Ah yes, having a party = poisoning yourself with alcohol to the point of dying. We end up killing at least 1 ever year at my birthday party but that’s the price I’m willing to pay for a good rager.
If you don’t want to drink, that’s totally fine and entirely your choice. It’s not for everyone and some people simply should not consume alcohol (eg, those with a history of substance abuse problems or anger issues).
But having fun at parties with alcohol is a pretty typical part of growing up. There’s a middle ground between “staying home alone” vs “dying prematurely”. You can drink enough to have fun without it being at risk of killing you. It’s not healthy to bing drink, to be clear, but personally, I found it worth it every now and then to have some good times with friends. Just be mindful of your limits, hangout with people you trust, and always have a sober ride home.
Cory Doctorow (pluralistic.net) has a number of stories now on the concept of “enshittification”. Basically businesses start off being good to customers but eventually get to a point where, if they’re dominant the drive for endless profit results in them turning to squeezing suppliers, customers, everyone.
And the bad economics right now enforce simultaneous enshittification in a huge amount of products. I guess that might also be a big point to why it’s so apparent right now.
NA beers can be great. Lagunitas sells a Hop Water that’s pretty good too - very light though. And most high-quality ginger beers pack a lot of flavor.
For a long time I was in the “Non alcoholic beer can never replace real beer” camp. But in the last few years they’ve come a long way … and now you can buy low or no alcohol craft beers that are actually quite good.
Hop Water is insanely good. Like a citrusy, slightly bitter seltzer and usually cheaper than any NA beer that’s worth drinking. It’s quite a bit more money than any store brand seltzer though (which I would’ve recommended otherwise in either grapefruit or mango flavors for basically the same reason).
At least here in Europa NA beers have improved wo much in the last few years. I literally don’t know when I last drank one with alcohol when I just felt like drinking a beer (as opposed to when I wanted to drink alcohol).
And since OP likes it fruity, (NA) Radler/Shandy is just great. It’s 50:50 (NA) beer and lemon soda mixed. This was one of the original ways to get a fruity beer with a lower alcohol content (since the soda doesn’t have any) when NA beers weren’t good yet, great for a hot summer day.
As someone who used to have a pretty bad drinking problem, NA beers have gotten so good in the past few years. Heineken zeros are almost indistinguishable from normal ones and craft NAs have also gotten pretty good. Even though I’m not “fully sober” I mix in some non alcoholic beers if it’s going to be a long night to help pace myself.
Non alcoholic beats have gotten so good with the proliferation of reverse osmosis distilling! The previous methods ruined it.
I’d like to try getting a small reverse osmosis pump such as for survival desalination, and try doing small batch dealcoholising for more variety of wine. I’m sober now and I’m grateful for my options, but I was really into exploring before.
To be fair, I’d understand if someone don’t want to be close friends with someone with depression. In my worst days (depression and other stuff on top of it), I don’t want to be in the company of anyone either. It would be very taxing to someone wanting to be close friends with me, so yeah, I’d understand why they’d just opt out of it and stay away.
That’s fair, hurtful but fair. I’ve found that I tend to become frustrated or ashamed due to my lack of ability to help. Certainly completely blaming oneself isn’t ideal, and yet the personal investment gets me all sentimental :/
I’ll reach out and invite them and try to have talks in depth, there’s only so much one can do given the circumstances and I operate in the grey area of ‘not knowing where’ to justify the extent of my involvement. This isn’t well received by others, rightfully so, and though they’ll admit I mean well how amenable is someone to someone else who they’ve known only for a bit to their excessive interest in themselves? I try to focus on providing bits of information as that is closer to being evidence-based rather than rhetoric to persuade them but it doesn’t seem to work and I’m a bit clueless on how to continue. Working with orgs makes it much easier, I don’t like the depersonalized approach and would like to find some way to incorporate it.
