The guy seems to be able to sweet talk his way in to any room and convince people to do and say the most humiliating things on camera. If him being British become an issue I think he can just act his way out of it and somehow everyone will believe him in spite of it being a publicly known fact.
I think the doughnut thing is actually just some folks wanting a laugh and trying to be witty. The phrase made sense as it was intended and was taken as such (a person from Berlin), and the fact that there is coincidentally also a doughnut given that name is unlikely to have registered in anyone's mind while present at the speech and if it did it probably wouldn't have merited much more than a smirk since it's not a mistake to have said that, it's just a funny coincidence.
I'm sure there's probably more than one pizzeria somewhere with a pizza on the menu called "New Yorker" and if someone said in a speech "I'm a New Yorker" no one's going to pissing themselves laughing at the person for being such a baffoon to have accidentally called themselves a pizza.
You'll likely run in to a little bit of trouble because you're having to make explicit what would have been better for them to have inferred and when it's made explicit like that, it will come across as very weird to people and they'll probably have some trouble not taking it personally (even if they shouldn't).
Some understanding of the general tenor of how this group talks would make for better ways to communicate what you want to say but as general advice, your proposed ways of addressing this seem like they're on the right track in spirit but you're phrasing them in ways that imply a note of contempt.
This is probably because you really do harbour some contempt for these guys given the way you described them, like calling them childish for example. If you actually want to express some of that animosity then your suggestions are probably fine but if you're concerned about the "right" way to set these boundaries you might want to try and keep it neutral. This is also good if you don't want to earn their contempt either which is probably advisable even if you don't like them very much since you have to work with them and if they feel offended and hold a grudge it could risk spilling over in to the actual work.
I like your idea of saying outright that you're not a talkative person, hopefully they'll feel a little guilty about having forced you in to having to say that and will not try to drag you in to the conversation so much from then on. The additional bits around that concept don't seem advisable, you don't have to chastise them for not realising you don't want to talk, that's likely to be unproductive, the point is you don't want to talk. Similarly the "and I hope you respect that" addition is good for being firm but also comes across a little aggressive, best deployed only if you've already made your wishes explicit and they're clearly not respecting that.
Eating elsewhere, if that's an option is great, it you can already opt for that do it, you can avoid even having to bring anything up and the physical separation makes questioning you about it really inconvenient. If they ask you about it later that's when you can say you need time to unwind and that's also by far the most socially acceptable and understandable reason that people are less likely to take personally. I don't know if you resent the idea that your reasons have to be socially acceptable to these guys or should have to be massaged to avoid them taking things personally, but ask yourself this: do you want to teach them a lesson and demonstrate your contempt for them, or do you want to just be left alone to work and to continue to work effectively with them? Pragmatism over principle would make sense here.
If it gets to the point where you have to actually say to another adult, in a work environment, "leave me alone" then odds are it probably won't even work and your coworkers are complete idiots that need to be fired. However if that's really the case, saying that, even if it doesn't work is probably good since at that point things are probably going to escalate and at least no one can say you did or said anything inappropriate.
In short, take the easiest route if possible and just eat somewhere else at lunch and redirect the conversation back to work if they keep talking to you during work. If you end up somehow having absolutely no other remaining options but to explicitly tell them you don't want to talk be careful to communicate in a way so you only express this simple desire and don't imply some sort of judgement or contempt towards them. Try to be nice about it.
They do many many useful things and the utility is valuable enough to begrudgingly have to accept the frustrating experience of using them. We generally really do have to accept it as well because as with all useful technologies, they become ubiquitous and then useful technologies are built off the fact of their reliable ubiquity and then those technologies replace existing ones and you find yourself needing smartphones to get by in society. They're close to a necessity if not in reality, a necessity where I live, but places like China for example it is simply impossible to go about life without one. I honestly don't what people do there when their phone is broken, just getting out the door to pick up a new one would be a challenge.
I don't see why that moment was unsalvagable, the whole back story not withstanding, people get startled when woken, and it's usually only momentary. Were there no words spoken or anything?
