Way back in the olde tymes, I was having trouble with the NIC driver in my Linux install. I posted a question about it on USENET, and got a reply from the guy who wrote the drivers. He asked for some info about the card, then updated the driver to support it.
There used to be a lot of cards based on same or similar chips, but with small differences. That made little changes to drivers common. It's a bit like LCD modules or audio chipset quirks. One driver with tons of little differences depending on what each manufacturer decided to do differently.
Yeah, I know, that's why the kernel with the drivers is not more than 150MB. Otherwise, you'd have the Windows situation where driverpacks compressed with 7z (LZMA2, solid archive, 273 word dictionary size and 2GB decompression memory, which requires about 128GB of RAM to compress) take about 30GB.
You have to pack the driver from each manufacturer because of signatures, even though they might even be the same with other drivers in the pack... but, REV differs and oh well, the driver installer doesn't recognize that driver as a valid one for that device.
Of course, the kernel drivers are now commonly signed. The real problem is catering to manufacturers demanding to have their own bespoke driver pack, often including some stupid branded management application, when it's just the same as the other dozen manufacturers packaging of the same product. Then you end up with bloated "driver packs" and a system tray of a half dozen vendors screaming for you to pay attention to them and know that they are somehow contributing to your experience.
In Linux, you have a kernel driver and a myriad of vendor's pci ids mixed together and the vendors just have to deal with it. As a side effect, a USB to serial dongle is about 99% likely to work in Linux, and in my experience 90% unlikely to work in Windows (can't find the driver for it, or in one very prominent case Microsoft bans drivers of counterfeit chips that function fine, but violate IP rights). Punishing the counterfeiters may have been understandable, but ultimately the unwitting customers paid rather than the counterfeiters (they still sold their devices, but the users that were oblivious suffered).
The real problem is catering to manufacturers demanding to have their own bespoke driver pack, often including some stupid branded management application, when it's just the same as the other dozen manufacturers packaging of the same product. Then you end up with bloated "driver packs" and a system tray of a half dozen vendors screaming for you to pay attention to them and know that they are somehow contributing to your experience.
This is exactly why I use driverpacks in Windows (3rd party, like SDI). If the drivers are not in the pack, I download them from the manufacturer and if they're packed with an app, I just extract the whole thing and point Windows (through manual driver update) to search for the drivers in that location. It will install only what it needs to work, nothing else.
they still sold their devices, but the users that were oblivious suffered
Or they did know, but the copy was a lot cheaper than the real thing. Hell, I've done it. If it does the same thing, why buy the more expensive thingie. I get IP rights and all that, but seriously, in the end, you just have to deal with these things. Unless you're Intel, you should expect your device/chip to end up being copied. China doesn't enforce western world IP laws, so it's a "free for all" kind of a thing there. If you plan on doing this (making your own device/chip), your device/chip better be niche enough so it's not viable to actually copy the design. Otherwise, copies will pop up left and right.
The worst of these is Bluetooth. I bought a USB dongle with a chipset said to be compatible.(CSR 8510 A10) Then I found it was a knockoff version of the chipset with some weird ass quirks that make it incompatible with the official drivers. To this day it's the one thing I never bothered to try and fix, even though others have succeeded in making the fix. The fix wasn't something I could easily turn into a DKMS module as I have no idea how to do that, and as a result it had to be compile with the kernel manually and I want ready to go diving into kernel and at the same time also trying to work out exactly what the quirks were.
I eventually bought a dongle with a chipset that worked was either not a knockoff or it was a perfect reproduction. It worked flawlessly, and I've bought more since then for PCs with no Bluetooth support.
Back in the day I was running GLTron on an Athlon 1800+ w/Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 (I think?) and I was running dual monitors. GLTron didn't like using both screens since it presented as a peculiar resolution. So I emailed the GLTron dude and he quickly emailed me a patch that let me run the game across both monitors (bezels not an issue because I was doing multiplayer split screen).
In the UK version of Hell's Kitchen you can see this side of him. In one episode he just hung out at the beach with his whole team and it was so wholesome.
The US show is cut in a way that emphasizes his outbursts, it's much worse.
Eh, this is somewhat true, and he's dug into this a few times. Some is put up for TV, but he's inclined to be annoyed at people that call themselves chefs, take people's money, and serve them sub-par products. In a few shows, like the one with Angela Hartnett where she took over The Connaught, it showed that he's still an angry dude, but that it was needed because he's taking over the restaurant at one of London's finest hotels. Michelin Star places seem to be the same boiling pot of bullying and anger to strive for the best possible quality.
Some chefs, like J Kenji Lopez Alt have called it and him out several times on it, because it's a very damaging practice, and one that spreads throughout the industry from wannabe Ramsay's that thinks intimidation is needed to make food.
I'm sure Ramsay is a lovely guy in person, but I would hate to work for him.
