Readit NewsNot taking advantage of someone else's generosity.
If that's not good enough, don't think the someone else doesn't notice being taken advantage of. They won't say anything, but in the future you may be "overlooked" for other opportunities.
One would think that the employer would recognize or remember this kind of “sacrifice.” Or that, somehow, asking for less money will lead to a more sympathetic judgment of what was accomplished. But my experience and that of many others I have observed tells me that this rarely happens.
Those who pay, pay what they can and always ask for the best that can be done. My advice is to accept business class when it is offered and to negotiate with vigor in every aspect of your professional life.
following older narratives of gender dynamics it would commonly be thought that the wife wanted it, because hey, Vanity Fair! and got the husband to go along.
I am baffled that this serious misstep has been forgotten so quickly, but as I wrote in another comment, what you do plays a secondary role in how you are perceived; the main role is to show where you stand, whether that stand is supported by actions or not. Declare yourself anti-fascist, and any criticism of you and your policies will be interpreted as fascist.
The spiritually inclined tech founder is a common archetype/personality of the post-2000 tech boom, and I found the point the article was making, i.e. that his was a shameless strategy, quite off base.
It is important to differentiate between a way of being (e.g., introvert/extrovert, more or less affected by criticism), a goal, a strategy, and a tactic. An excellent read for those topics is "Winners", by Alastair Campbell, which surprisingly few people in tech, and I dare to say in politics too, have read.
Trump's strategy works because it/he has all the elements to do so. Has he ever offered apologies? Never. He always moves forward: the past is the past. From an appearance standpoint, he offers an easy target for his rivals. But why hasn't anyone hit him, or when they have, why have they missed the mark? Because it's not in their nature, it is not them, they would not be consistent, it would be a one-off, not a strategy, but just an expedient tactic.
It is more difficult to determine whether a shameless proactive strategy, such as Trump's (harshly criticizing others' physical appearance, openly bullying less powerful peers) would work for others. It has proven to be unexpectedly successful for him. However, it is consistent with his personality. A similar strategy might not work for Macron, given the stark gap between his traditionally presidential demeanor and a Trump-like shameless political and personal strategy.
If you've read James Baldwin you can recognize how powerful it is for him to say that.
"I love my partner more than any other person in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize them perpetually".
Why doesn't my sentence work, except for the lunatic? Because America is not a person or an object, it is an idea and praxis. He loves the idea, but perpetually criticizes the praxis.
But I find it inappropriate to use the pronoun “she/her,” as Baldwin does. It is an “it,” an idea/praxis (in this case, in other cases it can also be a geographical location).
Yes, but https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/artificial-intelligence...
Nine years ago, scientist Geoffrey Hinton famously said, “People should stop training radiologists now,” believing it was “completely obvious” AI would outperform human rads within five years.
If we expect a technology to completely solve a problem as soon as it is launched, only a few in history could be considered a success. Can you imagine what it would be like if the first radios were considered a failure because you couldn't listen to music?
A more curious case, although it became prominent years after this post was published, is that of the Bidens. Their son Hunter was a big liability, and even the most staunch Democrats, if they thought about it outside the context of the cultural battle between right and left, would have admitted it. But by all accounts, the whole issue became entangled in the cultural battle between left and right, and people took sides depending on where their vote was going.
The same thing happened in Italy with Berlusconi and his interest in younger women whom he paid to have sex with him. He neither explained nor justified his behavior much (just dinner with friends, he said: can I relax the way I want after long days of work?), and the subject became one of many that his friends and enemies discussed daily.
Zelensky allowed himself and his wife to appear in what I consider to be an incredibly misguided and glamorous photo shoot published in Vanity Fair, a shameless strategy, but he had cover from criticism, as any criticism of the photo shoot would have been interpreted as openly siding with Putin.
But shamelessness doesn’t always save you. Strauss-Kahn, a prominent figure in French and European politics up until some 15-20 years ago, failed to weather the storm, but not because of his infidelity or his passion for escorts, but because he, a socialist, had treated some immigrants and low-status people with vicious contempt (in addition to allegations of sexual misconduct). If it had been just about the escorts or vanilla misconduct, the shameless strategy would probably have worked (after all, who doesn't like escorts?).
Although it is always a matter of circumstances, I believe that the shameless strategy works for people of very low status, who do not fear criticism because they have little to lose, or for those of high status, especially when they manage to make it seem normal, that it has always been done, but that it has now become a problem because their enemies want to make it so, for political, financial, or cultural reasons. For mid-level managers in the tech industry, on average, it doesn't work very well.
The dog shit maybe you'll do something about, and maybe you'll call the cops over the slap, but I don't see how you're going to stop the farting. Maybe ask for another seat, or trade with someone. Or bring a mask on board. Or, barring that, maybe try to use your mind to diffuse the uncomfortable feeling. But otherwise you are just sitting in your own discomfort, feeling miserable. That's the point i'm making. You don't have to be miserable.
I don't share your passive acceptance of being treated like a fool by other people. There is not a single normal person in the world saying, "You know what, what we need now is somebody farting here". As the British leader said: "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty".
Real change happens when people refuse to accept the erosion of their freedom and stand up against the abuses of others. Sometimes it is possible; other times, such as when it is not possible to identify the abuser, it is not, and we must carry on, but I hold close to my heart my right to indignation.
As I wrote before, many parallels can be drawn; it is not just about somebody gassing the other passengers on a plane. For example, using Bluetooth speakers in public spaces.
I recall that at work, I had a colleague who would put their bare feet on the desk, next to another colleague's. I told the affected colleague, who seemed reluctant to take a stand: "You tell them to put their feet down, get the respect you deserve". In the end, according to your Zen way of life, who cares? What are you gonna do, cut their feet? But I don't think I was wrong.