This is a tough one, I'm going to guess Marx?
It's a nice picture and all but I definitely upvoted for the sentence "congratulations to ClopClopMcFuckwad for their pic of the week".
So abortions bad, but killing babies good?
It's not reviewed and may have harmful content, so please read the harmful content on an app instead?
Title seems dumb in context but the post itself is top notch.
Charlie Chaplin does Dallas
The guy clearly isn't familiar with a lot of image formats and is trying to find out about them by asking, a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and in a special community called no stupid questions, no less.
You don't need to call anyone a gullible fool and furthermore you've not actually helped to answer the question "what is webp", at all. What are you trying to achieve with this pointless aggression? If you wanted one less "gullible fool" you'd have to answer the question and educate, at best you've sown confusion.
This is probably a slightly misguided idea to go after them as bad people because as soon as they do do something "good" you leave the door open for people to think that perhaps on balance they're not so bad after all.
The problem of billionaires being billionaires is itself the chief complaint people should have. It doesn't matter if they're Mr Rogers and Santa Claus combined, because they can choose to be so entirely at will and can be selfish assholes too entirely at will. They can also be other things entirely, given they are actually human beings after all they can try to act on best intentions, but like all humans, with great ignorance or with flawed thinking. When you or I do that the consequences can be terrible, but mostly, we'd be unable to come close to the scale of impact these demi gods can leave in their wake, not to mention the "original sins" that allowed them to become billionaires in the first place leaving a legacy of nasty indirect consequences for society at large.
There's actually a lot of examples of billionaires philanthropy and as you likely expected to point out when people mentioned that, some of those acts hide less pure intention, but undoubtedly they probably really did do some good and that itself is enough to completely undermine your whole point that they never do anything good. The issue is that, with the sheer vast quantity of concentrated wealth and power they can wield, the society that supports them is bereft of a real voice in how it's resources are used. So much of the fruits of our labour end up closed off in private coffers and it undermines public institutions like democratic governments because while we may theoretically have a say in what they do, we legally have no say at all in how a billionaire spends his bucks (and I say his intentionally). They might say we oughtn't since it's their money and no one typically has a say in what the rest of us do with our money but as with most things, there's a point of extreme where this logic becomes perverse.
Well I mean what did you just read? He already said those are the facts bro.
This is the most made up sounding story I've allowed myself to be clickbaited into for a while.
The fun thing about October is that whenever the date is written for the first 10 days it looks like a score.
Quack
I'm really liking the posts along these lines because there's so much associated with ADHD that I haven't been aware was part of it and it's so accuratly described here. There's kind of this sense of living like a double agent or something, except in that scenario the person knows what it is they're hiding. I've gone through life having unconsciously learned that the actual reasons I do things aren't acceptable or at least not explainable so I'm always having to improvise something more plausible or different. It's sorta like lying, but not exactly, but there's the ever present fear that I'll be exposed for... something.
I almost feel like this life time of training would actually have helped me really be a secret agent if only all the other symptoms of ADHD weren't completely debilitating and would sabotage such work terribly.
It's gratifying seeing this because usually when I see these kinds of worrying data permissions it's because a service I really want or need is being held hostage until I agree to this false choice and I have to start figuring out whether there's some way around this or if I'm going to have to embarrassingly explain to someone why I can't use this service they expected me to sign up to.
But then I see this and it's for something I'd never want to sign up to anyway and it's just like a list of dodged bullets. 😎 So nice to just laugh at their bullshit.
One of the devilish features of the enjoyment of alcohol is that it likens itself to excess. You tend to drink it in a social setting and that setting makes it more fun to drink and then the drinking makes the actual social occasion more fun in turn. It also, obviously, feels good while you're drinking it and getting drunk, which tends to make you want to drink even more of it because you're enjoying the experience so much. On top of that, obviously, it makes you drunk, and as you probably know, being drunk doesn't tend to make for very good decision making so thoughts like "you might be enjoying this a lot, but you should stop now, then you won't be sick tomorrow" tend to give way to "nah I feel fine right now, so it'll definitely be a good idea to have another and definitely won't be a terrible idea come tomorrow. Also, that's tomorrow's problem anyway".
