6 ms·

> I sure hope it's mostly just a persona for her blog, because otherwise why put yourself through such misery? I don't follow her blog enough to fill in the de

> I sure hope it's mostly just a persona for her blog, because otherwise why put yourself through such misery? I don't follow her blog enough to fill in the details, but if I understand correctly this is from a job she hated and left recently-ish due to how bad everything was [1]. So she's not putting up with it, but rather giving retrospectives on a bad couple of years. [1] http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2020/03/04/annoyed/ http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2020/03/04/annoyed/

kbenson 6y ago
Honestly, that link reads like I remember all the posts of hers I remember reading. In summary: - stuff sucks here, but I fight the good fight, and do the right thing even though others don't always - I say the truth, publish it even, but people don't want to hear it. Sometimes people people are so unappreciative they actually say mean things to me. Sometimes they even put it in writing! - I have enough clout I can ignore some of the normal procedures and policies for the betterment of all. Some people aren't appreciative of this. Some of those people are managers, even my manager. Those are all the bad people though. - they try to force me to change, but screw them. This is obviously their problem. I'll stand by my principles by walking out and into some other high position at another company, where they appreciate when I call the management bozos... After a few posts like that, it starts to to feel like maybe a big chunk of the problem might be her. At this point, I really hope someone will come out and point out how there were all these positive posts I missed over the last few years. That's entirely possible. The HN selection filter (which is how I see these) might be biased towards a certain type of article of hers, and I might have missed some/most that made it here. I would rather rather be wrong in any of numerous ways than actually have her be as miserable and miserable to be around as she sounds at this point.
- mellow2020 6y ago
  > After a few posts like that, it starts to to feel like maybe a big chunk of the problem might be her. I don't really blog, but I occasionally write lyrics. All of them are bitter and critical, so over a the years I accumulated a collection of that. That's not because I'm a bitter person, it's because I only ever write lyrics to complain. When I'm happy, I sing and dance, I code or call friends, I do a million things and not ever write lyrics. Similar with forums: I vote to agree, I respond to disagree or correct or add a link. Anyone who tried to judge me, as a person, by that and other output without even having met me, because things "start to feel" or "sound" a certain way (for everyone, in their mind), can come up with all sorts of "assessments", many of them mutually exclusive. It's a fine waste of time and that's all it is. But I don't think the fallacious extrapolation of web output to the whole person is the sole cause here. After all, if someone's blog is full of things they installed and described their first steps with, without any follow-up posts about their in-depth, day-to-day usage of the thing, people wouldn't pile on to point out that this person "seems like" they constantly change stacks, without getting to know any of them. And if someone had a blog with just the crazy retro hacks they do, we wouldn't assume they don't have a phone or have never seen a modern game. And so on. But when someone writes a lot about negative work experiences, without mentioning the good ones, they must be a terrible person and think they're better than everyone else, naturally. Except it's not ever put that bluntly, e.g. > it starts to to feel like maybe a big chunk of the problem might be her 1. starts to 2. feel like 3. maybe 4. a big chunk 5. might be out of 71 chars in that quote, 40 belong to weasel words. That and other comments lead me to suspect it might be the confidence and the chutzpah to talk back publically and not sugar coat things. If people can't be snarky on their own blog without people who never met them, and don't even know the company they describe, much less worked for it, telling everybody what kind of person the author might be... how about a union at least? edit: this sums this thread up perfectly: https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2020/05/23/nope/ https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2020/05/23/nope/ > But still, thanks for hyperbole to try to make me look bad! You have no idea what went on there, and you think you just HAVE to insert yourself into it. Meanwhile HN wonders how a BBQ grill could ask to be the default browser, and I can tell you exactly how: a bunch of people went along to get along, and/or conditioned themselves to consider any inane crap awesome and a great growth opportunity.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > Anyone who tried to judge me, as a person, by that and other output without even having met me, because things "start to feel" or "sound" a certain way Are your lyrics all about real life situations? Do they include references to all your coworkers on a regular basis? Do you always publish them on a forum for a global audience? They decide to publish these thoughts, so they will get judged on them. If you published all those lyrics, and they got linked to a forum on a regular basis, I think there's a good chance someone might call them out as overly bitter. Presumably, if you are putting them out for everyone to see, you're trying to get something out of that, so perhaps considering what your goal is is worthwhile. If it's for personal catharsis, possibly to be shared with friends, a local text document, shared text document, or group message achieves that fine. Why would you publish them globally? Why would she publish these stories unless she hopes that will achieve something? I'm not sure if that's to achieve change at her place of employment (it