18 years in restaurants checking in: Gordon Ramsay is not very far from the mean at all. In fact, I'd say he's a mean mean man of average rage, and it's the nature of the industry that does this to us. It's flat-out abusive even in its best implementation, and the far and away vast majority of restaurants are purposefully exploitative. This goes double for back of house. I was usually a server or bartender, though I did work every hourly position at some point in my career. Front of house at least gets compensated more the busier they are. Back of house gets what they get whether they sell two orders of fries in an evening or they spend all shift with ten tickets on the rail and 30 open menus. Back of house also doesn't get paid all that well, outside of a few rockstars. It's a super high stress position, and that stress level is completely unpredictable. Any random Tuesday afternoon you could find yourself behind the line all alone as the third bus pulls into the parking lot. The extremely variable nature of the stress means two things:
You don't cook as a career unless you love turning out great food. You might do a couple years just because you need a job but it's so hard on your mind and body that after a while you literally either love it or leave it.
Eventually everyone in the kitchen becomes what Robert Anton Wilson called "...the walking wounded...slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief." There's a lot of PTSD in kitchens and, because hurt people hurt people, it tends to spread to new people and reinforce itself in veterans. In the highest volume store I ever worked in we used to joke that sexual harassment and bullying were just how we said "Hello". It's not okay, but it's the reality on the ground. It tends to develop spontaneously because of the way restaurants work and once it takes root it's really hard to get rid of.
So the average restaurant worker is half Anthony Bourdain, here for the love of food and people, trying to experience new and great things and build new and great things for other people to experience just out of a general enthusiasm for humanity. He's also half Gordon Ramsay, throwing an overcooked steak back at you because a cow had to die to make it and our guest had to sell a little bit of their life to afford it, so you will fucking respect both of their sacrifices and turn out some good fucking food. It's love, and it's pride, and it's trauma, and it's passion for what is essentially an unrecognized folk art. And if it paid the bills I'd go back in a heartbeat.
his "putting on a show of being angry for the cameras" is a bit below average tbh. people who've never been in a kitchen find it shocking, and the rest of us are like "well he didn't actually break anything and the idiot sandwich thing was really funny"
And video game piracy. Also free housing. Pretty much anywhere where finances are involved, some people want to fuck the next generation instead of helping them.
Wait why piracy all of a sudden. Didn’t we agree that people who don’t buy games won’t buy them anyway even if piracy didn’t exist?
Thus the denuvo lack of purpose because it doesn’t raise sales.
Yet many of those same folks are willing to pay to indie devs even if their games are often laughably easy to pirate. It’s about the principles.
For example Hollywood is such rotten hive of misogynist assholes that one may not want to fund them. Or not get royalty to Rowling for the potter game.
By starving bad companies we have a personal freedom to leave generations with only the best devs and brands such as Larian-motherfuking-Studios.
Hell if it wasn’t so risky IRL I’d probably steal Nestle food by tons and share it too. Let’s leave generations without that company.
"You guys should install denuvo into your game because console players have to pay to play it but on PC you can just pirate it. It's not fair for them to get to play it for free while we had to buy it"
That's why we should decriminalize pirating because it's unfair for those who did it and didn't get caught (which is the majority) or rather the companies who suffered from that.
Break away fasteners are a thing now. Line it with some Kevlar fibre and some good thermal insulation/fire resistance and you have an amazing utility device.
In public, it billows behind you, making you look dashing and heroic. When the shit hits the fan, instant bullet resistant cover for civilians. A way to shield them from the heat of a fire, or a small explosion. You could even use it offensively to tangle or deceive an opponent!
It won't stop a direct shot, but it would help against ricochet and shrapnel.
Back during the Napoleonic wars, silk underlayers were highly sought after. They could limit the damage a musket ball could do.
A spider silk based cape could definitely help projectile damage, while still being able to billow. The challenge would be making it fire and heat proof as well.
That works but the fastener can't be metal. Come across somebody with magnetic powers or for some reason the metal gets heated up and welds to itself... Bad times. But I think you're onto something.
Agreed on the metal clips. Getting garrotted by your own safety system would be extremely detrimental in a fight. Though saying that, if you're in a fight with a metal telekinetic, you're either screwed, or strong enough to not care about the clip.
Tempting... Unfortunately, I don't think I could pull it off. You need a certain... force of personality to pull off something like that. I'm just not outgoing (or skilled!) enough to pull off a full Thom Merrilin look.
Unfortunately, it would likely be detrimental to my ongoing work situation.
Though saying that, the BBC had a guy who would turn up to work dressed as a wizard (think harry potter style). He was the reason Teletext continued for so long. He was the last one left on the team. They retired Teletext the day after he retired himself.