Indeed. It’s really sad how it happens: someone’s depressed and is either too sad or irritated to be able to, or want to deal with anyone, which pushes people around them away—people who are in the best position to help them. Worse, while the depressed person can do something about it, the depression makes it hard to do anything about it! The path of least resistance is just to let people be repulsed. However, the path of least resistance leads downhill.
Divining the forces of depression (and in my case, the vagaries of bipolar disorder) is already taxing enough for myself, let alone for anyone around me who has no idea what’s going on in my mind. Hence, I understand why someone would give up on me. It’s not their fault, and I understand that. There’s only so much people around me can do, and if my condition lightens up, it’s on me to reach out, let people know that I’m better at the moment. And if I can, alert people whenever things are turning for the worse.
Having said all that, I’m not sure I understand what you meant by the latter part of your 2nd paragraph.
Reading over it I also kinda don’t know. I was rambling more or less.
I think I was trying to say I have issues connecting with people who have struggles of their own because they way I try to connect. When it’s done personally by myself it doesn’t work as well compared to doing the same through an organization. Like if you go to a food bank vs going to someone’s house you know for food. I could drop off the food at the food bank and the person who is struggling could take it and not feel as ashamed because it is depersonalized (no one single face to attribute). Whereas coming to my home to get the food directly would be perhaps more shameful or difficult since there is someone (i.e. myself) who can direct focused judgement upon them.
I hope this didn’t make it more confusing. I might cut my losses and try not to explain it more before I get even more confused.
I think I get it, the gist of it anyways. I understood it as faring better in a more formal, but still being a social setting, e.g.: a mountaineering club meeting once a week, and occasionally goes up on group hikes. It’s way easier to connect with someone in that situation, since there’s already some common ground to stand on. It is a lot easier compared to trying to connect with a neighbor you know next to nothing about, much less a common ground.
Isn’t that up to the creators though. If world is their home instance, why would they create elsewhere? Not being able to create communities would kind of defeat the purpose.
If creators want engagement, they will create on subs with more uptime. That will likely be world in the future, when hardened. The ddos attacks aren’t good for Lemmy now, but it should iron out some wrinkles in the long run for all instances. I think the world admins are doing a great job, both technically and communication wise.
I think you put too much stock into the ddos explanation. I’m not saying it’s not a thing, but there are bigger issues that it seems won’t be resolved before Lemmy 1.0
Regarding your first question, tf is my home but I have created communities on different instances. Some instances because the community fits the instance, some because I like the URL. I figure it’s best to decentralise as much as possible.
As to your last point, I think some of what the admins at world have done is tremendous and I celebrate their commitment to world, but there’s limitations to the software, as they well know and ultimately this is a decentralised platform of which loads of little instances are supposed to make up the larger whole.
I kind of expected some people to start instances for mostly just making accounts (some of which I have seen), and for other people to make instances just for community hosting and disallow account creation (and afaik this hasn’t been done to any appreciable degree). I’m not sure this is even possible or functionally useful with the way lemmy currently works for community creation and stuff, so maybe that’s why it didn’t happen.
Honestly I even expected some instances to pop up with the sole intent and purpose of serving one community, but even stuff like the startrek instance have account creation available.
Maybe it’s because lemmy is so new for people. Niche instances would rather host accounts than scare users away in an effort to get them to sign up elsewhere.
Well that would explain why there isn’t a general use community only instance. Honestly that feels like a feature that should exist, while still leaving “local only” as an instance setting for people who like it that way.
Still seems odd for instances with a specific set of premade communities with new ones disabled to worry about hosting accounts, like the startrek one.
You only need to squeeze out an amount the size of a pea on to the bristles of your toothbrush.
The image of squeezing along the entire length of the brush bristles was concocted by an ad agency, a la Mad Men, to make consumers use their toothpaste faster, hence buy more product.
I swear it’s also why they made that newer garbage cap design that slowly leaks toothpaste and gums up unless you carefully clean the end and fully close it every time. I know y’all know what I am talking about!