sounds like they've definitely caused change a few times, for better or worse), or purely to warn/inform others, but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence. Maybe she should consider the consequences when she writes about the "broken ones" that are the managers she's working with and for. > After all, if someone's blog is full of things they installed and described their first steps with, without any follow-up posts about their in-depth, day-to-day usage of the thing, people wouldn't pile on to point out that this person "seems like" they constantly change stacks If the person is constantly trying a new thing, complaining about how they can't get anywhere with it, describing how broken it is and how they would do it better, and then stopping using it, while plenty of other people fine ways to work with that stack without too much of a problem, then yes, I think there might be a bunch of notes how maybe part of the problem expressed has to do with the person in question. > But when someone writes a lot about negative work experiences, without mentioning the good ones, they must be a terrible person and think they're better than everyone else, naturally. Except it's not ever put that bluntly, e.g. I draw a clear distinction between explaining poor work experiences, which we've all had, and clearly blaming the people around you for those poor experiences and for not listening to you since you have all the answers to fix them. The former is looking for sympathy, which I'm happy to help with. The latter is also looking for vindication without evidence, which I'm much less willing to take part in. > out of 71 chars in that quote, 40 belong to weasel words. It's called opinion. I was clearly expressing how I interpret her writing. I try not to use definitive statements when expressing things which are not fact. Feel free to call them weasel words if you like. It would be hypocritical of me to be too upset about that, given I'm critiquing something publicly. >> But still, thanks for hyperbole to try to make me look bad! You have no idea what went on there, and you think you just HAVE to insert yourself into it. As long as she continues to publish accounts the claim to be based on real situations and real people and represents those people and institutions as negatively as she does, she can expect responses. Those responses are doing the same thing she is, in critiquing a situation they are exposed to. They assume things about the situations she explains just as she assumes things about people in them ("my manager wouldn't give a rat's ass what the results of it would be.") If you don't want people publicly critiquing your personal experiences, don't publish them. That's how the world works. Now, given that she's responded to some of my critiques specifically in that link, and you've kindly linked to it and referenced it, I'll respond to some of those here, as if addressing her: > I had an opportunity to land and support them through the IPO. Then if it worked out, maybe it would be worth something some day. ... What would you do? You'd take the damn job. Of course you would. I don't think I would, given some of your experiences. When I said maybe find a different class of company, I meant it. Whether that be a company not looking to IPO, or a company with a mission that makes the work worthwhile even if it's not as lucrative and/or interesting, maybe a work-life balance change is something that should be given more consideration. Maybe that means considering a non-profit, maybe that means considering a company whose goal isn't the normal startup to IPO trajectory with stock options (maybe it means avoiding those like the plague). For what it's worth, I've actually based most of work life around that, so I probably wouldn't have taken the offer myself, either. I have no plans to work in SH or the south bay unless forced to, I've avoided it so far. > Point: (anything about not recognizing the CEO on my third day there) ... Now, consider that I was supposedly there to deal with technical problems. Unless you were hired as a consultant, I think this is extremely short-sighted. You were hired to be part of an organization. It sounds like you weren't really interesting in being part of that organization, from the very beginning. Really, it's fine that you didn't recognize the CEO. I really only took offense that you portrayed anyone that would know who the CEO was as problematic, when there are many reasons you might want to know ahead of time. The ones I mentioned in the previous post (making sure you're not working for an obvious scumbag), or just making sure you know who is who so you what you're saying to which people. You might consider "being unfiltered" and "speaking truth to power" important aspects of your personality, but I consider not caring who you're talking to when you say things inconsiderate at best, and more likely, just being an asshole. We might just disagree on this. > Point: "why post this for the world to see?" ... Catharsis, and probably more than a little cabin fever. Well, if you're looking for benefit from posting it publicly, you have to deal with the downsides when they occur. To your credit, you do. That said, if you don't want actual critique, you can publish to a smaller audience, such as friends. It's your choice. Perhaps the public agreement you get and feelings that brings outweighs the disagreement and those feelings. In that case, by all means, continue on.
rumanator 6y ago
If you endured two years at a company then the onboarding process, choice of laptop, and delay in providing a desk to someone who showed early after deciding to skip the onboarding process is not, obviously, the problem. I get it, the author is trying to vent frustration for a personal choice that now regrets. Yet, the ranting also sounds like a thinly veilled attempt to smear the company's image to those in the know by resorting to petty criticism. That speaks more about the author than it does about the company, the CEO, the direct manager, or those who designed the onboarding process.