Have a hangover enough times in your life and this dynamic happens less often since even the drunk happy version of me remembers somehow the deeply unpleasant experience of a hangover from last time and stops before it's too late but unfortunately, every now and then the lesson has to be re-learned.
If the simulation is actually perfect, then it isn't a simulation anymore and whatever would have been unethical in a non-simulated context would still be unethical.
At this point I'm wondering if any one has ever actually played this game or if it even really exists. Everyone hates that shit and it's so over the top. They don't let the people they sponsor put any kind of a spin on it either it's just this completely alien and obnoxiously long diatribe where you can just about see the creator blinking in Morse code.
People are posting a lot of maybe more rational reasons, but I think there's another answer that's more in line with just being a human. Airports suck, air travel, generally, sucks and the whole process is riddle with both intentional and also just unavoidable misery. Every time a new step in the sequence of unpleasant and boring steps that is air travel nears, we start to anticipate it and get anxious to move on to that next step in the process. It doesn't make it faster, it likely only makes the misery arguably worse, but some times people just can't help trying to mentally hasten things even if in reality nothing is hastened at all.
Laser tag. Shit's great, the shine does get taken off somewhat when I do really well and rank top but all my opponents are small children and their parents look vaguely annoyed.
Awesome really hope this spreads to other regions.
Oh my god this perfectly describes it. It's like the main reason I read so slowly because I don't realise I'm doing that other weird kind of reading where you process and register the word but no the group of words arranged in to meaning. Suddenly I realise that started happening several pages ago and have to go back and start over.
Wow I was going to comment on how their legs look they have boners but uh... never mind I guess.
OK so it's a law banning semi automatic weapons, and also a ban on the censorship of books (more or less), NOT a law banning semi automatic weapons and a law censoring books in libraries. That was a rollercoaster from reading the unfortunate title and then the article clarifying.
I think what's really coming through in recent times aided well by Musk, is how profoundly average these billionaire geniuses really are, despite their extraordinary lives.
This wouldn't be such a bad thing, after all, you or I aren't typically judged in the same way for being just ordinary and it might even be comforting that they're just people after all, but the problem is that we've geared up society in such a way where they're basically king's (and I choose Kings, not Queens deliberately).
The positions they hold demand great people, even a good person will not suffice. If we're to have these demi-gods profoundly influencing society they'd better be something special. In the past, there was an idea cultivated that royalty were divine representatives, in the modern context they create a similar myth of genius expertise that is manifest and evident because of their wealth, but sadly the reality appears to be that they're special for being wealthy, not wealthy because they're special.
This doesn't bode well in a society that allows billionaires to exist.
Was it meant to make money? I mean, I think it's just basically like old fashioned campaigning materials and propaganda, it's just taking on the new interactive dimensions of social media and the perpetual campaigning of modern politics that Trump particularly is known for. Really it's "profit" would be measured in outcomes rather than dollars, just as ad campaigns track numbers.
This honestly looks fine. (Assuming this is before the dishwasher has run). There's not like solid chunks of food or anything just the actual stuff that you own a dishwasher to wash off for you so you don't have to. The configuration of the dishes is haphazard and chaotic but if you want to fit a lot of dishes it usually ends up that way. The cup and cup like vessels not being upside down is a problem but for the most part things are upside down or on their side as they should be. I want the dishwasher to wash dishes for me not the other way around. If you get the occasional dish after a cycle that hasn't completely cleaned you have to wash it yourself, which sucks, but that doesn't always happen so there's a reasonable chance you won't have to, and when it does happen, it's still way cleaner than it was so you're talking a cursory fix up of very few dishes. I'd take that over rinsing each and every one every time or having to hand wash half the load when there's a lot of dishes in service of a neater stacking configuration that's optimal but less space efficient.
What is more mildly infuriating than reading a post complaining about someone else complaining? Adding another level!
