Yes, it will evolve further, but human ACE2 receptors aren't evolving rapidly within a generation any time soon. There's a metaphorical window of possible mutations that will allow SARSCov2 to bind to receptors and a huge swath of that window clearly is taken up by protection from vaccines (especially mRNA ones). There is a finite space in which it could still evolve _and_ evade vaccines. That space is likely _extremely_ small. "Too much" evolution renders it ineffective at infecting humans.
Do you have a reputable source which elaborates further on this discussion? My impression thus far is that few are willing to assert with the confidence you're displaying here that we're out of the woods once vaccinated.
Indeed, Pfizer has announced that it is working on a booster that specifically targets Delta, so that says to me that there is very much still a concern here:
I'm firmly of the belief that if there is genuine social interaction to be had, it will be had for the most part.
Forcing social interaction (corporate mandated fun) is just another tool to tie employees to an employer to make it more difficult/less desirable for them to leave for better opportunities.
To me the issue is blurring the lines between work and not work.
Companies are not your buddies. They are not your friends. We make a deal. You pay me. I return value. That’s it. It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that.
You’re not family. You won’t be there when things go south. You will not hesitate to fire, if it’s in your interest.
Family is a straw man, nobody's saying you have to marry the company.
However, note that you're spending 8 hours most of your days with these people. It is undoubtedly easier if the relationship is cordial, friendly, and if you can banter with them during the off moments.
There is a human element to every interaction and people are not robots.
"You pay me, I return value, that's it" reduces you to a nameless, faceless, replacable, fungible resource.
I would not like to work in a place where that's it.
There's a middle ground between "we're family, I'll sacrifice everything for you" and "I'll stab you in the back as soon as I possibly can".
I think it's perfectly reasonable for the vast majority of people to enjoy work more if they have a friendly relationship with their coworkers. Does it benefit the company to have happy employees? Sure. Does it benefit the employees to be happy? Sure!
At the same time, I want to do good work while I'm on the clock, and that requires collaborating with people. In my experience, that collaboration goes better when I have some "casual rapport" (not sure if there is a better term) with my colleagues--people are more willing to work with me, exchange favors, etc. In a physical environment, the requisite social interactions happen more naturally, but in my new remote role it seems like it requires a certain amount of intentionality. And provided that social time is "on the clock" or otherwise compensated, I don't see how I'm being exploited.
In other words, I agree with everything you're saying, but I don't see how it rebuts team building.
I'm sure a lot of companies are like this but not all. The one I work for is huge (50k+ emps) and is very much like a family. One of our engineers got a really rare, debilitating disease and they kept him on even though he couldn't work for 2 years and they helped raise thousands of dollars for his medical bills. My manager even helped me find external jobs when things weren't improving here. Probably rare but it happens. My coworkers here are easily my best friends.
Totally agree with that. You know what I like to do with my friends? Bitch about my work. Vent about how idiotic our sales people are, mock how delusional our roadmap for the year is. That's for my friends, not my coworkers, not my manager who's trying to be my buddy.
Yes, I will occasionally have true friends at work with whom I can talk about that on a private channel, but that's the exception.
> Vent about how idiotic our sales people are, mock how delusional our roadmap for the year is
that's like half of my conversations with colleagues. Personally I don't see that many downsides with getting along with my colleagues, though it doesn't usually happen via mandated team building
The thing is you don’t want HR catching wind of things. It’s not that people rat on each other. But people are known to blurt things out when prompted (someone divulges a “secret” and often the other person divulges a “secret” in return. It’s just conversation.)
To take the "Delusional Roadmap" example above, the only thing that is every going to resolve this, is the quiet gossipy whispers.
e.g. Possible answers
1) No it's not - you're fired.
2) Is it? I was told it wasn't. Could you jot down some notes I could raise?
3) Yes, sorry - we all know what, but we have to go along with it to get budget, so we're not all fired
4) I know it looks a stretch, but somebody's been working on x, and y's about to be signed.
Any conversation or response, gives you some context - to better understand/accept that slide that just left you spluttering, speechless and outraged.
I don't think anything that we said was a fireable offense (or HR would need to fire the whole group). We might get an official reprimand for some of the dissing, though.
There was a guy hanging out with his work buddies. Other people within hearing distance. A recent graduate and uncultured, he referred to someone as a chick. So long!
Was it professional to say chick? No. Is it a fireable offense? I’ve heard much worse, but on the other side so it doesn’t even register with people.
Sometimes they fire whoever they think the ringleader is.
Kind of like when unions are forming, if you get rid of the leader then the rest of the employees, who were pro union a moment ago, might quiet back down and fall in line.
You need better co-workers.
Your friends and family will listen and politely nod along to your complaints, but only a co-worker will truly appreciate your wrath, deeply sympathize, and then one-up you with some scandalous piece of gossip they heard about the target of your rage.
Companies aren't, but this is a relatively small community, especially in some niche languages. That conversation with a coworker might lead to a job years down the line. As a manager, I may not always be a manager. The next job, I may be a manager or engineer and knowing someone on another team that might be the right person for the job - and that conversation might start at a happy hour.
I think the exception to this rule is Partnerships and even LLPs. But otherwise I generally agree with this sentiment. Let's not sugarcoat the exchange of monetary remuneration for value added.