kbenson 6y ago

Honestly, that link reads like I remember all the posts of hers I remember reading. In summary: - stuff sucks here, but I fight the good fight, and do the right thing even though others don't always - I say the truth, publish it even, but people don't want to hear it. Sometimes people people are so unappreciative they actually say mean things to me. Sometimes they even put it in writing! - I have enough clout I can ignore some of the normal procedures and policies for the betterment of all. Some people aren't appreciative of this. Some of those people are managers, even my manager. Those are all the bad people though. - they try to force me to change, but screw them. This is obviously their problem. I'll stand by my principles by walking out and into some other high position at another company, where they appreciate when I call the management bozos... After a few posts like that, it starts to to feel like maybe a big chunk of the problem might be her. At this point, I really hope someone will come out and point out how there were all these positive posts I missed over the last few years. That's entirely possible. The HN selection filter (which is how I see these) might be biased towards a certain type of article of hers, and I might have missed some/most that made it here. I would rather rather be wrong in any of numerous ways than actually have her be as miserable and miserable to be around as she sounds at this point.

mellow2020 6y ago
> After a few posts like that, it starts to to feel like maybe a big chunk of the problem might be her. I don't really blog, but I occasionally write lyrics. All of them are bitter and critical, so over a the years I accumulated a collection of that. That's not because I'm a bitter person, it's because I only ever write lyrics to complain. When I'm happy, I sing and dance, I code or call friends, I do a million things and not ever write lyrics. Similar with forums: I vote to agree, I respond to disagree or correct or add a link. Anyone who tried to judge me, as a person, by that and other output without even having met me, because things "start to feel" or "sound" a certain way (for everyone, in their mind), can come up with all sorts of "assessments", many of them mutually exclusive. It's a fine waste of time and that's all it is. But I don't think the fallacious extrapolation of web output to the whole person is the sole cause here. After all, if someone's blog is full of things they installed and described their first steps with, without any follow-up posts about their in-depth, day-to-day usage of the thing, people wouldn't pile on to point out that this person "seems like" they constantly change stacks, without getting to know any of them. And if someone had a blog with just the crazy retro hacks they do, we wouldn't assume they don't have a phone or have never seen a modern game. And so on. But when someone writes a lot about negative work experiences, without mentioning the good ones, they must be a terrible person and think they're better than everyone else, naturally. Except it's not ever put that bluntly, e.g. > it starts to to feel like maybe a big chunk of the problem might be her 1. starts to 2. feel like 3. maybe 4. a big chunk 5. might be out of 71 chars in that quote, 40 belong to weasel words. That and other comments lead me to suspect it might be the confidence and the chutzpah to talk back publically and not sugar coat things. If people can't be snarky on their own blog without people who never met them, and don't even know the company they describe, much less worked for it, telling everybody what kind of person the author might be... how about a union at least? edit: this sums this thread up perfectly: https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2020/05/23/nope/ https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2020/05/23/nope/ > But still, thanks for hyperbole to try to make me look bad! You have no idea what went on there, and you think you just HAVE to insert yourself into it. Meanwhile HN wonders how a BBQ grill could ask to be the default browser, and I can tell you exactly how: a bunch of people went along to get along, and/or conditioned themselves to consider any inane crap awesome and a great growth opportunity.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > Anyone who tried to judge me, as a person, by that and other output without even having met me, because things "start to feel" or "sound" a certain way Are your lyrics all about real life situations? Do they include references to all your coworkers on a regular basis? Do you always publish them on a forum for a global audience? They decide to publish these thoughts, so they will get judged on them. If you published all those lyrics, and they got linked to a forum on a regular basis, I think there's a good chance someone might call them out as overly bitter. Presumably, if you are putting them out for everyone to see, you're trying to get something out of that, so perhaps considering what your goal is is worthwhile. If it's for personal catharsis, possibly to be shared with friends, a local text document, shared text document, or group message achieves that fine. Why would you publish them globally? Why would she publish these stories unless she hopes that will achieve something? I'm not sure if that's to achieve change at her place of employment (it sounds like they've definitely caused change a few times, for better or worse), or purely to warn/inform others, but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence. Maybe she should consider the consequences when she writes about the "broken ones" that are the managers she's working with and for. > After all, if someone's blog is full of