I don't know, maybe a post complaining about people complaining about people complaining? Seriously though I didn't notice such posts. I've only seen level 1 of this rabbit hole so far with people complaining about Reddit users ruining their little club and that seemed to peter out mostly over the past 2 weeks.
This is exactly the type of thing I imagine my fellow Lemmings asking as a serious question.
At the risk of sounding like exactly what you decry, I'm going to pick on your choice of language, hopefully it will seem like it's for good enough reason. I largely sense a similar, regretful shift in the way the internet is experienced and have some mixed feelings about it, but I would be very cautious in using a term like 'enslaved'. When you choose to fire up your own high-tech information device to access the publicly available internet and you don't find the experience exhilarating or thrilling, or fulfilling, in comparison to some relatively rose-tinted view of the same experience had during your childhood can you honestly say that that is similar to enslavement?
However, semantics aside, yeh it's kind of a shame some of the quirky rough around the edges character of the internet has changed a bit since it became more mainstream and since corporate participation has refined and figured out how to extract much more efficiently from it. That said, as is often said when this sentiment is expressed, the old style of web is still there, you just don't see it. Nothing stops people from hand coding a website if they want to, but it's unlikely to be the top of any given search result from Google, and we all use Google. Similarly, unlike decades past, there is just so much stuff on the web that these types of things will likely not be noticed. There's kind of a paradoxical relationship with how much more in general is available online with how much less varied our consumption of it is. Pretty much every web experience through a browser is going to start with www.google.com, either through the page itself or a default search bar and after that for many it's going to be facebook, or reddit or amazon. Out of billions of pages, it tends to come down to about 4 for most and then a smattering of other larger media presences accessed via the portal of one of those 4. It can seem like there's nothing else there in such a case and though not really true, it kind of in practice is true because you'll much less likely find someone's home made hobbyist website through major portals than you might have when by virtue of little else being available, that's what a search engine returned or word-of-mouth recommended.
How bad a thing this is, is nuanced. The web is vastly more useful than it ever was, although the forces at work that made it so seem to be engaging in cannabilising themselves and one another and crippling their own utility in the never ending quest for more profit. I miss some of the feel of the earlier web, although when I was coming of age and using it heavily in the early 2000s, it was very well established already so I don't have quite the same basis of comparison as someone who might have used it throughout the 80s or 90s. I think I have detected something of a shift away from the 'edgy' persona adopted by most on forums, but then it's hard to separate my usage and interests at the time from the general web itself. I think, for one thing, there still remained even in the early 2000s, a nicheness and 'geek' culture to those who spent time on forums that tended to skew the demographic towards teenage boys although I have no evidence for this, this has gone unless you seek it out. I personally haven't really had too much of a problem with shunning and banning, in fact that type of thing tended to happen more in my earliest web experiences where there seemed to be more places that had issues with swearing, however I have seen a similar puritanical streak that results in this. However I've only really perceived that on major platforms as they've reached their stage of the life cycle where they can cash-in and must become investor and advertiser friendly. That arc, a more recent arc in my opinion does match what you're saying but I view that more of a change in how those specific platforms rather than the web itself operate. So it's harder now than maybe 5-10 years ago to speak your mind with little to no consequence or backlash on a major platform whose reach and influence amplifies that opinion to millions and millions of people. I think you have about the same capacity to speak your mind now as you ever did on the web, but lost the ability to use corporate machinery to do it and not also expect human beings to react to it and to even be silenced when doing so flies against the interests of the owners of the corporate machinery.
I hadn't heard of that idea as yet. He's not generally well liked, given his position and personal role and the enshittification process of Reddit and generally entitled attitude possessed of many similarly wealthy people. I mean put more simply he certainly seems to be a dick, but I hadn't heard he was in some way associated with Nazism. What did he do?
This is disturbing. I wanted to know more so I googled it but I found nothing. Where did you hear this?
What's LEV?
When I was a kid, my family took a tour bus of many sights. I think this was near Stonehenge though it's all kind of blurred together into so many various monuments and settlements.
The bus stopped for people to get out and stretch their legs but gave us just 5 min. I desperately, desperately needed to piss. I was like seconds away from wetting myself so I gladly took the opportunity to go pee.
