Everything related to people is so much easier when you avoid taking anything personally. It’s almost never meant that way. When it is, you’re still better off not taking it that way. Someone was rude to you? So what? Just keep going.
(Obviously, this doesn’t apply to things like targeted harassment. I’m talking about normal work discussions with troublesome replies.)
Obviously, this is hard to actually do. But it’s good to try, and management should definitely do this, especially with their subordinates.
This stuff is definitely highly dependent on the local culture. In the US specifically, though, I’d take this as a genuine question. Any manager who didn’t get that is going to either learn to change their ways or will be perpetually frustrated.
Sure, I’d explain. But I have a vague sense of social skills.
We can fault this employee for not knowing how to communicate, and that’s fair. But it’s a much bigger fault with the manager for not knowing how to deal with it. After all, of the two people involved in this exchange, one of them has “deal with other people” as their entire job description, while the other one has “deal with your manager” as one job requirement among many.
Is it so hard to ask “why not?” if a simple “no” isn’t enough?
I imagine you need to train them, just like you have to train any other skill. Yet in most companies it seems to come down to, “Fred seems like he’d be a good manager, let’s promote him.”
Sometimes a manager actually wants to find someone with the right combination of skill and enthusiasm to do something. I would definitely take “would you like to?” as part of that process, with a “no” answer being completely reasonable and expected.
Is “would you like to?” really a firm request? I would definitely interpret that as a genuine question meant to gauge my desire. “Would you?” and “could you?” are, of course, different.
You don’t have to use a model which allows this. Pay-per-placement, for example. You pay a fixed amount to put your ad in a specific article (or on the entire site or in whatever rotation people like) and then there’s no way to rip off advertisers with click farms.
You still need to measure your audience to get advertisers to pay the price, but this is decoupled from the individual ad buys so it can be done differently.
Yes! All the replies here are missing the point completely. It’s not that JavaScript is somehow uniquely bad among programming languages. It’s that the entire idea of putting a general purpose programming language into the system was a bad idea.
99% of my web browsing shouldn’t need it. Every site I visit uses it, but almost all of them could be built just fine without it.
A typical system has dozens or hundreds of processes running even when nothing is going on. If they all had their own copy of every system library in RAM, it wouldn’t look so free. Especially on mobile devices.
The difference is that you can inspect it before you run it if you download it. If you pipe it into bash you don’t know what you’re getting, even if you previously inspected the data provided by that URL.
The test as quoted makes no sense. It’s always going to be difficult or impossible to protect the innocent against a government run amok. There is no scenario where a bunch of maniacs have taken over and you’re trying so save some innocent people and it’s easy to do.
Thus I have interpreted it as “does the law make it more difficult to protect the innocent against the government if the government has gone crazy?” That seems like the more charitable interpretation, as it actually makes a little bit of sense until you bite into it.
I think what you’re after is robustness, which decentralization can achieve, but it’s not the only way. For example, a strong central government built around a large representative legislative body can still be robust, depending on how it’s set up.
Then perhaps the article should choose a more illustrative example.
My point is that I disagree with the basic premise. Laws which help tyrannies oppress and murder people are not necessarily the same laws that turn good governments into tyrannies. I see no reason the two should be connected.
Just another reason never to assume the worst and always ask for clarification if you don’t understand.