I’ve never used that much. I just assumed it was to look nice since a pea sized about would look silly in a picture. I think it I used that much my mouth would be so full of foam it would be uncomfortable
in fairness the directions on the back of the tube still state you should use a pea sized amount. i feel like that’s not all that helpful though, peas come in lots of different sizes.
Cryptocurrency in general. Even on the surface, as presented, the main appeal to buy in is “to get rich from it” and the main way you’re supposed to get rich is “other people buying in, get in early while you can.”
I disagree that cryptocurrency in itself is a scam. It can have legitimate utility, for example I want to exchange money for international services without a credit card or mailing an envelope of cash/cheque. Bitcoin and some others are mainstream enough that I can do this.
That said, investing in them is absolutely a scam, using it as a marketing buzzhype is a scam, and most of them are founded as scams.
Sure, sure. But does it and can it actually stay that way?
I haven’t seen a functioning example actually out there yet of a planet-burning electricity-wasting math busywork generator that actually does anything it supposedly can do besides become another ruinous and wasteful grift that does more damage to the planet than whatever convenience it supposedly offers to comfort the comforted.
I agree that it is wasteful and overall a bad thing… now that I think about it could be somewhat excusable if they adopted a PoW algrothim that actually solves socially-useful expensive problems like protein-folding, through distributed computing.
But that doesn’t make it a scam. There’s not really any trickery. It’s just bad.
now that I think about it could be somewhat excusable if they adopted a PoW algrothim that actually solves socially-useful expensive problems like protein-folding, through distributed computing.
You’re claiming that cryptogrifts can theoretically cease being environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grifts (for Science!™) and so on, so why not go one further and state that such applications theoretically DON’T need Bitcoin or related blockchain monetization at all?
If it’s already an environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grift, and you’re claiming it can do good things while also being an environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grift, why not take the speculative fantasy a little further and lose the environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grift entirely?
I’m not claiming that. It would still be environmentally ruinous (insofar as the energy production where miners live remains ruinous, which I guess is the foreseeable future) but at least the PoW would be actually contributing to tasks we wanted to do anyway that require large amounts of work. Hence the heavy emphasis on ‘somewhat’. I’m not saying it would be justified, but it would be far far far more useful to society.
Incidentally, why characterise non-profit medical research as “for Science!™)”? I hope we can both agree that understanding the human body is valuable to society and curing disease.
and state that such applications theoretically DON’T need Bitcoin or related blockchain monetization at all?
There are cryptographic requirements for securely conveying the necessary information for that application, an application that requires extremely limited identity and trust and centralization. I can’t think of an alternative covering those requirements that is plausible right now and not pure what-if (there is a big jump in feasibility between ‘change the proof of work algorithm’ and ‘invent an alternative to cryptocurrency’). If we can find an alternative to expensive PoW, wonderful!
Yes, if those requirements are relaxed, there are alternatives. If you’re fine with PayPal storing your personal and financial details and those of the recipient and exploiting you a little bit, then it’s an alternative. If your recipient is fine giving personal information, speed isn’t an option and you live in a country where sending cash in mail is legal and won’t get stolen, that’s an option. Of course, this all goes to shit if you’re trading with someone in a sanctioned country.
There’s not really any trickery.
(X)
Alright, what about Bitcoin is fraudulent? We agree it’s bad, but that doesn’t make it fraudulent (i.e. a scam)
It would still be environmentally ruinous (insofar as the energy production where miners live remains ruinous, which I guess is the foreseeable future) but at least the PoW would be actually contributing to tasks we wanted to do anyway that require large amounts of work. Hence the heavy emphasis on ‘somewhat’. I’m not saying it would be justified, but it would be far far far more useful to society.
“Less of a net negative” is still a net negative if it requires a massive and ever-growing bloated blockchain to verify every accumulating transactions for the vague and non-enforced promise of FOR SCIENCE™ benefits.
