I’ve found that bad managers tend to think that they are looking for an ideal candidate. That candidate is mind numbingly obsessed with working for them that they will degrade themselves for the opportunity to work for their company. Like they hear fake stories from CEOs and influencers about how when they were working they worked all day every day and skipped lunch to make sure they were the best employee in the company and believe that if you just interview hard enough you’ll find that golden idiot.

As soon as you deviate from that, the manager tells themself “well, this person asked about the work hours and overtime policy, clearly they aren’t ready to work 10 hours a day for no extra pay.” And anyone they do hire will never be enough.

I’ve got news for you about an easy way to stop these comments from appearing.

Again, I agree with you, you basically repeated and expanded on the point of the person I replied to. Like what you’re giving me is a good anthropological analysis.

But if you asked these women why/how they got to this point they would not say “well I’m just commiting to my performance of being a woman to appease the male gaze”

For one thing, most of them probably still hold agency to themselves despite the fact that it seems clear they are doing this to appease men. They would most likely have explanations for all their changes and who/what influenced them.

A terrifying probability is that these women literally get told by their spouses/others that if they don’t get these specific surgeries they won’t be able to do something. If it’s that then I would like to know who specifically tells them this and what they tell them.

What interests me is that I’ve never once heard an actual explanation. “They’re doing drag” might be true in an analytical sense from an outside perspective. But it’s not the reason they do it.

One would assume the reason you start is because you’re encouraged to get some Botox and subtle touch-ups are a very beauty trend among women. But they all end up with very similar features and it’s always overdone. So there must be common pushes and pulls. I would just like to hear it in their own words what has led them to this.

That’s fucked I’ve been thinking I’m a good boy shutting down my computer whenever I don’t need to use it to ensure that I don’t get any slow down. Why on earth would you name it “shut down” at that point?

The people who know you’ll engage with the post with a comment like this.

It’s basically free engagement from nothing.

No, but it doesn’t seem too hard to do.

Yeah. I wasn’t saying people aren’t capable of not wanting kids. This was mostly as an explanation of the phenomenon of people saying they didn’t think they wanted kids until they had them.

One major difference is our genetic wiring. You’ll find that many many people with kids you meet say “I was pretty sure I didn’t want kids, but once you have them you wonder why you ever thought you wouldn’t want them.”

So the answer is yeah, if you did have kids you would probably not regret it. It’s just one of like the only 3 things we evolved to do as human beings, your body gives you really strong incentives to take care of your kids.

But if you never have kids you can also not regret it and both can be true.

My point with that comparison is precisely that. That child of doctors is a result of a type of nepotism and they are much more likely to make it in the medical field than a child who may be intrinsically smarter than them but did not have the advantage of having parents who instilled that passion to become a doctor and educated them for the profession at an early age.

I edited the post to further acknowledge that I’m not talking about the advantage of parents being connected in the industry. Which I mention in the first paragraph of my post. It’s a larger problem in the entertainment industry than most because that industry is so cut-throat and competitive and frankly because more than most industries mediocre talent can be mitigated by the dozens of other people working with them to make the product, not to mention the ability of marketing to exalt people who might not deserve it. Rereading your post it seems you were responding exclusively to that which I thought was pretty clearly not the subject of my post.

I was simply acknowledging the fact that things like passion, obsession, and talent are all things that are heavily influenced by parents. Kid A could be intrinsically worse at music than Kid B (for as much as we know about nature vs nurture) but if Kid A has musician parents who encourage lessons, or even teach the kid themselves from a very young age and Kid B only discovers their passion on their own in high school or later. Kid A will probably always be a better musician due to a form of nepotism.

While I agree that that’s existentially unfair, and maybe we can create a world where all children are given identical education so that we only get the best of the best in every field, I think it’s a bit wack to say Kid A doesn’t deserve to express their art or even outshine Kid B because they tragically grew up in a music-obsessed family.

For the slightest bit of defence: it makes sense. “Nepo baby” generally refers to some kid who doesn’t have the qualifications for their role but got it through their parents giving them an unfair chance.

But it makes perfect sense that if you grow up in a house with actors and writers for parents they can both teach you about the business, they’ll be happy to pay for that kind of education, and they’ll be super encouraging because unlike most families, to them becoming an actor or director is a perfectly reasonable goal.

It’s like a child of doctors growing up to become a doctor. On one hand their parents could have just pulled some strings, on the other hand, having parents excited to teach you organic chemistry and advanced math in middle school probably helps you a lot when it comes to qualifying for med school.

I don’t think all Hollywood nepo babies are like this. I’m just saying you would expect to see children of great actors become actors themselves.

Edit: so some of these responses confuse me. I say in the first paragraph that “nepo baby” generally refers to a subset of children who take on their parents job who are given unfair opportunities despite not being the most qualified for it. It might not be the strict definition but it’s my modern understanding of it and it’s the thing that people are actually angry about, including me. Acknowledging this at the top is meant to caveat what I’m saying for the rest of the post that I’m not talking about those people.

I agree that in a perfect world all people should get as much access as possible to any education and opportunities they want and I hope we get that.

If a company gets so big that it “needs” billions of dollars to build its own town then that company’s profits and decisions should be split among its stakeholders (i.e. all of its employees).

If someone starts a company then they should be rewarded with profits if it succeeds. Contrary to capitalist arguments. The big brains behind companies don’t do it to make 15 billion dollars. They do it instead to get obscenely rich, and despite our completely warped views with companies like Tesla and Amazon, “obscenely rich” starts in the hundreds of millions of dollars maybe a billion dollars if someone was an idiot.

On top of that there are thousands of examples throughout history that show that people don’t invent things solely to make money and the original big brains behind company innovations were not necessarily profit motivated.

Like with many many things in our world. This is fantastic! >!just as long as it’s available for everyone and not here to make the rich richer.!<

Aren’t all consoles?

Some people like that trump is a freak, they excuse the most heinous shit for the people that think he’s a freak, but he’s a necessary evil to take down the deep state or necessary to fulfil biblical prophecy, who in turn provide excuses for those who think he’s kind of bad but will help the economy who in turn provide excuses for the “centrists” who didn’t vote for him but think the accusations are blown out of proportion.

Its funny, we dont fund all these things because they’re “good enough” to work. And the reason we’re dumping lumps into AI is because it doesn’t even do “good enough” right now but there’s a lot of people that expected it to already.

Sorry, but it’s more like a crab apple.

It looks like an apple, it’s presented like an apple, it’s advertised like an apple because that is what makes the YouTuber money. But scientific methods and standards exist for a reason. It’s very easy to produce bad data and especially easy to extract bad conclusions from data if you have an incentive to do so (such as a fan base who might engage with the video less if the conclusions were against their expectations)

There’s a chance that this guy’s conclusions reflect what a proper study might have found, but it’s just too hard to tell if it’s a crab apple or not it’s essentially probably a little better than chance.

This is definitely big city language. 11$ is an expensive sandwich.

What? Yeah? Some doors open in some ways other doors open in others?