I'm still not sure I have the force of personality to not just look like an idiot try hard however. 🤷♂️
I remember early 2020, there was a small push to bring capes back, before something else took over every discussion. Something about blue jays or crows or something
and you shouldn't be using any of those, since the order can and will change. The numbers are based on the order the devices and device drivers are initialized in, not based on physical location in the system. The modern approach (assuming you're using udev) is to use the symlinks in /dev/disk/by-id/ or /dev/disk/by-uuid/ instead, since both are consistent across reboots (and by-id should be consistent across reinstalls, assuming the same partitioning scheme on the same physical drives)
This is also why Ethernet devices now have names like enp0s3 - the numbers are based on physical location on the bus. The old eth0, eth1, etc. could swap positions between Linux upgrades (or even between reboots) since they were also just the order the drivers were initialized in.
I think OP's point was that UUIDs can still change, but the stuff that makes up the /by-id/ names cannot. Granted, those aren't applicable to partitions.
Depends on your definition of "unexpected". OP was talking about reinstalls for example, where the root partition is deleted and recreated and its UUID will change as a result. If you copy an fstab from an older system backup you will fail the mount the root partition.
UUIDs can also cause some reverse trouble if you clone them with dd in which case they won't change but they should, and you end up with duplicate UUIDs.
According to Arch Wiki they get generated and stored in the partition when it is formatted. So kinda like labels but automated and with (virtually) no collision risk.
No. Since each partition gets its own UUID, it means it's generated by the OS on creation, no matter the number of partitions. On boot kernel will scan all UUIDs and then mount and map according to them, which is sightly less efficient method than naming block device directly, but far easier for humans and allows you to throw your drives to whichever port you like.
I have a hatred for the enp id thing as it isn't any better for me. It changes on me every time I add/remove a hard drive or enable/disable the WiFi card in the BIOS. For someone who is building up a server and making changes to it, this becomes a real pain. What happens if a drive dies? Do I have to change the network config yet again over this?
How is that happening? The number on the bus shouldn't change from adding or removing drives. I could imagine this with disabling a card in UEFI / BIOS if that basically stops reporting the bus entry completely. But drives?
Anyhow, if I'm not mistaken, you can assign a fixed name based on the reported MAC.
It is only the nvme drives that do it. That damn PCI busses and iommu groups get renumbered every damn time I remove or add one. The SATA is safe though.
Having used gentoo for quite some time, there have been several occations where my network broke because the changing names and naming conventions of the network interfaces.
Back in my day, /dev/hda was the primary master, hdb was the primary slave, hdc was the secondary master and hdd was the secondary slave.
Nothing ever changed between reboots. Primary/secondary depended on which port the ribbon cable connected to on the motherboard, and primary/secondary master/slave was configured by a jumper on the drive itself.
If you had a Sound Blaster 16, you had an extra IDE port on the board, which DOS couldn't see and you had to load special drivers to use them. Usually it was used for the CD-ROM.
I could write another rant on the whole American ‘I take offense with that’ mentality. It’s political correctness of the worst kind, and as far as I’m concerned. Jokes are often offensive. If you get offended, the problem is solidly at your end. Think about it for a while,...
He has a point there though IMO, things are way out if control with political correctness.
Have you noticed how almost every meme here on Lemmy goes in shitposts? My guess is, it's a safe bet, almost anything goes there, so I won't be downvoted to oblivion just because I wrote female instead of woman. Hell, I know I do it for that very reason.
While I mostly agree with you, don't discount the insane volume of genuine hate speech in the United States. A vast amount of it –if not the majority– is coded language so there is an actual need to be extra sensitive. If you aren't a member of a targeted minority, you won't get it because the nature of coded hate speech is that it's only transparent to the perpetrators and the victims.
I don't live in the US, but from what I've seen, instead of everyone just taking a step back and not getting offended over stupid things, people do the exact opposite. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Maybe I live in a place where people have thicker skin, IDK, but to get downvoted over semantics when the post is not even about that, I mean... really 🤨?
It doesn't matter, I know, no one cares about up/down votes, but just the sheer ammount of it was "wow, really?".
I think the point is that to you, it's just semantics. But, to use your example, given that some people have started intentionally using "female" in place of "woman" as an (arguably) subtle way to exclude trans women, it suddenly becomes more than semantics to both trans and anti-trans populations. That's what Smotherlove is saying about "dog whistle" language only being transparent to the perpetrator and the victim.
So from your/my perspective (admittedly assuming you're neither trans nor anti-trans), it's largely a case of "a few rotten apples ruining it for the rest of the bunch." What should just be a semantic difference has been coopted and intentionally weaponized by some, so all of us have to be conscious of whether or not we're making that worse.
It's also not a new phenomenon. Many epithets start as PC terms and then become offensive based on how a specific group starts to use them, notably, almost every one-time PC terms for Black Americans and people of color. Unfortunately, it's basically the reason that, for at least 100 years, (responsible) individuals/media have had to change terms for many marginalized peoples every 10-20 years, with many other examples, like "Oriental" and the terms that predate it, and plenty of others.
Female is not just anti trans. It has also been used as a way of dehumanizing women for some time. It was in the 4chan playbook until they switched to femoid for extra dehumanizing.
