Bay 12 Games Forum

Yoink makes a good point - I should add an option where the guy in question somehow ends up worse off, and the person gets rid of him...

And done. Option "Ruin this jerks life" has been added.

One of the places I'm also going to try to post the poll is Freep, so I expect we're going to get at least *some* "cut off your nose to spite your face" situations!

Also, after it sits for a while, I'll change the scenario slightly.

I intend this to provoke discussion and serve as a data point, and I'm actually going to post the question in other places as well, although it might be modified by what's said here.

The scenario.
Imagine that you are working as a busker playing music for the public for several years, and are making a decent if not superb living at it. You enjoy doing it, and you are making ends meet.

About a month ago, though, another busker has started working on a corner not far from you, and he's absolutely terrible. He's so bad, that you've actually noticed a small drop in your own donations by association. You've tried to talk to him a few times, but to be honest, he's a bit of an unpleasant fellow, mostly in mannerism and odor. A bit conceited - he believes that the fact that he's never done drugs makes him better than other street performers, no matter their talent level, but not hostile and he still wished you the best in his own awkward way, although he refused to move to a less well-trafficked spot when you asked. You suspect he is homeless, on account of some of the things he's said and the fact that he barely makes any money with his playing. Mostly, he is just incredibly incompetent. He's not good at playing his instrument, he's not good at talking to people since he rambles and quickly loses the point, and the fact that he thinks this is the way to move forward with his life means his judgement isn't all that great either. At the very least his incompetence at the lifestyle makes your own achievements more clear, and you've got a few compliments for being a welcome change from having to listen to "that guy".

Today, however, a passing philanthropist has been so moved by his terrible wretchedness that she decided to take mercy on him, granting him a free apartment to live in and a monthly stipend so he doesn't have to draw glares on the street anymore. This would be a good thing for you - business would probably go back to the level it was before he showed up. However, the philanthropist is direly opposed to giving money to those who would use it on drugs, and before she makes him the offer, she has decided to ask you if you know anything about his proclivities on that front.

How do you feel and what do you do? (See poll)

I thought the word "liberast" has appeared on it's own, not because someone propaganded it.

Word's don't "appear on their own", and the little people are just as capable of devising useful propaganda as the state. (They only lack the resources to propogate it as effectively as the state or media). It definitely seems like an intentional rhetorical gesture, if that's the connotation that people bring to mind (dunno if it is, admittedly).

Lemme help you out there.

Ask your recruiters to change your application however they see fit to get the job. Different employers are all very different about what they want and value, and good recruiters will at least try to know.

Let's be honest, most companies start cold applications by essentially cutting out 3/4ths of the pile at random on the basis that they don't want to hire unlucky people. So you either apply multiple times or skip the cold app process by going through people.

And yes, achievements matter. But if you don't think you have any achievements to put down, you're not nearly a smart as I gave you credit for. What companies really care about is how you overcame challenges. A small victory against a huge obstacle is more impressive than a big victory that most of your peers could have easily accomplished in the same circumstances.

But that sort of thing tends to be interview fodder, not application fodder.

"Accomplishments" on applications are to demonstrate that you can get things done. They are not "laughable".

Said boss will take the credit when things go well, and blame the worker when things don't

How does this matter? Your boss isn't writing this application, you are. Take credit for anything and everything that wouldn't have succeeded without you. And just because the project fails doesn't mean you didn't have any accomplishments, or that you have to mention someone else eventually dropped the ball and killed things off. I'm not sure what it is you're misunderstanding about this process... but it seems to be a lot. Your application is whatever you can justify, that you think makes you look attractive or, if cold-calling, that the bots will like. That's it! How the hell does a person's "boss" even factor into this?

GlyphGryph, he got a point though. The plural of anecdote is not data.

A single instance of  abberent behaviour (so long as its trustworthy) is evidence enough to completely disprove a theory or any encompassing statement. Whether an anecdote provides useful information to serve as a basis for reasoning depends on the exact statement being made.

The NRA (or at least the lackeys who repost their statements) has frequently taken the position that these attacks would be (not could be, would be) stopped earlier if more people had guns. That gun laws were responsible for these massacres by robbing people of their ability to defend themselves. That more guns are the only solution that is needed.

The fact that the victims included two police officers (who are allowed to carry weapons) and a man with a gun who got involved specifically in an attempt to stop that makes it pretty clear that their bullshit argument is false. It is a significant blow to their rhetoric, because they weren't even operating off of anecdote - they were simply operating off of conjecture and false assurances. More guns is *not* enough to stop an attack of this type. If they can help, statistically, fine - now, hopefully, the NRA would fall back to making THAT argument instead, maybe even contextualizing when and how.

A single instance is definitely not enough to say "an armed populace doesn't help stop murder sprees!" but if it is true, it's definitely 100% solid evidence of "an armed populace is not always enough to stop murder sprees.", and the NRA until this point has seemingly refused to admit that second statement is even a possibility.