|
I just overheard Bill having another high level business call. "I think you're set up for gin. You have a few liters of Bombay Sapphire..."
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Hate to break it to you, but normal social interaction includes meeting, getting along with, and working together with people who are strangers and you don't have any initial common ground with. Crazy political nutjobs are a tiny minority, that's not a representative example. Try to branch out and not channel aspergers-tier social ineptness that's so stereotypical of IT employees so much. I actually agree with CLAM DOWN for once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
psydude posted:I actually agree with CLAM DOWN for once. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:The CEO sent me a PDF that he said wouldn't open for him. I open it and see that it's a "corporate project" list sent to him by my boss. It has a bunch of stuff I know nothing about, but on the right hand side is a big box that says RIF and under it are five departments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Time to figure out a way to make yourself seem indispensable. Official PDF opener.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:For legitimate medical or social anxiety issues accommodations can easily be made just like they are for other facets of the job as required under the ADA, but under most circumstances asking an employee to spend a couple of hours during his normal work schedule interacting with his coworkers isn't discriminatory. I'm remote so this doesn't come up anymore, thankfully! They came along for my last outing to the SF Bay. Vulture Culture fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Time to figure out a way to make yourself seem indispensable. The boss couldn't open the PDF. He doesn't know what the original looks like. Just take "technology" off the RIF list, save it, tell the boss you automagically fixed the file and send it on over. In fact, might as well include proposed raises for tech and ride that train as far as you can before somebody finds out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:Official PDF opener. The Royal Food Taster in the age of cryptolocker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
My team is the best team. We get along perfectly fine even though most of us are in different stages of our lives and have completely different backgrounds. When I recieved the department team building invite the whole team reacted the same way: "Oh for fucks sake. Who the hell WANTS to clean a beach and remove certain berry plants in a forrest. How can we get out of this?!" So we sat together and planned demo event with a large vendor which accidently is planned on the exact same as our ~Team~Building~Event~. Unfortunately this is the only day the vendor can make it happen this quarter and this demo/workshop is essential to achieve our team goals for the upcoming 6 months. My team, best team.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Typically this results in a person who's proficient at neither role. Tab8715 posted:How so? Ops is one job track with its own set of specialties. Dev is a different job track with its own set of specialties. When you mash the two together you get an inch deep and a mile wide. I've run into ops+dev that don't understand basic inheritance. More commonly though I run into tons of DevOps that don't understand what a subnet is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Ops is one job track with its own set of specialties. Dev is a different job track with its own set of specialties. When you mash the two together you get an inch deep and a mile wide. I've run into ops+dev that don't understand basic inheritance. More commonly though I run into tons of DevOps that don't understand what a subnet is. I feel you. However this is not devops related. 90% of IT people think networks are managed by black magic or voodoo. Some think it's both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:Sure, that's fine -- companies should acknowledge that either the productivity and team performance gains are worth paying people for, or they aren't. It's the "during normal work hours" part that a lot of companies seem to gently caress up by forcing people to mandatory, unpaid weekend barbecues, company dinners, and things like that. I love spending time with coworkers, but there's some tiny people at home who could really use my time discussing problems and imparting wisdom, too. I agree that anything mandatory should be during normal work hours and compensated. People have lives and responsibilities outside of work. There's plenty of time within a normal 40 hour work week to schedule these things and if you can't trade the lost productivity for whatever the gain is supposed to be then it's obviously not that important. LochNessMonster posted:I feel you. However this is not devops related. 90% of IT people think networks are managed by black magic or voodoo. Some think it's both. This problem is merely aggravating when that person is the Windows admin or something, but crippling when they are supposed to be a cloudy devops full stack engineerchtect. You can get away with being mostly ignorant of things outside of your discipline when your environment is traditionally siloed, but that's the opposite of devops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:This problem is merely aggravating when that person is the Windows admin or something, but crippling when they are supposed to be a cloudy devops full stack engineerchtect. You can get away with being mostly ignorant of things outside of your discipline when your environment is traditionally siloed, but that's the opposite of devops. I agree, but the result is not really different. These people are completely unfit for their jobs in both positions. I've worked with people so far in over their head in siloed environments that I really don't know how they can look at themselves in the mirror and say they're doing a great job. Some / a lot of those people are now devops engineerchitects. And still know jack poo poo. "What's a diff check?" "What's a vlan/loadbalancer/subnet" "How do I login on a windows server?" "How can I put a file on a server?" "What is telnet/ssh/traceroute/ping/netstat" Those are all questions I got from co-workers with 5-35 years of "experience" as technical application engineers. Config managment, ci, cd or even mundain things like git are as fluid as the cloud for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Ops is one job track with its own set of specialties. Dev is a different job track with its own set of specialties. When you mash the two together you get an inch deep and a mile wide. I've run into ops+dev that don't understand basic inheritance. More commonly though I run into tons of DevOps that don't understand what a subnet is. The closest "DevOps" title I've seen is Google's SRE which is essentially defined and described as a combination of SysAdmin and Developer. They've hired both full blown devs or Sysadmins that were able to branch out a bit into the similar skillset. What do you think makes a good DevOps person? Note, I'm aware "DevOps" isn't and shouldn't be a role but this is as close as it gets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