What if the work event allows for the first social interaction? If there’s no opportunity to get to know people from work, you may not discover common interests, etc. I’ve certainly been surprised a few times about colleagues I realized I didn’t know much about.
A more natural way would be to arrange for people to work together in smaller groups on tasks as part of the normal work. If you provide this then I agree with the parent poster if there is a social interaction to be had it will come. If not that's OK as long as we can work together in reasonable harmony. I value professionalism, if I can make a friend through work that is great but it should not be the norm that we all have to be friends to get along.
> I'm firmly of the belief that if there is genuine social interaction to be had, it will be had for the most part.
I'd agree with you any day except the current ones. Given recent events, do you not Counter Strike Fridays might bring some much needed social interaction? Yes, making them mandatory would be stupid, but what company makes socializing events mandatory?
Not mandatory, of course, but lots of managers love to peer pressure employees into these sorts of social events by frowning heavily on people who miss them.
I think the ideal would be that it just happens organically - your employees get along, groups want to spend time together outside of their employment, you reap the benefit when they're working in it. It's invaluable to know what makes people tick and how best to work with them.
If the groups don't form naturally, maybe try to 'seed' some. Stick some cash behind a local bar, ask if anybody wants to go karting after work, pop along for an informal 5-a-side on Sunday morning etc. Never force it, though.
I was made aware of a 'fun event' that didn't get enough uptake to hit it's KPI. Therefore people were encouraged to press-gang their people - and you end up with a bunch of miserable people all resenting the intrusion into their personal time and everybody involved.
I agree. If companies just treat employees well and provide a good working environment the employees will be happy and work hard and feel good about their co-workers.
I think there's an emphasis on forcing the employees to do things rather than creating the evironment where employees do it naturally.
And what's to stop national economy planning from distributing decision making in the same manner? It's not like Walmart doesn't do nation-level planning.
There are still a lot of little differences which were
fundamentally the reason I even switched to Vim in the first
place. The tab switching and window splitting alone is something
that drives me mad every time I have to use a Jetbrains IDE. Not
to mention IDEs always insist on auto-formatting code while I'm
typing it, which feels like using a site where the content jumps
around because the ads are still loading.
Unless they fixed it in the last year or two, the interactions between JetBrains selection (necessary for a lot of the IDE magic) and Vim visual mode (what you'd actually use in the IdeaVim bindings) weren't always very predictable. That prevented the easymotion clone from working quite like the plugin, other things along those lines.
I found it to be a very good emulation of vanilla Vim, but also found when I was using Vim mode I hardly used any of the IDE features aside from passive JSDoc/outline/etc displays. That lack of integration between the two halves killed it for me, not to mention it'd been a long while since vanilla Vim was what I was really using.
I love the Language Server concept and hope that just becomes the thing going forward. There was never any reason specific language knowledge should be part of the editor, other than we didn't have a vertical enough ecosystem yet to coordinate a different way. Whatever else I can say about Microsoft, they accomplished that vertical pretty skillfully with VSC and TypeScript, and have been running with it like mad. I'm glad some of that has been to our general benefit.
That's a pretty generous interpretation of white flight. You leave out the redlining and segregation that were huge factors in white flight and subsequently reverse white flight and gentrification.
I acknowledge this is my cynicism mostly talking, but I get the impression that Quibi has switched to the "guilt the consumer into subscribing" marketing strategy given all the press about it (including interviews with executives).
They don't _need_ apps but clearly an overwhelming majority _like_ or _want_ apps to track. Not everyone is into carrying a notebook and pen with them to the gym and already have their phone.
Insurers have to publish how they calculate rates and premiums. Every method and justification has to be approved by state regulators before they even enact them. It's one of the most transparent industries already.
This is an astute summary of the practical effect of transparency in consumer-facing markets.
The information is there, therefore it is transparent. It's sort of on you if you are unwilling take it as a second job and/or hire a suite of professionals to help you understand.
That's not the practical effect of transparency. It's the practical effect of living in a complicated world that must be modeled with math that most people don't know. It is on the populace to learn the math (many resources are available online), or fund people who can evaluate it on their behalf.
That is just changing the definition of transparency. Transparency means the information is readily available. The math isn't there to obfuscate the information, it is the information.
All of the laws passed by Congress as well as case laws arising from court proceedings are public. By your definition, our legal system is also very transparent. But that doesn't mean you don't need a lawyer just to navigate this voluminous corpus of information.
What you said is true, but why can that not also mean that power is tied to dress/appearance? There's nothing that deep or metaphysical here, it's pretty straightforward.
> There's nothing that deep or metaphysical here, it's pretty straightforward.
Did you read the article? Here are a few choice passages:
> The importance of the Patagonia vest is that it is both an evolution of the business-casual costume and a reversion to the waistcoat of the ancient three-piece suit. The fleece vest harmonizes with values that have been invested in the suit since its emergence, in the second half of the seventeenth century.
> In its metaphysical proclamation that “all of us know what is and is not appropriate for the workplace,” the memo bespeaks a Babylonian code of unspoken rules. It says that professional conduct is identical to ruling-class savoir-faire, and its manners are too circumspect to say much else.
> The panorama of the scene is a tribute to Ralph Lauren’s prophetic vision: sportswear that’s attached to the traditional garb of monied masculinity by means of it all being stitched together with an invented crest.
