This is a matter of defining words. It’s fine to play the game of “which word best corresponds to the phenomena”, but I prefer playing another game: what function or what purpose is this word or this definition serving in context?

It would be sad to see “racism is structural” as an excuse for people to be cynical assholes (as opposed to tactical protesters). It’s much better when it’s used to achieve an equitable and fair world.

Beyond function, there’s also another framework that could help you: complexity dynamics. Racism happens within a complex system. Within that system, there are powerful actors, constraints, and constructors. Understanding this makes it clearer why, even if polite society is polite to marginal groups, systematic discrimination in schooling, credit, and incarceration are still structural racism.

If this clicks with you and you wanna learn more, let me know and I can recommend some stuff :)

I was working temporarily at a place with a cafeteria. I was having lunch and a guy sat with me and we talked for a while. It was obvious he wasn’t brainwashed by neoliberalism or neoconservatism. I mentioned it and he said “I’m an anarchist”.

“Check out Lemmy.” He loved how it sounded. Idk. Maybe he’s here.

Also, I get that, arguably, anarchists aren’t normies, but you defined normies in a computer-literacy way and he wasn’t a techie.

Just so you know, you’re not alone. When avocados are introduced to new markets (this happened a long time ago in the USA), people need to learn how to engage with it. People need to learn how to buy it, how to open it, how to include it in foods.

And, as you’ve heard, indeed it’s not meant to be sweet and instead it’s just like fat. And it’s very healthy fat.

I agree with what someone else said: I’d try making a simple guacamole recipe and eating the guacamole with nachos or tortillas or something like that!

Also, as someone else said, it’s totally fair if you don’t like guacamole. Some people don’t and it’s alright :)

I remember reading that commute time is the number one predictor for leaving a job. I wonder what the evidence would show if I properly looked it up.

I agree that doing less can achieve certain goals.

I guess it depends on what your goal is.

If you want to avoid getting glued to the screen and being influenced by advertisements, your recommendations are spot on.

However, if you want to make it costlier for surveillance capitalism to entrance everyone, then other options might make more sense.

I agree with you! There’s a layer of irony.

A response is in! :)

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, in that video it’s not clear to me that those are boos. Maybe I’m missing something.

Dropout uses Vimeo?

Some recommendations that have changed my life and many others’:

• Learn to WOOP, by Gabrielle Oettingen. If that fails,
• Learn about the Procrastination Equation and CSI-Approach, by Piers Steel. If that fails,
• Read and internalize A Liberated Mind by Steven C. Hayes. I’d recommend this even if the above don’t fail.

Please let me know if you have questions :)

Ah. Thanks for the target audience explanation.

What I mean with Mastodon is that, immediately after “Social networking that’s not for sale”, you see more sentences: “Your home feed should be filled with what matters to you most, not what a corporation thinks you should see. Radically different social media, back in the hands of the people.”

I think the technical details, such as open source and federation are not going to click with people who don’t know those ideas. However, open source and federation can create something that, for those people, is valuable.

So the question is: what does Lemmy offer that clicks with people who don’t know technical details?

This is up for discussion, of course. But I’d argue there’s “freedom”, “choice”, “human (and not corporate) communities”, “made for people, not for profits”…

That leads me to my suggestion:

A discussion platform that is truly free. You choose your feed, not a corporation. You choose where to set up your account, not a corporation. You choose what communities to be a part of, not a corporation.

or

A discussion platform that is truly free. You choose your feed. You choose where to set up your account. You choose what communities to be a part of. You choose, not a corporation

The bolded text is like Mastodon’s first sentence. The rest of the text is like Mastodon’s other sentences.

The technical details can be explained later in the page, just like Mastodon does it.

A cute squirrel that seems all innocent but actually is also a bottle opener

Static is your friend.

Buy microfiber dusters and mops.

Buy a couple and see if it’s enough. You want to always have clean ones available. So buy more than what you need for a single cleaning session. At my place we always have a bit more than double what we need for a single cleaning session.

For carpets, you can get a sweeper. They also use static and they’re fantastic.

How to use them? As others in this thread have said: from high areas to low areas.

Should you get the microfiber wet? I’m not sure. Try out both and see what works! I personally don’t like wet microfiber because it adds friction and makes me go over areas slower. But be aware that this could be a me thing. Wet microfiber still picks up dust, so do whatever works for you!

I haven’t read your blog post, but I agree with your comment.