If we can find an alternative to expensive PoW, wonderful!
At present the alternative is not doing it because it’s still a net negative when it comes to wasted energy and environmental damage.
Alright, what about Bitcoin is fraudulent? We agree it’s bad, but that doesn’t make it fraudulent (i.e. a scam)
Sea lioning at this point is very bad form and I’m quite confident that you’re not going to accept any example or definition I give because you’re already sold on your particular investment, but fine.
Let’s start with the actual fucking fraud done with it, from phishing to theft to holding data hostage and demanding payment to decrypt that data before it’s destroyed, as is a growing common “use case” for Bitcoin when it isn’t being used for human trafficking and the like. You can piously claim in some pedantic “CODE IS LAW” thing that there’s no fraud in the code itself but splitting hairs like that doesn’t remove the incentive (or the risk, or the ongoing caseload) of fraud done with, around, and even against your favorite investment vehicle.
Agreeing with the parts re: net negative. No, I don’t invest in cryptocurrency; like I said, investing in them is a scam.
Let’s start with the actual fucking fraud done with it
Fraud is done with basically anything considered to have value. Cash, credit, signatures, votes, wine, wires, mail, licenses, taxes, recorded age. Fraud is the scam! And cryptocurrency is especially useful for scamming (has the anonymity of cash without the physical restrictions). But that’s not it’s purpose or main use. That’s not spiting hairs, it’s calling the hat the head. Your example of encrypting ransomware used to be done with the postal service, floppy discs and cash in the 90s. One example from 1989
edit: this of course is an advantage of non-transferable labour vouchers!
Sea lioning
That’s not what sea-lioning is. Someone asked us to name some scams, you said cryptocurrency, I disagreed that it qualified as a scam, you replied that you doubted my disagreement and I asked for clarification. If either of us wants to stop, we stop. Sea-lioning is stalking across the site like a debate pervert, it’s not replying to replies.
I’m not just running my mouth here, I’m evaluating my understanding of cryptocurrency and finding disagreements to make me question them. And also seeing if I’m able to have a constructive conversation - it’s good practice for real labour conversations in the workplace.
So it is all pedantic arguments for the sake of some theoretical version of something that does not actually exist in a functioning and usable form right now without all of the net negative consequences that already exist, right now.
But you did a transaction! And in theory it can be for science™! That makes it all okay because technically a dictionary absolves the holy code of all the wrongdoing done with the holy code. morshupls
And also seeing if I’m able to have a constructive conversation
Bring me one that isn’t pedantic sea lioning and sure, maybe.
But that’s not it’s purpose or main use
It is the purpose and use for people buying into it, right now, and that’s what gets people interested and investing, no matter what claims are made by the grifters themselves.
it’s good practice for real labour conversations in the workplace.
If you’re a leftist in any actual form please reconsider peddling internet funny money to people that can (and often have) lost a lot of money buying into it, whether through volatility or outright fraud/theft done with the technically not theft holy code you’re apparently trying to peddle.
The origin of the term sealioning is traced to a webcomic called Wondermark by David Malki. In a strip called “The Terrible Sea Lion,” which was published on September 19, 2014, a character expresses a strong dislike for sea lions, only for a sea lion to appear suddenly and pursue the character relentlessly—to the point of following her and her partner into her bedroom—insisting that she justify her beliefs.
Your source agrees too. No-one is perusing anyone. You’re willingly replying to me and I’m willingly replying back within a thread. That’s called a conversation.
So it is all pedantic arguments for the sake of some theoretical version of something that does not actually exist in a functioning and usable form right now without all of the net negative consequences that already exist, right now.
No.
But you did a transaction! And in theory it can be for science™! That makes it all okay because technically a dictionary absolves the holy code of all the wrongdoing done with the holy code.