I also referred to men as males in the post, but that didn't seem to bother anyone.
Though I do admit female was a more used term. I was trying to explain some of the differences (to the best of my knowledge) of why males are more agressive and just generally not so in touch with their emotions, as opposed to females. I mean, come on, I wasn't trying to offend anybody, but I do suppose that some people just saw "female, brain", thought I was talking smack about women and just started downvoting me 🤷. I was trying to explain that that is not the context and that those 2 terms were just the first ones that popped up in my mind, but it was too late.
I get the likely reason why you don't find it offensive, but I also get why plenty people do.
Note how the complains are usually towards the usage of "female" as a noun, not as an adjective. That's because of a small quirk of English, that marks adjective nominalisation rather heavily. To show it with a non-offensive example:
I got two cats. *The young is a tabby, and *the old is *a bicolour.
That likely sounds fine in the other language[s] that you speak (as it would do in my L1 and L2), but it sounds weird for English speakers - they'd expect "young", "old" and "bicolour" to be followed by nouns, not to be treated as nouns.
As a result, when you "promote" an adjective to a noun, people usually take it as creating a category aside from whatever category the relevant entities were formerly assigned to. And if the former category was "human beings", the nominalisation becomes dehumanising.
Another example [now offensive] to highlight this would be:
"Alice is gay" - most people wouldn't raise an eyebrow to that
"Alice is a gay" - since the usage of article forces reading "gay" as a noun, it suddenly sounds dehumanising.
The same process actually does apply to "male"; the main difference is that men aren't seen as a disfavoured group by society, and people often take that into account when judging the offensiveness of an utterance.
[I]f you have anything to do with security in a distro, and think that my kids (replace ‘my kids’ with ‘sales people on the road’ if you think your main customers are businesses) need to have the root password to access some wireless network, or to be able to print out a paper, or to change the date-and-time settings, please just kill yourself now. The world will be a better place,” he wrote.
I mean, telling someone to kill themselves is something that I've heard a lot, it usually never means "go and literally do it", it's more of an expression... But the fact that it was used in that context is just disturbing.
exactly. This was normal years ago, probably at the same time he used it. I'm not sure if kids are still saying these things in high school, but in the workplace this is 100% out of place.
Not right, but definitely not wrong. There is a big difference between effective security and total security. He was dumping on total security, which in many ways is worse than no security at all.
It was never a question of being technically right or wrong. Linus' realization was that his inflammatory language was viewed as permission by other people in the Linux community to be verbally abusive to their peers. People who had been valuable contributors to Linux projects explained to Linus how they had been berated by colleagues, and when challenged those colleagues cited Linus' own language.
What Linus wants is working code, and you don't get working code by giving tacit permission to your most aggressive & abrasive community members to attack others.
That’s why I was particularly clear about him being “not right”.
Because being abusive is definitely “not right”.
But sometimes you have to make a point and you just have no other way of doing so, because the deed is already done, and anything less shocking is just gonna get ignored wholesale. That foot-stomp has to be loud enough and clear enough to be heard even by the people in the back. And there are only so many (frequently limited!) ways of grabbing everyone’s attention by the nuts.
I don’t agree with how Linus handled it. But I can understand it.
You can’t be a leader to people who have no desire to follow you in the first place. And you can’t force anyone to accept you as a leader.
The world is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Sometimes you need to throw your weight around for the overall good of the community. It’s why law enforcement exists within every functional community - there will be people who intentionally ignore “leadership” and break rules for their own selfish purposes regardless of how good said leadership is, and the only thing that will make them behave is the threat of social censure or outright punishment.
And Linus has no ability to directly correct or punish, so social censure is the next best functional tool.
Exactly this. If you don't want me to quit without notice, do you also vote against politicians who vote for "right-to-work" legislation?
Yeah, you don't get to write a fucking law that says you can fire me on the spot for any reason at all and then insist that I give you two weeks.
Besides, these days it's a different world - there's a labor shortage. A serious one. Warm body? You're hired. Nobody gives a fuck. They can't afford to. Especially in minimum wage.
Relatedly, my conspiracy theory is that the spate of recent layoffs are coordinated pushback against all the strikes and unionizing as well as pushback against RTO etc. Just a wild idea I had... May be total horseshit, idk.
On the other hand, we have seen collusion in the past within some sectors (e.g., price fixing, no poach agreements, wage fixing), and antitrust violations often go unpunished or weakly penalized, corporate leadership is strongly driven by profit often to the exclusion of ethics and at the expense of all else. And employee compensation is a significant part of most company budgets. So, I think my wild idea is at least somewhat plausible.
