Figure out what you'd be doing if you didn't have to earn a salary, spend six months doing a side-project and/or contributing to a related libre-software project in this area.
Chances are you'll make new friends in the process and, in my experience, chances are that new friends will lead to new job opportunities.
Caveat: This is not a lucrative strategy, but it is a sustainable strategy.
Listening is indeed the hardest thing to do if your organization's metrics places immense pressure on you to be (or at least appear to be) the smartest person in the room.
Luckily there are other organizations out there that encourage kindness rather than penalizing it.
Only catch is, you probably won't make it through the first interview if you don't start practicing being kind right where you are. Soft skills are hard and take sustained effort to internalize.
It’s not insufferable if it’s silent. In the case of iTerm, the reaction of the vocal minority was atrocious, and completely entitled towards an amazing open source maintainer
I find private equity's enthusiasm adorable but the temporary hiatus on anti-trust enforcement that first gained momentum during the Reagan era is no longer in effect.
Some expensive lessons are about to be learnt.
(assuming democratic governance remains in effect, otherwise all bets are off)
Treating everyone as if they were engaging in good faith is equally not a good approach to discourse. I get where you're coming from but the system you're proposing creates a situation where it's cheaper to pollute the discourse than the consequences you face for polluting the discourse.
> Treating everyone as if they were engaging in good faith is equally not a good approach to discourse.
In fact, it is the best approach to discourse, and the only one that does not impugn one's own credibility. It is correct to presume that everyone is arguing in good faith unless and until they make it explicit that they are arguing in bad faith.
> I get where you're coming from but the system you're proposing creates a situation where it's cheaper to pollute the discourse than the consequences you face for polluting the discourse.
You're misunderstanding. You're not 'polluting the discourse' by having bad motivations for making your arguments, because your motivations per se are not part of the discourse. Someone who has a bad motive for making a correct argument is still making a correct argument.
One only 'pollutes the discourse' by making bad arguments, but those arguments can be challenged for being bad arguments in themselves, which must be done prior to questioning motives.
Only when someone has (a) made a provably bad argument, and then (b) revealed that their bad argument was deliberately made in pursuit of an ulterior purpose, is it proper to criticize their intentions.
Until that point has been reached, challenging people's motives instead of refuting the substance of their arguments is itself an instance of arguing in bad faith.
Yes well… I can see where the confusion would arise if we believed keeping foreign policy unchanged and just calling it globalization would somehow align the values.
- When the goal of medicine is profit instead of helping patients the outcomes will be poor.
- When the goal of education is profit instead of teaching students the outcomes will be poor.
- When the goal of politics is profit instead of collaboration the outcomes will be poor.
- When the goal of business is political, educational or medicinal the outcomes will be poor.
Generic formulation:
Any attempt to apply a metric that works in one context to the entire system will result in poor outcomes.