About 20 minutes after the CFO tells me he thinks he's going to get laid off (after 10+ years) because his responsibilities are being dished off to lower level personnel I get copied in on the email chain where we're spending over $100k on a search for a new CFO. For such a small place (50 people) the turnover and bullshit intrigue is remarkable. In a year and a half we're at about 50% turnover. Today I got notified that the CEO assistant that for unknown reasons hates me is leaving in September. Of course I might be gone by then... EDIT: We have a lot of free snacks here. I think I should eat myself into oblivion/diabetes before they can term me. Dick Trauma fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Hate to break it to you, but normal social interaction includes meeting, getting along with, and working together with people who are strangers and you don't have any initial common ground with. Crazy political nutjobs are a tiny minority, that's not a representative example. Try to branch out and not channel aspergers-tier social ineptness that's so stereotypical of IT employees so much. Also, if that was ever said in a meeting, that person - short of being an owner or C-level - would be out the door. The fact that they aren't out the door (And, in fact, YOU are out the door for objecting to that sort of BS) because HR wants you to be accepting of that situation specifically teaches people to never question authority - which damages the "team" you are trying to build. I guarantee you that the termination of one person for that reason spread further than any effect of a few of the tables having an awesome time. NippleFloss posted:The point of those things (sack races, locked room, etc) is to get you to think of these people as colleagues and maybe friends so that your first response when Jeannie submits a ticket about the internet being down isn't "why doesn't this idiot know how to clear her browser cache yet?!". And understanding a little about what she does in accounting or HR and the challenges she faces isn't so that you can help her fix problems more quickly, it's so you can understand that her job has its frustrations just like yours and she's not actively trying to sabotage you by opening tickets because she's dumb and lazy, she's doing it because she's dealing with her own frustrations and just wants things to work. Yeah, except that never happens. When IT gets 4,977 tickets from Jeannie about how she can't ever get work done, the IT team thinks that she's a worthless waste of space regardless of having to pretend to be her wife. That will never change, not even if you like Jeannie. Then she's just a nice person who can't lick a stamp without swallowing it. And I'd bet that every single person here in IT has had those people. NippleFloss posted:The purpose of those sorts of team building exercises is to attempt to promote social sensitivity and good group dynamics. You can argue that they are or are not effective, but thus far the only argument I've seen is "I don't like them, ergo they serve no purpose." There are certainly people for whom a low stakes cooperative endeavor will be the ideal situation for them to become more comfortable speaking up and sharing their ideas, whereas they might not if they were a member of a team working on a critical project and were worried about the consequences of being wrong. Overcoming this simple fact is why HR tries the bullshit like making the get together mandatory, problem solving with complete strangers, or forcing you to sit with people you don't know. But they sabotage themselves: if you are forced to be in a setting you don't want to be, you are already not in the right mindset. Being forced to do stupid human tricks pushes you further away from that mindset, and if you get racist psychos as a part of your entourage you are more likely to reinforce the exact things the company says you should change. If you want to team build, it has to be at the team level and it has to be voluntary. All parts of the team must be collaborative and open. You don't get that via coercion and games. You get it via natural, piece meal growth. You can't force it, you can't make it happen faster, and when the team loses or gains a member the old team is dead and the new team creates a new dynamic - even if that dynamic is similar. NippleFloss posted:thus far the only argument I've seen is "I don't like them, ergo they serve no purpose." Go read that NY Times piece from Google's research posted a bit ago. It'll give you the contrast between "socially forced" and "open" groups. If you aren't allowed to participate, i.e. help chose where you go, what you do, and so forth; the groups chances of successful interaction diminish. The less involved you get with your team building, the less effect the team building will have overall - no matter the intentions or strategy of an HR department.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
In other news: Microsoft made Powershell open source and has released alphas for OSX and Linux.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:About 20 minutes after the CFO tells me he thinks he's going to get laid off (after 10+ years) because his responsibilities are being dished off to lower level personnel I get copied in on the email chain where we're spending over $100k on a search for a new CFO. Pocket the snacks and hoard so you have food after you're laid off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
LochNessMonster posted:In other news: Microsoft made Powershell open source and has released alphas for OSX and Linux. This is both awesome and strange. I mean, nothing else on an OS X or Linux box will use the powershell commands. I wonder what their aim in doing this is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:Pocket the snacks and hoard so you have food after you're laid off. If I ask Bill to start ordering ramen he might get suspicious. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Arsten posted:This is both awesome and strange. I mean, nothing else on an OS X or Linux box will use the powershell commands. I wonder what their aim in doing this is. Allowing this to work in non-windows environments would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