It's my fault. I finally got so fed up with blue collar stuff that I decided to start getting into the tech field, then pretty much immediately it all collapsed. Sorry for trying lol
As someone from IT, there isn't really a shortage. There are literal crowds of quite advanced developers searching for jobs. The only problem is that they don't have commercial experience and all companies only want seniors/teamleads/cto's with 10+ years of experience, to do at best middle-level developer's jobs. The shortage is artificial, but, I'm not complaining, as it's the only reason I get paid decent wage.
That’s not a wild conspiracy, that’s just how capitalism works? There is always collusion between capitalists to suppress labour power. Like we have repeated historical exemples of this. And yeah, through the same historical examples, get ready for the rise of fascism lol
I think the layoffs in IT are directly related to AI. I'm in IT and I have been for decades. With AI I can easily say my output has quadrupled. Maybe even more. But when everybody in your workforce can do the work of five people, you can wake up one day and realize your company is overwhelmed with redundancy.
This isn't going to remain limited to just IT and no, it's not just like the Industrial Revolution.
With my current workload I've found extremely limited opportunities for AI to help at all, but I'm certain that'll vary wildy by the individual job duties that fall onto a role
IT as a whole isn’t having a problem, just the developer segment of IT is getting canned because 7/10 people who went into “IT” in the past 20 years got pulled into development work and now there’s too many. IT is a huge sector, development is just a part of it, a part everyone went into because Silicon Valley was paying a ton of $ but not guaranteed stability
This is starting to get into the "only one joke" territory.
I assume that this stereotype is based on some volume of observation, but it's been dragged and beaten into the ground, and honestly, as someone with decades of professional and enthusiast experience with FOSS, this stereotype just doesn't even strike a chord with me.
It never even landed for me. I've NEVER met a trans person or femmy guy in tech. At least not compared to the swathes of the typical unkempt neckbeards.
Though no one wants to make neckbeard jokes, because that one has ALSO been beaten in to the ground... over and over and over and over...
I've worked with 1 known ftm and didn't know until 4 years in. I work in a 250 person org which is fairly progressive. I wonder if it's that easy at a lot of bigger and vc tech.
I have worked with plenty of neck beard types, as well as more average folks. So this meme doesn't match my experience at all.
As someone who works in tech, my stereotype of "average tech worker" is going to be more like a guy named Praveen (there's two Praveens on my team right now). But tech tends to have a lot of diverse backgrounds, since tech jobs usually care more about what you can do than where you're from or what school you went to.
I think it comes from the other direction. Like, the trans and femboy communities are small, but a high portion of them are in tech jobs and FOSS. So this is a stereotype about trans women and femboys all being into Arch, rather than all Arch users being trans women or femboys.
Still overused, but I can see why since the 3 most active communities I see on Lemmy are Linux users, trans people, and Trekkies.
I think you're right about that being the origins of the joke, but the joke is distinctly trying to infer the reverse. Funny in context, but out of context, it's just an obnoxious over-association leaking out of a community.
It's as stupid and culturally braindead as the old 2000s jokes where the entire punchline is the gay guy is flamboyant. haha gay rainbows! Ver funny!
Do... do you think a boomer would write out "yawn" and sorta use doge speak in a message about what used to be viewed as progressive!? Or are you a literal child that doesn't even remember the 2000's? Either way, fucking pathetic ability to clock someone.
Boomer is a mentality, and "ok boomer" is a joke. No need to get so worked up lmao
I'm just pointing out that Gen Z is much more proudly queer and especially GNC (unlike millennials whocame to age in a world where the overwhelming majority of developed countries did not even allow gays to get married!) and we not care how funny you think the joke is since it literally does not apply to you (presumably). Did it even occur to you that those "gay pride jokes" of the 2000s you deride so easily were your generation's queer people's way of finding acceptance and community? That "pure comedic value" (as if that was a chemical element you could distill out of memes somehow) is not the only value some people find in memes?
You are utterly and completely failing to understand that the joke itself is culturally bereft of meaning.
Sad. No gay person ever felt more accepted by society from a joke that was implying gayness on a different minority. If anything, that tokenized gayness for society.
This is a joke BY queers FOR queers. The goal is NOT to make cishets comfortable, or to teach them anything, or generally to cater to their feelings at all.
Is it so hard to understand that sometimes people want to feel seen? Why does it matter that "society" will take it badly because of tokenization or whatever the fuck? Are you even queer yourself or just projecting what you think queer people should want? Because I'm queer and I appreciate "haha non-queer thing but now queer" humor.
It's not very high brow, but that's just the nature of shitposting and I don't go off on the tens of supposedly relatable dead horses that get beaten every day in meme communities either.
Someone should create a leaderboard of websites sharing data with the most "partners", this week I saw someone on Mastodon posting a screenshot of a website sharing to 1700+ third-parties.
There's a lot of anti-stuff going around there. Let's just say that even if it were possible, federation with 9gag is definitely a hard pass from both sides.
That sounds like they're using Admiral's sh!tty brokerage and anti-adblock thing, saw one site with over 1500 partners. Most difficult one to block because of how frequently they buy domains for adblock evasion...
