4 ms·

If 6 bottles make them 0.01% more productive, I'd be okay with that. Actually, take 10, just in case. This person takes 6 bottles. You are exaggerating that nu

If 6 bottles make them 0.01% more productive, I'd be okay with that. Actually, take 10, just in case. This person takes 6 bottles. You are exaggerating that number to infinity. Really? To add to your point, we don't want an exec who aims to blame a particular person instead of a system as well.

mattigames 7y ago
Don't you dare to fire me from your hypothetical company! In a more serious note, where did you find that drinking Tejeva is making them more productive? It sounds like an mild addiction wish I suspect is doing the opposite. The infinity was to make a point about resources, you put much focus into it and is just a silly hypothetical scenario to state a point. In organizations there is always problems with people and always problems with the system, pointing out the former doesn't mean one doesn't acknowledge the later; and like I said their solution for the future of just buying more stock is correct, so I agreed the system is flawed, their previous behavior is _also_ on the wrong and the one that raises red flags in a personal level.
- ergocoder 7y ago
  > where did you find that drinking Tejeva is making them more productive? In the blog post, the person said they wanted to drink 3-4 bottles a day. So, I assume drinking it makes them happy and, thus, more productive. > It sounds like an mild addiction wish I suspect is doing the opposite. I don't understand the need to drink Tejeva. But different people have different needs/wants. In a similar situation, I'm not a parent or a handicapped or a minority. So, I don't truly understand their needs/situations. But I don't assume that "oh honey your need isn't significant; you can absolutely live without X", especially when it costs so little. > The infinity was to make a point about resources, you put much focus into it and is just a silly hypothetical scenario to state a point. But we are judging a person's action, and we should avoid judging them based on something they haven't done. Of course, if they start hogging 100 bottles a day where it's not physically possible for a single person to drink it all, then, yeah, I agree that it seems too many. > their previous behavior is _also_ on the wrong and the one that raises red flags in a personal level. This is where I disagree. The person's not in the wrong. They are upfront about taking 6 bottles. They are clear that they enjoy drinking that many bottles. Needing to drink 6 bottles is like any other need (e.g. need to leave early, need to exercise, need to rest, need to go on a walk, need to poop longer than normal, need to eat more than a normal person). Some people need something more than the others. What raises a red flag is a person who points finger at another person instead of a system that creates scarcity. This person would be destructive in a post mortem, for example.
tasty_freeze 7y ago
You are misusing the word exaggerating. Hypothetical != exaggeration. By focusing on what you think is an exaggeration as a means of attacking the logic of the person you responded to, you entirely missed their point. To restate what was already a clear point: even if the supply of drinks was a non-issue, the fact the person behaved so antisocially raises concerns about what other behavior they are willing to justify.
- ergocoder 7y ago
  We are deciding whether a person is guilty or not. We can't judge based on a hypothetical situation where that person might do in the future. That seems unjust.
  - tasty_freeze 7y ago
    I'm flabbergasted. People do that every day, all day. We imprison people based in part on their future hypothetical behavior. If someone displays antisocial behavior every day and when questioned about it defends their antisocial behavior, I'd be stupid to think: well, I'd better not assume that he won't be this way tomorrow. Whether or not the employer should have bought more of the popular drink, it doesn't change the ethical calculus performed by that person that day: there is a limited resource that many people would enjoy using; therefore I'm going to take all of it to maximize my enjoyment. Yes, yes, the long term solution is to get management to buy more drinks, or horror, buy your own. But on any given day, they deprived coworkers of the chance to get their favored drink. Say the two of us go to a restaurant, and there are six delicious looking prawns on a bed of rice. You get the place first. Do you take all six because you like them and then tell me tough nuts that the restaurant didn't put more prawns on the dish? Or do you think to yourself: I'd love all six, but the fair thing to do is take three, and leave three?

mattigames 7y ago

Don't you dare to fire me from your hypothetical company! In a more serious note, where did you find that drinking Tejeva is making them more productive? It sounds like an mild addiction wish I suspect is doing the opposite. The infinity was to make a point about resources, you put much focus into it and is just a silly hypothetical scenario to state a point. In organizations there is always problems with people and always problems with the system, pointing out the former doesn't mean one doesn't acknowledge the later; and like I said their solution for the future of just buying more stock is correct, so I agreed the system is flawed, their previous behavior is _also_ on the wrong and the one that raises red flags in a personal level.

ergocoder 7y ago
> where did you find that drinking Tejeva is making them more productive? In the blog post, the person said they wanted to drink 3-4 bottles a day. So, I assume drinking it makes them happy and, thus, more productive. > It sounds like an mild addiction wish I suspect is doing the opposite. I don't understand the need to drink Tejeva. But different people have different needs/wants. In a similar situation, I'm not a parent or a handicapped or a minority. So, I don't truly understand their needs/situations. But I don't assume that "oh honey your need isn't significant; you can absolutely live without X", especially when it costs so little. > The infinity was to make a point about resources, you put much focus into it and is just a silly hypothetical scenario to state a point. But we are judging a person's action, and we should avoid judging them based on something they haven't done. Of course, if they start hogging 100 bottles a day where it's not physically possible for a single person to drink it all, then, yeah, I agree that it seems too many. > their previous behavior is _also_ on the wrong and the one that raises red flags in a personal level. This is where I disagree. The person's not in the wrong. They are upfront about taking 6 bottles. They are clear that they enjoy drinking that many bottles. Needing to drink 6 bottles is like any other need (e.g. need to leave early, need to exercise, need to rest, need to go on a walk, need to poop longer than normal, need to eat more than a normal person). Some people need something more than the others. What raises a red flag is a person who points finger at another person instead of a system that creates scarcity. This person would be destructive in a post mortem, for example.

tasty_freeze 7y ago

You are misusing the word exaggerating. Hypothetical != exaggeration. By focusing on what you think is an exaggeration as a means of attacking the logic of the person you responded to, you entirely missed their point. To restate what was already a clear point: even if the supply of drinks was a non-issue, the fact the person behaved so antisocially raises concerns about what other behavior they are willing to justify.

ergocoder 7y ago
We are deciding whether a person is guilty or not. We can't judge based on a hypothetical situation where that person might do in the future. That seems unjust.
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  I'm flabbergasted. People do that every day, all day. We imprison people based in part on their future hypothetical behavior. If someone displays antisocial behavior every day and when questioned about it defends their antisocial behavior, I'd be stupid to think: well, I'd better not assume that he won't be this way tomorrow. Whether or not the employer should have bought more of the popular drink, it doesn't change the ethical calculus performed by that person that day: there is a limited resource that many people would enjoy using; therefore I'm going to take all of it to maximize my enjoyment. Yes, yes, the long term solution is to get management to buy more drinks, or horror, buy your own. But on any given day, they deprived coworkers of the chance to get their favored drink. Say the two of us go to a restaurant, and there are six delicious looking prawns on a bed of rice. You get the place first. Do you take all six because you like them and then tell me tough nuts that the restaurant didn't put more prawns on the dish? Or do you think to yourself: I'd love all six, but the fair thing to do is take three, and leave three?