jjjalljs

I don't want to share my location nor have anyone else's shared with me.

Friends and partners can text "I'll be there in 5"

My friend shares her location with her mother. Her mother then nags her with like "Are you seeing someone new? You're spending a lot of time in north brooklyn now." Like, who needs that, or even the temptation of that?

A tech solution is not going to fix a social/mental problem like fear of cheating.

If I was going to make something like this, it would have to incorporate trust chains. I don't care if some maga-hat says this lady is horrible. I care if my good friend Alex says she's horrible. One person's "this person won't shut up about communism" is a big red flag (no pun intended) but for someone else that's the dream.

When you sign up, you'd need to be referred to someone or be a root node. Anyone connected to you can be weighted differently. If some section of the tree is misbehaving, prune it.

But that's a lot of work

Google probably wants to keep you on google.com, where they have ads. By doing the AI stuff, you never click through to someone else's page. They get 100% of the interactions and can sell all the clicks.

It's monopoly stuff. They should be stopped, with whatever box of liberty is needed.

Last book: "Last Call" by Tim Powers. It's great. Poker and archetypes. Big inspiration for Unknown Armies, which I loved.

Current: Medusa's web, also by Powers. Not sure if I'm into it yet but it's got some of his signature weirdness

If they know, and it's not vital, and they don't care, then I think less of them.

Some people have less self control than a toddler

When I worked an old job in the office, the game of telephone from the CEO down was so bad. People would get in their head that some things were MUST HAVE, but if I sneakily just asked the CEO directly he'd be like "no that's not important". But the designer thought he wanted it so she told the product lead it was important so our team product guy was told this was "straight from the top".

And issues with communication are made worse when everything is pushed to text where nuance is lost and everything is archived which can be used against you.

There's some truth to this, but also video chat is commonplace now. That can be recorded too, but so can anything. Some of my coworkers started using Signal for out of band communication even though zoom/slack said they didn't retain any recordings.

If they can't work remotely, they should be leveled up. Stop dragging everyone else down.

And again, if you can only communicate in person you're probably bad at communicating in person, too, without realizing it. I think a lot of CEO types think they're amazing because they walk into a room and everyone's like "yeah boss got it that's great feedback", and they don't realize they just said a bunch of garbage and people just agreed because he's the boss.

It’s not in your job description.

I've noticed a lot of job offers say like "Other duties as required"

You are not going to outsmart the corporate lawyers.

The rich have class solidarity.

He would talk about how many people told him they were longing for the day when we could all be on-site again. I have no idea who those people were, because everyone I spoke to thought WFH was fantastic.

My old CEO would pull this bullshit, too. He'd say like "I've heard from people that [wild claim]". The team was like 5 people it's not like I couldn't go ask people if they actually said that. I think it's some sort of asshole-lying mechanism.

I really dislike that a handful of people who can't get their shit together to communicate over zoom are dragging everyone else (and the environment) down.

I'd also wager that some of those people also communicate badly in person, but at least do communication shaped activities so it gets a pass.

Like at my old job, there'd be long meetings both in person and over zoom where nothing would be accomplished. The problem is not if we're in the same room or not. It's that people don't know what the fuck they're doing at any level of this task. They don't understand the system, and they don't know how to run a meeting. The few times I just seized control and ran it like a D&D session went better. eg: "It's not your turn. Please wait to speak. That's an interesting idea but the ~~game we set out to play~~ meeting is about [topic], so we're going to stay on topic. No, ~~the rules say you can't do that~~ that's not an option in a web browser.

That worked fine in person and on zoom. The problem isn't the medium. The problem is people.

In the US we have like no laws protecting labor. They'll just tell you to go into the office, or fire you.

You are defending the Nazis from the Nazi fund raiser. You don't want them to be exposed.

"Woke shit" and "Nazi shit" are not comparable.

You're conflating "illegal" with "just" or "the right thing to do". Those are two different attributes. Something can be legal and horrifying. Something can be illegal and just.

So this part:

It’s not illegal to be “woke” or whatever the fuck MAGA is calling people, and it’s not illegal to follow dumb Nazi shit. Therefore, NEITHER should be illegally survived.

Doesn't work. It's not a question of if it's illegal. That is largely irrelevant. The proposed action of "we should find out who these Nazis are" may be illegal, but that's irrelevant. Unimportant.

Nazis are a threat to everyone and should not be tolerated.

You're giving very lawful-neutral vibes, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were lawful-evil.

You can make an argument that all laws should apply to everyone equally all the time, but that's not how the world works right now, neither in practice nor theory, but you also should consider the "paradox of tolerance" problem. It is not a good idea to let Nazis just go around doing Nazi stuff.