One of these days I'm going to just blacklist the IP ranges of their google cloud fleet
While I doubt this actually happened, I'm still disturbed by everyone cheering it on absent any context that would make OP not look like a petulant child.
Quitting without notice doesn't require justification, fuck the bosses, whatever.
But for all we know, this manager had bent over backwards to stand up for their employees, or cover for them. Maybe this employee took advantage of that and was miserable to his coworkers. Those are just as likely as anything else, given that no further information was provided.
At least invent a backstory how this manager was dogshit or abusive, or the company was awful. Make us want to believe that you're not just someone with a persecution complex who's quick to anger and lash out.
I'd say the reply from the boss is enough to justify that response. The boss is chiding him for not putting in a 2 weeks notice, calling him unprofessional. From this one interaction you can make a pretty good assumption as to the quality of the boss. The only proper response to someone quitting is either a counter offer or a farewell, not a guilt trip.
Not really... It is unprofessional. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just that it's not always unreasonable for a manager to point that out. Again, we lack any other context for the situation.
I would add, that he also followed it up with a good luck and didn't drag it out. So, based off what limited evidence we have available, he seems like the more reasonable person in this situation.
Have you never had a good manager and a bad coworker?
When companies firing people for base reasons, i.e. reaching quarterly targets, is also universally seen as unprofessional and shunned as such, we can talk again. Until then, they deserve exactly as much courtesy as they are willing to give.
That's some pretty wild stuff you have to make up just because you have no good response. That's not even a straw man but a straw giant space monster. Sheesh dude ...
You can absolutely fire someone after they quit if notice is in your contract. Employee gives notice, doesn't show up for two weeks, and is fired with cause.
I don't know where you all work. But over here it is standard even for 'unqualified' work to have at least 1 month notice. For both sides. This gives employers and employees some time to find something new.
I'm speaking for the United States, minus Montana (if I recall correctly).
Neither employers nor employees are required to give notice. However, it is standard practice that employers do not give notice and employees do (usually two weeks).
When I worked at a callcenter they offered a new contract trading an agreement to give 2 weeks notice for a better paid vacation plan, with the consequence of failing to give notice being that the any unpaid pay periods would be paid at the minimum legal wage (which is of course a very pitiful wage I might add)
Fuckin managers will fire you with 0 notice, but that’s life and “at will employment”. You fire the business and you have to give 2 weeks because business run “lean” and “at will” is only supposed to be used by the business.
Well, there’s risk and reward in business, and more risk in running lean. Managers can always structure their departments to not be impacted by an inopportune departure. After all, people can get hit by a bus leaving their house in the morning.
Hell, if an employee is that critical, maybe they should be put under an employment contract with set terms and compensation agreement. You know, like most directors have.
A good rule of thumb is to never, ever burn bridges with past managers. Keep your dignity and remain professional. You never know when you'll need them as a reference.
In the US, that's straight up illegal unless they write you a reference separately. When the hiring company calls they can only give the legal answers.
Also, you could just write that letter yourself and have a friend be your ex boss. The rules are meaningless and the points are made up.
It is not illegal to call and talk about you with a reference that you gave them - that's the whole point of a reference. Separately, yes, calling a former boss may only get the prospective employer answers like "they worked here and are eligible for rehire", but that's usually a human resources policy to avoid a costly, but ultimately winnable if you only tell the truth, lawsuit. It's not illegal for a former boss to shit on you if you were shitty, and it happens all the time at smaller firms, in small industries, or small towns.
Why in the name of Murphy would you give them a bad reference?
This is explicitly an issue with employment verification and there are very clear legal boundaries there. Your revenge fantasy does not apply to reality.
Because you seem hellbent on finding a way around the law. HR departments don't do more than dates, rehire eligibility, and character of termination specifically because of legal liability.
So who am I going to believe, the guy saying you can shit talk whoever you want, or the professionals who do this every day in a legally safe manner?
A former manager of mine has been trying to convince me to return anytime she sees me since I left almost 2 years ago, offering me better pay and a position much higher on the foodchain. She also respects why I left (I had bigger ambitions that they couldn't meet at the time) and respects my reason that I haven't taken her up on that offer (that place only has really garbage benefits)
One of my wife's friends babysits for the director of IT at a large company 2 hours away and apparently I can get an interview with them if I just say the word.
Being professional and staying on good terms is not just for the employer, but it can also be a safety net to fall back on if things go sideways. Being able to reach out to contacts and say "Hey, I'm unexpectedly looking for a job now, do you have any openings?" is a very good place to be, plus sharing openings with former colleagues is a good way to help eachother out.
Dunno why you're getting blasted, you're right. What good is chastising the employee at that stage going to do if it isn't meant as a guilt trip? Does anyone really think the manager had his best interest in mind and is trying to look out for his future? Or is it more likely he is trying to keep shifts covered for 2 more weeks so productivity doesn't completely tank? I'd be completely okay with a simple "ok" or thumbs up emoji compared to a lecture.