It was open ground everywhere, the tourists from the bus were all around and I didn't want to pee in front of everyone. There was a field nearby of tallish grass just about up to my waist. I thought that might offer some privacy but as I walked in I realised it was still pretty public so I began running further in since my bladder was about to explode. I ran and ran and ran until I decided it was enough and came to a sudden halt.
I looked down as I prepared to unzip and saw that the spot I'd randomly chosen to stop running was one footstep away from a deep, open concrete shaft full of some kind of agricultural slurry at the bottom. Completely impossible to see through the grass, no signage and no protective grating, no obvious way to have climbed out. At the distance I was from the tour group no one would have heard me yelling for help.
After recognising how close this stupid shaft had come to claiming my life, I duly pissed in it. The tour group were already getting in the bus after barely 3 min had passed and I had to run back. I couldn't quite accurately describe what had happened or how close things had come so no one seemed that perturbed by my dice with death in a pit of slurry.
The thing I've always found confusing is how American terminology as far as I can make out seems to almost always say "fry" to mean what I would always specify as "deep frying" and "sauteing" where I would usually say "fry". I think this is a Commonwealth countries thing and not just me. "Saute", to me had always seemed a kind of unusually fancy affectation for people working in restaurants with the average person eschewing it for the term "fry" until I started using YouTube and Google for recipes and got exposed to so much American material that I discovered they make these distinctions. I guess there's technical distinctions in how much oil you use in the pan (until the point of immersion where it's deep frying) but that seems much of a muchness.
Confusingly though I notice Americans seem to also sometimes use "fry" the way I would, but just sometimes. Eggs for example are "fried" but this is usually not meaning dropped in to a deep fryer. And then there's the confusion over the meaning of "grilling" vs "broiling" because as far as I can tell the term "broil" isn't used where I'm from and the the device Americans call a "broiler" is what we'd call a "grill" and things cooked under it are "grilled". I believe the American use of "grill" is referring to a shape of ridged cooking surface but then you get "grilled cheese" which I'd called "cheese on toast" or a "cheese toastie" which involves putting the sandwich in to a flat frying pan and which involves neither a broiler nor a ridged cooking surface and isn't referred to as sauteing nor frying. Then there's "griddled" which I think again is referring to a particular shape of cooking surface but given "grill" I just don't know.
Definitely some interesting variations within mostly shared vocabulary.
Yeh that definitely sucks they've rigged it up in a way that's unusual for this type of work and also forces you in to this situation. Redirecting is good and probably your best option, canny and sensitive people will notice you doing this and take it for the hint that it is but dense or uncaring people will probably carry on steering things in to places you don't want to go. If you're forced to eat with them then yes redirecting the conversation will work up to a point but it is a subtle skill to do so non-obviously. It's hard to advise specifically what to say like a script, though I would say if you just totally ignore the question altogether and switch topic very bluntly it's going to come across strange and prompt confusion and questioning. You'll need to somehow maintain the initial thread of their topic as lip service and then turn off down an unrelated avenue fairly smoothly. It's what politicians do professionally. Reading the other responses to your post I think they've got some really good ideas on how to deal with this if you really get forced in to conversing against your will. It's a subtle art of contributing basically nothing and rephrasing their same question back to them. I think another commenter suggested something along the lines of "I don't know much about that what about you?" and similarly bland and useless resonses. This is friendly enough not to piss anyone off and lame enough to be totally uninteresting which hopefully invites little follow up. If they continue on their original track, you can combine this with seguing to another topic.
I didn't suggest this to you initially because it doesn't sound like your natural style and I think advice is best if it allows the recipient to handle things mostly in their own way while helping to avoid pitfalls in doing so. I guess you'll have to navigate this daily frustration in a way a little outside of your comfort zone by carefully appearing to engage whilst really not and hopefully they'll find you so boring they don't bother anymore. Hopefully you don't mind this giving the impression that you're a boring person to the remaining 50% of your peers that don't bother you so much but sometimes it's a necessary evil.