I have not done a scientific study, but I am pretty sure that if I eat three Denny's meals per day and do no exercise, I will become obese.
Well maybe you would, but are you saying that *anyone* would? The science (and many of our experiences) would indicate that the answer is "no".
I'll give my anecdotal evidence. When I was 16-20 years old, I would eat an astounding amount of food. I could eat anything. In one meal, I would eat a whole chicken, a side of fries, a big piece of cake for dessert, and drink 48 oz of soda while doing it. It makes me a little ill now just to think about it. And that would be after eating a Big Mac, large fries, and a milkshake for lunch. It didn't even seem like a lot to me then. And you know what? I was really skinny. 6'1" tall, and 140 lbs. I did no exercise.
Then at 20 years old, I put on 50 lbs in something like 8 months. I still wasn't fat, really. I just wasn't super-skinny anymore. And I hadn't changed my exercise or diet. Then I stayed at 190lbs for about 5 years. How much I ate seemed to have no effect on my weight. I could eat like I did when I as 18, and I stayed 190 lbs. I could spend a month eating half as much food, and I would stay 190 lbs. After those 5 years, though, not changing my exercise or diet, I started putting on weight and got up around 206, and I started feeling a little pudgy. I cut *way* back on my caloric intake-- like I ate half as much as I used to-- and I started exercising quite a lot, which brought me down to about 198-200lbs, which is where I am today.
Wanting to get back down to 190, I've tried starving myself and working out a lot. Eating much less and leaving myself hungry made me feel much worse on a daily basis, but I didn't lose any weight. Working out made me feel much better and look better, but again, I didn't lose weight. The only time I've dipped below 200 lbs was during a stint of unemployment for a few months, when I lost 5 lbs. I was eating more calories, not watching my diet at all, and not particularly exercising more. My theory is that it had something to do with the fact that I was relaxed and happy, instead of being miserable at work all the time.
I don't know what the structure of your company is, but many of the larger companies i've worked for has had some kind of 'complaints department', although that was never what it was called. In one company, if you saw something bad happened, you went to the CEO's assistant. In another company, it was the head of HR. I don't think any of this was officially stated, but people generally knew, if you're having a serious problem, this is person is the release valve. It's the person who you go to and say, "I don't want to go over my boss's head, but...," or "I don't know who to talk to about this, but..."
In a big bureaucratic company, they should have some person, or some kind of mechanism, for complaints about your own boss that isn't breaking the chain of command. They might not be able to fix the problem, but they might be able to give you advice on what to do, from the perspective of someone who knows your company.
I understand that schizophrenia is eminently treatable with medication, though the severe side effects often discourage its use.
My understanding, not from being a doctor but by having some very close interaction with schizophrenics and their treatment, is that it is "treatable" with medication, depending on what you mean by "treatable". There are medications that may stop the hallucinations and allow the sufferer to... sort of control their own behavior better. But that still doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be "normal". It's more like you're bringing someone from "oh my god, what am I going to do with this crazy person?" to "huh, that guy is a bit too crazy to lead a normal life, but I can deal with him," without every really getting to "he's just a normal guy."
I feel like the medications for mental illness often help control the symptoms without really solving the problem, though admittedly I have only anecdotal experience.
There are numerous examples of countercultures throughout our fairly recent history that were investigated by the authorities, and it was bad enough without those people having to particularly worry about involuntary confinement attributed to supposed mental illness.
I think this is the big problem. Lots of people imagine asylums being used to lock up political opponents, but that's not terrifically likely in a way that I would worry about. In short, if one political party has enough power to simply lock up political opponents, then they're going to do that somehow or another. Issues of cost, as well as issues of whether the system would actually benefit the mentally ill, are less of a fundamental concern-- they're both bound up in how well the system is executed rather than in an inherent issue.
I think the bigger problem is, the definition of 'mental illness' is still a bit sketchy. It wasn't so long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Are people who engage in extensive body modification mentally ill? I kind of think that maybe they are, but I wouldn't feel comfortable labeling them that in a legally binding way.
I know I went through some times in my own life where I was terrifically unhappy. People kept telling me that I was depressed and I needed to be on medication, but nobody seemed to be willing to consider that I had *reason* to be unhappy. Nobody seemed willing to consider that some of the behavior that they didn't like, that those behaviors were just part of my personality, and I didn't want to medicate myself until my personality went away.
Well of course, it may be that you can't get a good answer to that question until your employees use it enough to formulate complaints.
One of the key factors in the idea of "eating your own dog food" is to be responsive to feedback from those eating the dog food. The idea is that, if you're using your own product then you have both a better understanding of what needs to be changed and a greater motivation to change it. The problem with some "eat your own dog food situations" is sometimes the directive down from the boss is not "eat our own dog food and tell us how to improve it," but instead "eat our own dog food and you had better like it!"
Some of this would hinge on what you consider to be "mental illness". Does the job cause people with perfect mental health (as though there are any of those) to suddenly develop schizophrenia? You're not going to find evidence of that. If someone did suddenly develop schizophrenia, you'd also be able to find other precursors and contributing factors in that person's past. However, stress and emotional trauma can be contributory factors to all kinds of things that may be considered "mental illness".
So the trick is not finding evidence of a particular individual who has suffered due to a job. That's easy. Most jobs cause stress and emotional trauma. The trick is in determining whether the stress and emotional trauma of Amazon jobs somehow cross a line, and reach a level of *unacceptable* stress and emotional trauma. Where do you draw that line?
TV news and the 24 hour news cycle seemed to have seriously sidelined written journalism, and when nobody reads you can't have an idea that doesn't take 30 seconds to deliver, especially if there's not a picture.
