I think it might be D. Your website has a whole section on why not to hire you. One of the things is not to hire you if “I need approval,” and then there’s a pull quote roughly saying you tell it how it is. That’s all well and good as something to value about yourself, but it reads to me like you’re an asshole. I don’t know you- I don’t think YOU think you’re an asshole- but if you’re trying to get hired then I think I’d take a look at the “don’t hire me” section and figure out what you can compromise on. It sounds like you wanna stay near your kids- that seems very doable. Maybe you could work with an agency for a bit. Maybe you can find the space between yes man and firebrand. Just my two cents- good luck!
I think I lead with that level of transparency because I find corporate interactions incredibly inefficient/difficult and I'm trying to filter out managers and speak directly to founders and engineers, or people that aren't put off or threatened by self-knowledge or honesty. But you're right.. like I shouldn't complain about not getting picked up when I'm literally turning people away.
Yeah, exactly. I really mean what I said- I respect this value. And usually I think filtering out people you don’t want to work with is wise. But the more you want work the more you should loosen the filters
As a programmer, I think your reaction is most people’s reaction- it’s ok but if I want good work I have to retrace its steps. Many programmers I know use AI, but our work isn’t scrutinized like I imagine a lawyers would be. Software breaking is on the rise, accountability in tech is on the decline, so using AI is all upside since no one checks any more if users actually like and use the product.
Your definition of good parenting appears to be mostly about not getting divorced. I’m sure many of us know people whose parents stuck together and were bad parents- I know I do. I think this definition is lacking pretty considerably.
There are good reasons for getting divorced. At the same time, a lot of divorce is just low impulse control people making bad decisions or lacking the social skills to be able to overcome difficult situations. And those people are generally not very good parents, divorce being a symptom of the underlying problem rather than a cause.
The fact that you believe this is what forces me to conclude the answer for my family is to move somewhere where people share our values (c.f. our other discussion). If we can't even have people agree that an intact family is critically important, then what's the point in trying to find solutions to other problems, many of which are downstream of broken families? It's a fool's errand.
(and then weirdly, when I leave, I'm "pulling the ladder up." Shouldn't it be good riddance to me? Since I'm wrong and simply bigoted, of course)
I think, believe, that having two parents is better than one parent for a child. In the same way that having some number of grand parents and aunts and uncles and other relatives is also probably better. More relatives, generally speaking, means access to more resources and more resources for children strongly correlates to being richer later in life.
I don't believe that having one "good" parent and one abusive parent is better than having just a single good parent.
Some kids don't get to have two loving parents. What is supposed to happen to them? It's certainly not their fault.
Like, I'm challenging your values here and your response is "well I'll just leave" and you act like this is what I want.
It's not what I want. I want people to care and more crucially do stuff for their community/society/culture/nation/whatever. I want people to work together to raise everyone's standard of living.
It's like building wheel chair ramps everywhere and then discovering that, hey, ramps are also really useful if you're trying to push a baby carriage or wheel some luggage around or even just move up a level with really bad knees.
Having one parent is probably better than two where one is abusive, yes. But personally I set my bar for "good parent" quite a bit higher than "doesn't abuse their child." Did the abusive parent get a brain tumor or suffer a stroke causing a sudden personality change? Or could anyone with an IQ over 70 see that they were a garbage person from a mile away from their neck tattoos, previous child, and advertised marijuana use (real example of a glaringly obvious situation I watched of an intentional pregnancy between an unwed couple that lasted for 2 months after the kid was born)? Like I said in the other thread, a lot of trashy people will very openly broadcast that fact, including proudly calling themselves trashy. It is a real culture. You do not want this to rub off on your kids.
I think I made it clear with my "we moved somewhere nice" that that's not what I'd like either. It's not a kid's fault that their family sucks. But it's not every other kid's fault either. Schools should do what they can to discipline these kids (generally, they don't). But they also need to still teach the kids who did have loving parents instead of spending all available resources on the kids who didn't, and likely this means separating groups of kids with different needs, which they are loath to do. But it absolutely is the parents' fault. Unless someone died or suffered an extreme random personality change, that includes single parents.
You’re arguing against a strawman. Most divorce isn’t because one partner is abusive. That happens. But that’s not most of what’s happening. My wife is from a part of the country with a lot of lower income white folks, and I’ve made a lot of observations about divorce. It seems to me like much of it is people with poor impulse control making bad decisions and the lack of social structure to help guide those people to make better ones.
I believe you already correctly identified we're talking about separation/divorce, though even in the case of death, it's still going to be extraordinarily difficult to be a good parent without a lot of support.
AI does the work, it does not replace the thinking. It's like saying a tech lead in a project does not do any thinking because there's some junior dev doing tedious and boring tasks.
I'm not going to play this dissection game only to later be "checkmated" by a bunch of nerds rambling about and dogpiling onto nothing who can't see the forest for the trees. It's also replies like yours that break the illusion HN isn't full of bots.
If you don't think this entire post is hyperbole, you can at least see that it's yet another blogspam ad for MiSTer, right?
It's interesting about MiSTer. It was wedged into the article so awkwardly and suddenly that it felt like a definite advert, but it mostly said it was shit and only get it if you like frustratingly broken systems. I still think it was a reverse psychology form of an ad
reply