This blog pranks you with changing titles when you switch tabs (some nsfw), then welcomes you back with a paragraph inciting you to disable Javascript. That's nice, but I actually need Javascript in my browser to do real stuff.
It's like 3 lengthy paragraphs that don't even get to the point until the end. The writing wasn't particularly good in the first place, so I just closed the tab when I saw that.
I felt just a tiny bit violated by that. Why does this person care about whether I have JS enabled? What’s the term for author’s affliction? Militant techno-minimalism?
The cynicism is also pretty strong, in the first call-out, asking HN audience to jump to the TLDR, because?
> Don’t trash your employer, nor respond if they do. If they start that, say “I’m sorry, I can imagine why you’d feel that way, but I can’t continue this conversation.”
This is so bizarre. I would show a huge lack of empathy as well.
> Don’t feel like you have continue the conversation if they respond. You can if you want, but don’t feel obligated.
You: Sorry you got laid off. I'll miss chatting about your family.
Them: I understand why they did it, but this is tough. I've got a kid in college and another graduating high school this year. Hopefully I'll be able to find something in a few months. Know of anyone that's hiring?
Author here. I was trying to walk the line between two concepts in tension:
* you want to treat your former co-worker as a human being. That's the whole point of the post.
* it can be scary or shameful to reach out to someone who was just let go. You wonder things like "why them and not me, what did they do wrong, what if they react negatively, I'm busy with other stuff, oh man, is my job at risk". (The caveat here is of course that those who remain still have income and so the burden is worse for the laid off.)
This is why I think some folks don't do this simple, humane, outreach. But they should. So I was trying to address the latter worry.
I doubt most conversations go negative (as I mentioned, I've never had them do so). I wanted to give permission to people to reach out because that is important but also permission to stop the conversation if it reached a point they didn't feel comfortable.
I am sure I could have phrased it better.
W/r/t your example, I think most folks who sent the first message you suggest would respond. I think I would.
Your phrasing in that post reads like boilerplate neutered corporate-speak, of the kind you'd get from some HR parasite instead of another fellow co-worker who might actually give half a shit about your misfortune. To start, describing their being fired as "parting ways" would be flat out insulting enough to toss the whole thing into the trash folder.
Also, "Don’t feel like you have continue the conversation if they respond. You can if you want, but don’t feel obligated."
Then what's the point of saying anything if it's just a meaningless single token of HR-speak sludge? better to not even write in the first place.
I think the point there was that, deciding in advance that you don't necessarily have to continue the conversation can unblock you from sending the mail in the first place. Thinking "if they reply back and say XYZ I wouldn't know how to respond" can be a reason people might not get in touch like TFA is suggesting.
I actually got an email like from an old co-worker after I was fired. It was done much in the vein of the advice in this post. It was short, friendly, and made no pretence about staying in touch. I gave a short, friendly response and that was that. I gotta say I actually really did appreciate it, and still do. Of course, I wasn’t exactly upset about being fired so I don’t know if this counts.
Agreed. The blog post starts off fairly well, with step 1 to being a good human being, but pivots ironically at the end to a list of ways not be a human being.
It feels more like how to do the minimum possible without doing absolutely nothing.
You might have been interested in continuing the conversation if the other person didn't descend into trash-talking first. I think that's the message the author is trying to convey.
But I agree with you that "I can't continue this conversation" is probably not the best way to respond, even in that case.
This person has been let go and you're reaching out _to them_.
If you don't care about the person and their emotions, don't say anything. Nobody else will know otherwise (other than the person you clearly don't actually care about). Feigning care is sometimes worse than just clearly not caring at all.
This isn't bad advise if the wording wasn't so robotic.
You can empathise with someone for being upset without contributing to further the discussion. In situations like this I normally redirect... So if I received a message like, "I'm really mad at X-Corp and Mr Bossman, I can't believe they got rid of Joe!", I'd probably reply, "it's sad, I hope he's doing alright".
As long as you're not saying "yeah, f** Bossman!" you're probably fine.
That's obviously assuming you want to avoid trashing your employer... I find these events are often times for reflection. It's okay to be critical if you feel strongly, but you should do that in a professional and productive way. But if something happens which you strongly disagree with then you have a responsibility to do what you think is right, sometimes at personal cost.
> As long as you're not saying "yeah, f* Bossman!" you're probably fine.
You're probably fine saying "yeah, f** Bossman!" too. What are they going to do, read your personal emails and then fire you too for expressing emotion over layoffs?
I didn't say it was made by an LLM, though, did I? I actually said it is written like a prompt for an LLM by someone trying to ape what they see as human behaviours. It comes across as spectacularly facile and worthless.
<<Reference shared memory. Highlight future possibilities or collaborations>>
Yeah, an empathetic person would understand how and why the person is feeling the way they are and acknowledge it. There can be of course legal repercussions to going off on your employer, but even a "yeah, that's now how I would have done it myself", etc can show that you actually do care.
If somebody you know was dumped recently and is saying negative things about their ex, it's perfectly fine to "agree" or commiserate while they process and go through the stages of grief (ignoring any issues like their ex being family, etc).
The author reads to me like one of those perennial "think positive thoughts only" people that think that'll get them success.
Obviously I wouldn't resort to mere ad hominem, but we should call a spade a spade. If someone's trashing their employer, more likely than not, they are probably speaking the truth; unlike most who go along to get along. Corporations, at the end of the day, are sociopaths, and I'm not going to pass down their lack of empathy by proxy with toxic positivity.
> If someone's trashing their employer, more likely than not, they are probably speaking the truth
Oddly, this has not been my experience. People bitter about being let go tend to project just as much as anyone else suffering from intense negative emotions, and they tend to gloss over their own contributions in doing so (assuming the termination isn't part of a mass layoff).
At the end of the day, I agree that toxic positivity isn't helping anyone, but it's also better (imho) to not feed unconstructive negativity. If they need to vent, let them vent, then pivot.
Naming a phenomenon "collapse" doesn't make it more interesting than it actually is. This article showcases nothing substantial, and the author often admits themselves that the findings aren't findings and are easily explainable.
Yeah, just like privatised utilities that operator solely for the profits of execs and investors with a complete disregard for regulations or best practices only to hide behind govt not regulating enough when things eventually go wrong.
You can get your drinking water from a utility, or you can get bottled water. Guess which one he's gonna be selling?
And if you think for a second that the "utility" models will be trained on data as pristine as the data that the "bottled" models will be trained on, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. (The "utility" models will not even have any access to all of the "secret sauce" currently being hoarded inside these labs.)
Essentially we can all expect to go back to the Lexis-Google type dichotomy. You can go into court on Google searches, nothing's stopping you. But nearly everyone will pay for LexisNexis because they're not idiots and they actually want to compete.
Hi there,
This is Umit, the maker of Agnost. I think you are right it can be confusing. By container we actually mean resources such as deployments, statefulsets, cronjobs. It is not related to containers in a pod.
Parent is referring to Agnost's own concept of Containers, which are a different concept and further overloading the term. I agree with their take that this is confusing. Your Agnost Container is an abstraction over several K8S abstractions over actual containers.
https://agnost.dev/guides/containers/
Strictly speaking, k8s deployments describe a number of pods, and pods describe a number of containers. So creating a deployment in k8s could result in the creation of many containers as a result.
reply