things they installed and described their first steps with, without any follow-up posts about their in-depth, day-to-day usage of the thing, people wouldn't pile on to point out that this person "seems like" they constantly change stacks If the person is constantly trying a new thing, complaining about how they can't get anywhere with it, describing how broken it is and how they would do it better, and then stopping using it, while plenty of other people fine ways to work with that stack without too much of a problem, then yes, I think there might be a bunch of notes how maybe part of the problem expressed has to do with the person in question. > But when someone writes a lot about negative work experiences, without mentioning the good ones, they must be a terrible person and think they're better than everyone else, naturally. Except it's not ever put that bluntly, e.g. I draw a clear distinction between explaining poor work experiences, which we've all had, and clearly blaming the people around you for those poor experiences and for not listening to you since you have all the answers to fix them. The former is looking for sympathy, which I'm happy to help with. The latter is also looking for vindication without evidence, which I'm much less willing to take part in. > out of 71 chars in that quote, 40 belong to weasel words. It's called opinion. I was clearly expressing how I interpret her writing. I try not to use definitive statements when expressing things which are not fact. Feel free to call them weasel words if you like. It would be hypocritical of me to be too upset about that, given I'm critiquing something publicly. >> But still, thanks for hyperbole to try to make me look bad! You have no idea what went on there, and you think you just HAVE to insert yourself into it. As long as she continues to publish accounts the claim to be based on real situations and real people and represents those people and institutions as negatively as she does, she can expect responses. Those responses are doing the same thing she is, in critiquing a situation they are exposed to. They assume things about the situations she explains just as she assumes things about people in them ("my manager wouldn't give a rat's ass what the results of it would be.") If you don't want people publicly critiquing your personal experiences, don't publish them. That's how the world works. Now, given that she's responded to some of my critiques specifically in that link, and you've kindly linked to it and referenced it, I'll respond to some of those here, as if addressing her: > I had an opportunity to land and support them through the IPO. Then if it worked out, maybe it would be worth something some day. ... What would you do? You'd take the damn job. Of course you would. I don't think I would, given some of your experiences. When I said maybe find a different class of company, I meant it. Whether that be a company not looking to IPO, or a company with a mission that makes the work worthwhile even if it's not as lucrative and/or interesting, maybe a work-life balance change is something that should be given more consideration. Maybe that means considering a non-profit, maybe that means considering a company whose goal isn't the normal startup to IPO trajectory with stock options (maybe it means avoiding those like the plague). For what it's worth, I've actually based most of work life around that, so I probably wouldn't have taken the offer myself, either. I have no plans to work in SH or the south bay unless forced to, I've avoided it so far. > Point: (anything about not recognizing the CEO on my third day there) ... Now, consider that I was supposedly there to deal with technical problems. Unless you were hired as a consultant, I think this is extremely short-sighted. You were hired to be part of an organization. It sounds like you weren't really interesting in being part of that organization, from the very beginning. Really, it's fine that you didn't recognize the CEO. I really only took offense that you portrayed anyone that would know who the CEO was as problematic, when there are many reasons you might want to know ahead of time. The ones I mentioned in the previous post (making sure you're not working for an obvious scumbag), or just making sure you know who is who so you what you're saying to which people. You might consider "being unfiltered" and "speaking truth to power" important aspects of your personality, but I consider not caring who you're talking to when you say things inconsiderate at best, and more likely, just being an asshole. We might just disagree on this. > Point: "why post this for the world to see?" ... Catharsis, and probably more than a little cabin fever. Well, if you're looking for benefit from posting it publicly, you have to deal with the downsides when they occur. To your credit, you do. That said, if you don't want actual critique, you can publish to a smaller audience, such as friends. It's your choice. Perhaps the public agreement you get and feelings that brings outweighs the disagreement and those feelings. In that case, by all means, continue on.

rumanator 6y ago

If you endured two years at a company then the onboarding process, choice of laptop, and delay in providing a desk to someone who showed early after deciding to skip the onboarding process is not, obviously, the problem. I get it, the author is trying to vent frustration for a personal choice that now regrets. Yet, the ranting also sounds like a thinly veilled attempt to smear the company's image to those in the know by resorting to petty criticism. That speaks more about the author than it does about the company, the CEO, the direct manager, or those who designed the onboarding process.