I explicitly said it wasn’t ok, multiple times. Nor did I suggest either of those would make it ok. Nor is there anything ‘technically’ about the concept of a scam, and why that’s different to a wrongdoing.
If you’re a leftist in any actual form please reconsider peddling internet funny money to people that can (and often have) lost a lot of money buying into it, whether through volatility or outright fraud/theft done with the technically not theft holy code you’re apparently trying to peddle.
If you’re a leftist in any form, stop making bullshit assumptions and listen to what people actually say instead of projecting some irrelevant ridiculous strawman stuffed full of shit-no-one-said. If you want to pull this nonsense online here then whatever, but if this is how you behave in person then it’s actively harmful to the socialist movement, and that’s everyone’s business. We have a world to take, comrade, and this kind of false-premise ranting isn’t how we do it.
You’re willingly replying to me and I’m willingly replying back within a thread. That’s called a conversation.
If you really wanted a conversation, you wouldn’t be talking like a condescending douche as you did in the above quoted part. It wouldn’t fly offline, or very far outside of reddit-logo . At all.
I explicitly said it wasn’t ok, multiple times. Nor did I suggest either of those would make it ok. Nor is there anything ‘technically’ about the concept of a scam, and why that’s different to a wrongdoing.
Sure, but you keep dae le devil’s advocating for it anyway, under pretenses of what it could be if only so many things were different to the point that there’s nothing left but pretenses of DAE LE SCIENCE™ in such a fantastical different world. In short, I’m accusing you of bad faith argumentation and I haven’t seen anything to convince me otherwise.
If you’re a leftist in any form, stop making bullshit assumptions
We have a world to take, comrade, and this kind of false-premise ranting isn’t how we do it.
No wonder you don’t want bullshit, because you brought a heavy heaping steaming pile of your own, and it involves either credulously buying into the lie, or spreading the lie, that your transactional number magic is totally key, essential, or somehow just very useful, pinkie promise, for taking that world for… who exactly? Roughly the same group of rich assholes that have staggering majority stakes in the blockchain magic you keep hyping up, even while supposedly accepting how damaging and problematic it actually is in the living world that actually exists and not the fantastical alternate scenario you keep hinting at where the pedantically-pure number magic is allowed to work its miracles and somehow does it without further burning the planet down and wasting even more energy?
I don’t believe what you claim your intentions really are, you’ve already gone full reddit-logo in sheer condescending arrogance in your last comment, and even if I took what you said at face value, what you’re talking about doesn’t even really seem productive, meaningful, or even interesting if you totally don’t believe cryptocurrency grifts but just want to argue for the sake of arguing about what they could be if so many variables were changed that cryptocurrency (and the sheer energy and pollution disaster that is currently applied blockchain technology) is best not being a factor at all.
TL;DR You’re just congratulating yourself at this point with sheer debatebro-ldebatebro-r arrogance and announcements about how you’re refining the sharp katana of your wit so you may cut down the ignorant and show them the light of The True Uncorrupted Blockchain or… whatever. I don’t want to give you a hand with that. pathetic
In short, I’m accusing you of bad faith argumentation and I haven’t seen anything to convince me otherwise.
Alright, here it is without any of the bloat. My argument, and then more importantly, why calling out incorrect terminology even matters:
[click to expand]- A scam is a fraudulent scheme. (That’s not some obscure technicality, that’s what OP meant, and what business articles and English dictionaries generally define it as.) - Cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, isn’t fraudulent (it acts as consumers expect it to: a valuable item capable of digital anonymous exchange). - Whether it is harmful to our planet (true) is irrelevant to whether it is a scam. - Whether people should stop using it (true) is irrelevant to whether it is a scam. - Whether people abuse it for scams (true) is irrelevant to whether it is a scam. They were already doing the same with cash prior, and they do that with anything of value.
None of this is defending cryptocurrency. I am not defending it, and I keep saying that I agree it’s bad. I am saying it is not a scam, people use it and they aren’t being swindled.
.