Let's not forget the Internet. The Internet opened the door for amateur activist journalism in a way that was not previously possible, but it has also almost killed print journalism, which had been where a lot of our "serious news" was coming from.
The answer is: there isn't really investigative journalism anymore. Journalists mostly deliver the news as presented to them in press releases.
Lots of people would like to attribute this to malice and corruption, or else stupidity and laziness. Unfortunately, a big component of the problem is much harder to address: there isn't any money in providing news. Traditional news outlets are struggling to maintain revenue channels. Newspapers are going under, and TV news is mostly focused on tabloid news, because that's what people watch.
More than anything else, the poor quality of journalism is our own fault. We're getting the news that we choose to watch and choose to pay for.
If not USING your PC is your idea of IT, I'm glad I dont' work w/ you!
Using it and doing silly hacks and customizations are not the same thing. It's fun to compile all your Linux binaries with non-standard tweaks, reskin everything, and customize the hell out of your computer when you're 12 years old and just learning. When you really want computers to work reliably, you have to consider that every non-standard tweak is another chance for something stupid to go wrong. To a certain extent, it's a trade-off: hacks and customizations vs. stability and reliability. Sometimes it's worth the trade-off. For most people most of the time, it isn't.
And keep in mind, I'm not talking about normal/supported customization. You want to change the background wallpaper or cursor? Great. If you want to install some freeware thingy that gives you whacky animated wallpaper and cursors? There's a decent chance it's malware. If not, it's probably going to break at some point, if you're lucky enough that it's not going to break something else.
Somethings make work easier, like AutoHotKey. The later, I only use every now (not even quarterly?) and then to create rapid text macros needed for doing manual manipulation of >20 records at a time. A rarity, but it saves hours!
Great. So that's a useful tool that improves your productivity. You use it. I said, "Don't have more software installed on your system than you use." So that counts as "software you use".
Like many I've used photoXXXX, (including bump mapping, texturizing, Masking, Merging multiple layers, color replacements, etc... not making Memes) but I don't use PhotoXXXX on a regular basis, maybe 2x a year. Should I uninstall / re-install that every time?
No, I'm saying don't install or uninstall software any more than you need to. If you use it, install it once, and keep it patched and up to date. Don't install it unless you have a reason to do so. Don't uninstall it unless you have a reason to do so. It may be almost a superstition with me, but for most of the computers I've seen over my career that have been well and truly fucked, to the point of needing to be reformatted and reinstalled from scratch, it's because someone has been installing, uninstalling, and reinstalling a bunch of crapware, screwing around with settings, and trying to "optimize" it in some way.
And this isn't an "IT vs. users" thing. I'm talking to IT people too. Don't customize things more than you need to. Don't install crap that people won't use. Keep it simple.
You are asking what makes me uninstall apps, but I think the bigger question is, what makes me not uninstall apps. I don't install a lot of apps, and with most apps that I try out, I immediately remove them.
There's a simple pattern to what makes me keep an app: It does something distinctly useful in a way that doesn't annoy me at all. If it crashes on me repeatedly, it's gone. If it doesn't integrate well into my OS or it conflicts with other apps, it's gone. If it's slow or hard to use, or confusing, then I probably won't keep it. If it doesn't do anything that makes my life significantly easier, I won't keep it for very long.
I've been doing IT for a long time, and there are three big recommendations I would make for keeping your system in good shape:
- Don't run open attachments or run programs from websites that you don't know what they are.
- Don't use silly hacks. In fact, don't change the default settings unless you have a real reason to do it.
- Don't have more software installed on your system than you use. Try not to install any software than you need to.
Yours is not a "more obvious and powerful truth". In fact, it already assumes the first of my viewpoints, that people who do better things are going to be more successful. If you are powerless to effect your own future, then your motive to act is irrelevant.
I'm not saying that the first viewpoint is wrong, but I'm not saying it's right either. I would like to point out that:
(a) it is a viewpoint that you're being sold, force fed all the time, by various people
(b) It is a viewpoint that will be stronger among the wealthy and powerful
(c) It's a viewpoint that benefits the wealthy and powerful to convince us all of, because it tells us that they're wealthy and powerful because they deserve it
(d) The "power of positive thinking" is likely to be a successful meme, since people are more likely to spread that idea than the alternative. That is, if you think you can change things with thinking, then you're likely to keep thinking it and spread the thought to other people. If you don't believe that, then there's no motivation to spread your ideas to others.
(e) The success of a meme is not necessarily an indicator of its truth
If you want to know what I think, it's that the "truth" is significantly more complicated than either of these viewpoints would indicate. The degree of control we have over our own futures is very unclear, and probably extremely variable. Some of us probably have much more control than others, but it depends on what you consider to be "control".
Agreed. Doing this well would not necessarily require a 20% layoff in every group. It should, for example, take into account the individual team's relevance to overall business plans-- i.e. the team working on the flagship product should probably have fewer layoffs than people working on a floundering product that may be discontinued in the near future.
I'm not saying it's the worst problem. Going back to my metaphor:
It's like a man coming into your house, pissing all over your rug, and then saying he's struggling to figure out how he can improve your property value. Maybe start by not pissing on my rug anymore?
Now maybe this man is a carpenter, and he can fix your roof and refinishing your basement and do all kinds of things to fix up your house. And ultimately, pissing on your rug is probably not the biggest issue in your house. It can be cleaned up. The rug can be tossed and replaced. It's not the biggest deal. But still, if you're trying to fix up the house, stopping your habit of pissing on the rug is probably a good place to start.