Pretty much this. The manager, from one text, comes across as a holier than thou, "think of your coworkers!! We're family!!" Kind of person. One text can reveal that much. The "good luck" doesn't come across as sincere, since it follows that whining. Dude wants shifts covered for 2 weeks, he can hire someone else, do it himself , or fix whatever problems (probably money) made the person leave in the first place. Or they're a middle manager and get off on being overly focused on the "rules". Or he's just a low end shift manager, in which case why lick the boot that hard my dude?
It is sad this is the defacto situation now, but it shouldn't be that way. Managers should be there in interest of employees, to keep them on board, happy, and able to do their job efficiently... The company can't run without workers. Too many companies have forgotten that. A manager should be a buffer between the employees and the "corporate machine" (or better yet get rid of the corporate machine, but ya know...).
Maybe MY experience is limited, but what manager these days isn't pulling double duty? They do 3/4 of the job time with duties no different than the people under them, and also have to do all the managing part when possible. This is how it's been in the public service, retail, and customer service jobs I've worked.
Basically my experience. 90% of my job is unchanged, but I have to deal with extra emails and making sure there's toilet paper. Granted, I'd never bring up 2 week notices. Companies will not ensure that for workers, so workers should make fun of those companies for suggesting that. Hell, my mom's work asked if she'd give them 6 months noticed because they were understaffed and the other staff couldn't do their jobs and she laughed at her boss and told them they wouldn't do that for her.
They're saying that just because you claim something ought to be a certain way it has no bearing in how it is, or ever was.
This is a common thing done by libs to support capitalism. They talk about how it "ought" to work, as if there is any way for capitalism to exist that is not inherently anti-social. Its a defense used by the cynical and well meaning alike, a deflection to ignore the reality of how these hierarchical relationships were always designed to be. Its similar to how libs say its not capitalism its "crony capitalism"
What you're saying ought to be not only isn't, but never was. And talking about how it "ought to be" isn't a defense of reality
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I wasn't trying to defend anything, but I suppose I see how including the "now" in my original comment might be construed in a "things used to be better" way. Wasn't my intention, I have no idea how it used to be anyway.
Not going to edit the original though, for preservation of the context for this conversation.
Of course. Yeah i didn't think you meant it as a hard defense of anything. Your comment seemed totally well intentioned. And if capitalism was capable of good and not an inherently anti-social system then it ought to be like you're describing.
I think a lot of well intentioned people can get caught in that place of talking about how it ought to be instead of realizing why its not.
It's not licking boots to acknowledge that managers are people.
Every evil organization in history has had good people working for it. You hating them is yet another way the "above" people divide the "lower" people.
That being said, absolutely assume the manager is on the side of the company. This is a meme, we can't even prove if this shit is real. Fuck the company.
Pointing out the lack of context and the tantrum like behavior isn't nuance. The fact that you think otherwise makes me concerned for your ability to safely cross the street.
If you see this and your immediate reaction is to chastise some hypothetical tantrum then you might just be a bootlicker. At least own up to it instead of deflecting with arrogant ableism
Tantrum behavior like doing mass layoffs in response to a labor strike, a la UPS?
Of course. When workers stand up for their rational self interest, it's a tantrum. When bosses retaliate en masse against workers standing up for their rational self interest, that's just business 101.
Read your comment again, and then try and demonstrate the extrapolative capability of an adult crow, human child, or large language model. Go on, I believe in you.
Alright chucklefuck, pointing out that one whiney dick is throwing a tantrum has no logical bearing on the labor movement writ large, or my support of it.
Think a little slower, friend. Like you said, "hypothetical" boss - his whole point was that from the meme we don't actually know anything about the boss. You psychic?
Nah. Fuck em. If they were a decent manager they'd thank them for the notice they did get because they know that many managers punish people for giving notice.
All 2 years of it I see, my man you gotta open your eyes then. The amount of pettiness in that industry is insane. Your ignorance of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist
My man… just because you’ve seen it doesn’t mean everyone else has or that it’s common. Maybe you’ve just worked a shitty places. But that doesn’t mean it’s industry standard.
At least in the US, it seems pretty standard. Never worked retail myself, but everyone I know has hated it. Certainly a lot would like to imagine doing this kind of thing (but few actually would).
I can only say that my experiences in the field has been completely fine- and this includes working for Disney. And I can say that at 52 years old- I’ve been in the business for a long time. Never had a problem with anyone, and no one has had a problem with me.
If a person has a gripe with an entire industry- maybe the problem is with the person and not the industry.
How many Lemmy users do you think have never worked retail customer facing jobs, or food service? I'm betting it's a minority, but I could be wrong.
Either way, whatever internal compass you use to determine another user's job history needs some tuning because I've worked in plenty of service industry jobs.
