regret your past, but I just don't understand why anyone would ever think this is the right thing to do. I'm pretty sure my 6 year old daughter knows better than this. It is probably genetic. I think the thing missing here is empathy and there is evidence linking genes and ability to feel empathy.
I'm sure almost everyone knows it's wrong, and I probably knew it was wrong too, which is why I was secretive about it in the sense that I never really got caught by teachers or my parents.
If I were born hundreds of years ago, I probably would have been a very hateful person, burning purported witches at the stake, etc. I'm just glad that I'm not that type of person now and that I was able to be self aware enough to stop my own behavior before it became a pervasive aspect of my personality. To answer your question as to why I stopped, I think I just realized it was wrong, and was wondering what was wrong with me and I didn't want to be that person.
This is a fascinating piece. That you still don't understand your motivations is a testament to evolution's sinister machinations.
My friend, you are describing your evolutionary impulses with incredible accuracy. Humans are primates, and primates form social hierarchies spontaneously. Furthermore, tribes of primates must fight against rival tribes for food and mates. Whether you knew it or not, you were on a mission to purge your tribe of weak members, whom you deemed as parasites and liabilities. If they fought back it would mean they wren't weak, and you would be satisfied, as they had proven they could be useful to the tribe.
I would recommend you read Dawkins' Selfish Gene, and a few landmark evolutionary psychology books like The Moral Animal, Blank Slate, Sex at Dawn, and any others that have come out since.
Human behavior is fascinating, and rarely is an extremely widespread behavior (e.g. bullying, religiosity, etc.) prevalent without a strong causal foundation, which very often is linked to increased fitness in an ancestral environment.
As a former victim of bullying, my advice is that fighting is the wrong move. The only thing anyone will see is that you started a fight. You will be suspended or expelled, and the bullies will not be punished nearly as severely. Worse, other bullies will see how you reacted and try to provoke you into lashing out again.
Ender, as an ultra-rare 3rd child in a world wide society/government that enforced a 2 child per family policy (long before people started to realize such was stark raving mad), as a "super-genius" (why a 3rd child from his parents was allowed, if not quasi-required), potentially had many more such fights, at some level recognized that, and was essentially bred to respond in such a fashion (weasel word since the authorities were rolling the dice in the hope he'd be a suitable balance of his older siblings).
Very much a special case, only partially applicable to situations in the real world, here and now.
But there's reasons the short story and the first novel resonate with so many of us....