The reason why making this kind of distinction matters is that critique of anything should be relevant. That’s a bit abstract, so I’ll illustrate with a much more extreme example that I’ve seen from other people.
If someone ignorantly supports Joe Biden, labeling them a literal neo-Nazi has zero rhetorical value there, but also zero analytical value. Anyone with a basic knowledge of what Nazis are will understand this is inaccurate and either an ignorant accusation or bad faith name-calling, and will probably dismiss their further points. But also, someone who actually believes Biden is a neo-Nazi will not be as effective in combating Biden’s regime (this will be explained later).
Pointing out that Biden is a racist, nationalist, fascism-enabler and the head of a genocidal regime, and therefore supporting them is harmful, on the other hand, is much more realistic. It still conveys that Biden is disgusting and deserves a bullet. It still conveys most of the same ideas. But this time, the critique makes a more accurate and therefore convincing and sturdy claim.
Having a more accurate understanding of Biden will allow us to better predict how they will act, and how to prepare. Biden isn’t going to say “Death to the Jews, let’s put the trans in camps”. Biden is going to slip out shit like “you ain’t Black”, make laws that hurt the disadvantaged in more subtle ways, and will fail to act to defend trans people. Biden is going to be more subtle than any neo-Nazi. A neoliberal and a neo-Nazi will do different acts and require different approaches to get mainstream people to realize how horrific they are.
Maybe Biden is a strange example for prediction, but another case would be DeSantis and Trump. Yes they’re both horrible, horrible fuckers who deserve the same ending. But, how will they both act differently? Will one be more concerned with corruption, self-image and self-gain than enacting ideological goals? Will one be more effective in implementing their goals than the other? That can be the difference between life and death for many, many people.
It’s not just a trivial technicality, using appropriate crits is the difference between being credible and being ridiculous, and applying the right classifications can be the difference between understanding something and misinterpreting it. And that will have serious consequences.
None of this is defending cryptocurrency. I am not defending it
Is there even a purpose to your “the bad thing is actually good if almost everything about how it’s being used and what it’s doing to society and the planet was different somehow with very different societal conditions” devil’s advocacy, besides sharpening the katana of you wit or whatever you’re going on about then?
It’s not just a trivial technicality, using appropriate crits is the difference between being credible and being ridiculous
Your motives here at this point seem trivial and ridiculous to me, especially if I take your claims at face value about how you’re not actually supporting cryptogrifting, butt then throw dictionaries at me about what fraud actually berdly-actually is and how SCIENCE!™ can totally be furthered by way of the planet burning carbon dumping cumulatively worse waste of electricity that is technically not fraud at a coding level so that makes it innocent of all the fraud done with it. morshupls
It can have legitimate utility, for example I want to exchange money for international services without a credit card or mailing an envelope of cash/cheque.
It does it infinitely more inefficient, slower and insecure than all other existing alternatives that can do this (and there are a lot of alternatives which doesn’t involve blockchain). Which is also why people doesn’t use it for this.
It does have a utility though, buying drugs, moving money past capital controls, and creating fake revenue/losses for laundering money and tax evasion.
The dollar is the favourite currency for that stuff. Cryptocurrencies are meant to take power away from banks and give it to the people. Sure, the vast majority of the people use them for spsculation, but that doesn’t make the technology useless. It’s just that people are mostly interested in making as much money as they can. That’s a society problem, not cryptocurrency’s.
The main appeal is the ability to make transactions without intermediaries. The problem is that most people have as the only interest to get richer and richer and there will be always other people happy to sell them that dream… For a fee. These are the vastmajorituy of the people in cryptocurrencies, but that doesn’t disreguard the power and utility of the technology. It’s easy to shit on the tool, but the real problem is the greed-driven society we live in.
I’ve been living on cryptocurrencies only for the last >6 years. Buying groceries, travels and whatever else i need. So yes, people do that. You don’t hear about it because people are too busy talking about speculators and price movements.