Y'all are pretty tech savvy around here. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that the majority of Lemmy users skipped the retail/CS/hospitality jobs in favor of entry level IT/ tech jobs.
I'm guessing this has more to do with the US, than the particular profession.
I'm so used to workers rights, that getting a glimpse into how things are over there feels dystopian. Laws everyone would want, and benefitting everyone, except perhaps exploitative businesses, are "controversial".
It's very difficult to even fire someone here, and even if you did, 3 months to find something else is the norm. More often than not, you'd also be paid without doing much work during that time. If you resign, the company also has 3 months to figure something out.
Why... Would you not want that kind of predictability be the norm? It's not a net benefit to be able to resign or be fired on the spot. The only way that makes any sense is to just focus on one of the sides, at the convenient time. Bleh.
Setting aside hefty political corruption in the US, and media owned private interests that would make the Pinkertons shed a tear of joy... hm, and aside for a very peculiar election system that not only goes for the worst 2-party approach, but even has set it up in multiple ways in order to allow the minority of the two, to win.... ah... I see your point.
I'm curious about the relationship to managers in different industries. Fast food compared to programming. Warehouse/stacking managers have always treated the workers like idiots where I've been at. IT support depended on the company. Mail sorting was pretty chill as long as the work got done.
I'd be more inclined to see your point, except that the manager in question said "each job requires 2 weeks notice" like he was indignant that he didn't get something he deserved.
That's not only not true at all, it's active manipulation on their part in a hail Mary attempt to have their work covered for enough time to look for another employee.
It may be unprofessional to quit without notice, but it's really unprofessional to present the act of quitting as requiring 2 weeks' notice, particularly in a place that might also allow the employer to fire someone for any reason at any time with no notice.
it's really unprofessional to present the act of quitting as requiring 2 weeks' notice
If it's part of the contract then it's not unprofessional at all to bring up the terms that you've agreed on. My job requires a month's notice and it wouldn't be unprofessional for my employer to bring that up if I tried to quit on the spot.
That being said, I don't live in a place with "at-will employment", which is a fucking travesty and should never have been allowed in the first place.
It's not typically written into the contract for most jobs I've seen, but it's still considered very unprofessional to leave without giving the company time to find a replacement. It doesn't just mess with the company or your boss; it messes with your coworkers, too, who now have to pick up the slack.
Basically, while it's not written into your contract, it's still considered socially unacceptable not to give a two week notice barring any unusual circumstances.
It's always been in my contracts, a month's notice is the norm here. I've never broken that but I've also been fortunate enough to work at places where work and life are balanced. I wouldn't have wanted to disrupt the work for my colleagues and my managers have always shown their respect for me to the point that I want to work with them instead of against them. I don't think I'll ever work for an employer that puts the company over the wellbeing of their employees. I've seen what being a real team means. People cooperate freely and go the extra mile for eachother if necessary and cut massive amounts of slack to anybody in the team that's having a tough time and needs to focus on their life outside of work for a bit.
That said I won't ever get any bonuses or make large amounts of money in my career either but that's not what I'm after if it would mean putting work before life.
It's not unprofessional at all; at worst, it's discourteous, because notice of departure has zero to do with your professional conduct, it's a courtesy. You can professionally quit on the spot, look:
"Due to a change of personal circumstances, I will be resigning immediately, effective at the end of the day. I will work with you to make this transition as smooth as possible within that timeframe, but it is not negotiable."
I can understand going either way on that because they're semantically similar. However, I personally draw a distinction here because I'd much more readily accept being considered discourteous at work than unprofessional.
If it's considered 'unprofessional' then that is a raging misconception. At will contracts also mess wirh the company and your coworkers, demanding a courtesy you won't give your workers is horseshit.
Mine tend to ball out to a month's notice (on either side) for every year employed at the company....but i do business critical shit. I do not get the impression this is what is in the text conversation depicted.
No, this is just rioting. That's not to say rioting is bad, it got redlining and segregated neighborhoods banned, and is an important part of peaceful demonstrations, as it shows what the consequences will be if they don't give into your demands.
No. It's not "just rioting". Try that again without the value judgment.
We see this type of hidden judgement on a regular basis. The key words are "just" and "only". It's an annoyingly effective rhetorical device, because the statement looks like an objective description of things when it's not.
Often, descriptors like simply, only, just, etc. are used to diminish or manage perceptions of dissent.
However, saying 'no it's just a riot' in this case is merely accurate grammar, as it's applying needed nuance and limits to the definition of civil disobedience.
As you pointed out, this is partly a matter of interpretation. So opinions could reasonably vary, and I respect that.
I believe it's clear enough that in this case, saying that the situation is just a riot, is a way of taking focus away from the other things that were happening. Perhaps it wasn't a riot and then turned into one, and maybe we should be focusing on what happened first. Or perhaps there was a riot happening along with something else, and that second thing is worth mentioning.
civil disobedience, the refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition
lemmy.dbzer0.com
Top