Unfortunately, Scrum is often misused. Why? Often, I think people don’t understand the problems that Scrum is trying to solve. So people implement Scrum poorly. And, when evaluation time comes, they blame everything but their lack of knowledge and skill regarding Scrum.

But Scrum is actually a framework to help you solve very common problems.

If you understand that, then Scrum becomes useful.

There’s a set of problems that teams will always have to deal with: how to choose what to work on, how to coordinate, how to know when something is done, how to see if your work actually solves the problems you’re trying to solve, how to deal with task-switching costs, how to deal with cognitive load, how to deal with complexity…

And those problems can be solved with Scrum. Or Kanban. Or any other Agile way of working.

What’s important is that it works.

I’d love to edit my previous post but I don’t wanna spam you.

As to target audiences, I think it could be helpful to specify the personas that we’re building the sentences for. Does the persona know what the Fediverse is? Do they know what enshittification is? Do they know what open source is? Do they have strong opinions about surveillance capitalism (even if they don’t know the word for it)? Or are they clueless regarding all of these topics?

My suggestion assumes some knowledge of these topics. To be clear, if I’d single out a suggestion of mine, it’d be:

A discussion platform that can’t enshittify. You choose your feed. You choose where to host your account.

The best sentence will depend on the target audience. Is there a way to know who would be that audience?

Also, responding more directly to your question, I’ve got a frame challenge: What about two or three short sentences, like what Mastodon does?

A platform that is truly democratic. You choose your feed. You choose where to host your account.

A platform where you’re truly free. You choose your feed. You choose where to host your account.

A platform that can’t enshittify. You choose your feed. You choose where to host your account.

That third one I like, because it’s a differentiator that Lemmy has in comparison with ButterflyX or whatever Jack the Twitter Guy is working on right now; Lemmy is not at risk of enshitifying, unlike ButterflyX.

Also, if it’s important to differentiate Lemmy from Mastodon or other Fediverse platforms, the sentences could start with “A discussion platform”.

Also, here’s a take where I tried to make no reference to electronics:

A bustling room filled with tables, each filled with people talking about what they find interesting, where the conversation topics are always chosen by the table and always changing, and where you’re free to set up your own tables with your own topics.

or, more succinctly,

A bustling room filled with tables, where each table is filled with people talking about what they find interesting, a room where you’re free to set up your own tables with your own topics.

Also, I just realized that every time that I edit this post you get notified becase I @ed you. Sorry!

And, finally, happy cake day, @nutomic@lemmy.ml!

The goal is to have a good working environment to live good lives and do good work.

The fact that your boss pulled in other coworkers could be interpreted as a red flag, as something fundamentally wrong with your boss. However, without more information, I think this situation could be workable. In other words, there are things you can do.

Again, the goal is to have a good working environment to live good lives and do good work.

I think a good working environment is one where errors can be talked about openly and without fear. I do not think the solution is “praise publicly criticize privately”. I think the solution is for your team (including your boss) to create psychologically safe environment. How? By emphasizing the goal, the purpose of your work. By admitting to mistakes or lack of knowledge to accept fallibility. This is especially helpful if your boss does it. By appreciating when someone openly shares concerns or mistakes. By creating rituals or habits of inclusion, such as well run meetings or effective information-gathering methods.

Do all of those recommendations sound hard to implement and naive? I think for many teams they are. But the reality is that psychologically safe teams exist, and they perform better than teams that don’t have it.

If it’s hard to implement it, why am I bringing it up? Because I think it’s important know exactly what went wrong with your meeting with your boss. It’s better to have an accurate map that shows a steep canyon than a fake map that shows a nonexistent bridge.

So what do you do?

Here are a couple of suggestions:

• learn about psychological safety. Amy Edmonson is the authority on the subject.
• learn to have Crucial Conversations. It’ll help you now and it’ll help you forever.

If you vibe with what I’m saying, let me know and I can give you more suggestions. At the same time, it’s totally understandable if you don’t think my path is viable.

This also happened to me. I had an interview on the phone in which I got amazing feedback. I then had my second interview online and had trouble with my audio. After that, they ghosted me.

I understand that, in many ways, ghosting is normal. Still, that first call’s feedback made me think they wanted to hire me.

That’s alright. I understand that explaining takes time and energy. That time and energy is something I often choose to spend, but I also sometimes choose not to. I would ask you why you want to stop explaining things, but that would, ironically, require you to explain things. I’m not saying this ironically or sarcastically: I hope you can be understood easily!

To understand what you mean, could you rephrase or explain your ideas? I read your post and couldn’t understand what you meant.