Cryptocurrencies are seeing high adoptions in country where banking is limited, in the rich country is 99% speculation.
Speculation makes it harder because it causes price volatility, which is good and bad. There are services like bitrefill, travala and coincards that make very easy to buy almostanything using crypto. Of course if somebody accepts crypto directly i prefer them.
Many years ago, I was watching an Ukrainian twitch streamer. She’s couldn’t get a Paypal account, so the only normal way to donate would involve huge fees or Russian-only websites. Crypto was by far the easiest and cheapest way to donate. I’ll admit that I don’t see a need for it on a massive scale, but there are use cases beyond what blind scam screamers imagine.
I was into Bitcoin before it even had value. Cryptocurrency is a cool concept and not a scam by default, but it was never meant to be some mainstream thing that was going to replace the dollar as you hear parroted annoyingly everywhere.
When non tech people started getting interested is when the scams started (also didn’t help that governments were lending money at 0% interest rates for like the last two decades)…
Back in the early days (early 2010s was when I first heard of it) when Bitcoin was worth pennies on the dollar that was exactly the kind of thing it was good for, and it was marketed as an international currency not beholden to governments. It is a shame that it got taken from that for the sake of “Bitcoin being valuable because you can profit off owning Bitcoin.”
Drug dealers also like getting paid in crypto, but they never hold on to it. The few that use it like a currency are ok, but the vast majority use it like a commodity.
Its best use cases are only circumstantial and in every case it wastes a lot of electricity, jacks up the price of video cards, and dumps a lot of extra carbon into the atmosphere. It’s like a shitty planet-burning Rube Goldberg machine.
But it’s technically not a scam in a pedantic way at the coding level so any scams done with it don’t really count and scientific research can totally be done with blockchain and if you ignore the wasted electricity and carbon disaster that cumulatively builds higher and higher with the way blockchain technology actually works because of every individual computer needing to verify proofs with every other computer it is actually not a scam and can do good things and I am sharping the katana of my wit because I can claim that I can not condoning cryptocurrency except I am in a contrarian way morshupls
In a society with capitalism at its core, externalities exist. That’s a fact that everyone agrees with. Nonprofits help mitigate those gaps. Calling all nonprofits scams is misguided at best. I think OP is looking for something more specific. What nonprofits?
To be fair, there are some good ones out there. I worked for a drug-rehab company in the 90s as the IT head that got mostly government funding for a 6 month-rehab-program for non-violent drug offenders (mostly stuff like heroine, cocaine, etc.). We also had an in-prison program but I don’t think that was as effective. Of course to get government contact money we would have to meet lots of strict guidelines too.
I definitely more wary of ones that don’t get any public funding and therefore have practically no guardrails and less forced transparency.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still pretty good and I do prefer it to Postman. I just dislike the amount of extra features and weird Insomnia account stuff they have been adding the past few years. When it first came out I loved it for its simplicity, and I feel like that’s being lost.
The unwritten rule of unlimited PTO is like 2 weeks max but you’re gonna get the side eye if you even take that much. It’s just a scam because most people use less when it’s ‘unlimited’ and because depending on local laws they may have to pay you out for it in the event of separation of employment if it’s accrued.
I have a company that truly does mean unlimited PTO (with some rules of like okay come on don’t take 2 months off in a row or something crazy regularly), but I admit that is not the norm
Oh I do, and it’s failing! Because of course it is! I expect them to be out of business within the year. (Currently job hunting and no matter what it’s going to be a step backwards back into corpo America)
Sorry to hear that. The biggest downside of unlimited PTO is that you aren’t owed any PTO. So if you quit or they go out of business, you don’t get anything paid out like you normally would.
You mind sharing what they do? It’s a bummer they’re failing, there need to be more companies that try new things like unlimited pto. I’d love to just go on a hike spontaneously without having to feel bad
kbin.life
Top