The Fool posted:Allowing this to work in non-windows environments would be my guess. That's interesting. But wouldn't they also have to release configuration modules for the various unix flavors to work with that? I don't see RHEL or Apple jumping on board doing that for Microsoft, at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
It's based on an open standard for Linux, so they just met the standard. OMI if I remember right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
^^^^And that: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/dsc/lnxgettingstartedArsten posted:That's interesting. But wouldn't they also have to release configuration modules for the various unix flavors to work with that? I don't see RHEL or Apple jumping on board doing that for Microsoft, at least. I'm sure Ubuntu would have no problems working on modules for them given their role in getting bash on Windows. Plus any vendors that want to provide configuration tools, plus community made modules, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
The Fool posted:I'm sure Ubuntu would have no problems working on modules for them given their role in getting bash on Windows. Plus any vendors that want to provide configuration tools, plus community made modules, etc. With all that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised it'd work, then. Microsoft's been a strange one since Nadella took over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Being able to connect into Exchange from a Mac would be a nice thing to have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Being able to connect into Exchange from a Mac would be a nice thing to have. Microsoft Outlook does a good job for me 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
The Fool posted:Allowing this to work in non-windows environments would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Could I manage my entire Wintel Environment from a Mac w/ Powershell? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Could I manage my entire Wintel Environment from a Mac w/ Powershell?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Arsten posted:Go read that NY Times piece from Google's research posted a bit ago. It'll give you the contrast between "socially forced" and "open" groups. If you aren't allowed to participate, i.e. help chose where you go, what you do, and so forth; the groups chances of successful interaction diminish. The less involved you get with your team building, the less effect the team building will have overall - no matter the intentions or strategy of an HR department. I posted that article, so of course I've read it. It doesn't say that at all. There is nothing in there about voluntary participation at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:They had DSC for Linux two years ago, just like they've had OpenSSH for Windows for a while, or like how they announced MSSQL on Linux earlier this year. Yeah, that's what I get for posting about something I'm only tangentially aware of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:I posted that article, so of course I've read it. It doesn't say that at all. There is nothing in there about voluntary participation at all. Sorry for presenting your own article back to you. I read it back in February, so I didn't go in and re-read it past the headline. But, to your comment, it says it quite plainly, even in the quote they expanded in the first chapter: "As long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well. But if only one person or a small group spoke all the time, the collective intelligence declined." This is emblematic of what I'm saying: If you curtail peoples involvement, successful interaction diminishes. By easy extension, you can't force involvement. If I force you to say that you want to lick both Hillary and Trumps' crotches, does it make it true? Does it make you happy that you participated in my crazy stunt? Of course not. (If you want to do any of that....uh, keep it to yourself. This election is disturbing enough as it is without imagining a candidate three way.) And it's not just for project teams, it's for most areas of life. The music in shops, for instance, drives employees mad, even if they liked the songs before working there. Alleviation? Group choice - where the group discusses and decides. Even if a boss is needed for the final approval, having the group voice makes it bearable. If you bring an idea to your boss and he tells you "No." without a discussion, you feel worse - in whatever way you want to verbalize it: loss of energy, anger, dejection, etc. If you let your significant other make all of your life decisions, you feel worse. And the more these things happen, the worse you feel because, as a low-status social mammal, you start to build up cortisol which interferes with at least half of the systems in your body: moods, immune system, and even gender hormone expression. It's biological that we crave communal access and parity - it's why we always judge ourselves by what others have. Here's a reader (And not a light one at that) for you: Behavioral Endocrinology. Becker, 1992. MIT Press. This has a chapter or two dedicated to how social mammals interact and how biology drives them(us). It's why people hate those mandated activities and why it's counter effective to mandate them and pretend it builds a team. And I want to make this clear, again: It's not that team building is bad, it's that this particular style of team building is bad. It is figuratively as bad as mandating that everyone in your company runs Windows XP "for security". We don't need OSI Bean Dip in here to stroke out over this recommendation to know it's a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
The teams at Google are not voluntary. The teams in the study discussed were not voluntary. You're mistaking engagement for mere participation. The article discusses the benefits of engagement from all team members, it doesn't say anything about letting participants say "gently caress this project, I'm not doing it." It's also worth mentioning that a lot of times these sort of work events aren't about team building specifically, they are about trying to create a broader sense of community in the company by getting people interacting outside of their bubbles more often. It's directed specifically at increasing productivity within a team, it's more about trying to increase a general sense of attachment to the people you work with, and the workplace generally. We spend almost half of our waking lives at work and see coworkers more than all but maybe our immediate family, so attempting to create some sense of community can be healthy for both the employee and the company. YOLOsubmarine fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:The teams at Google are not voluntary. The teams in the study discussed were not voluntary. You're mistaking engagement for mere participation. The article discusses the benefits of engagement from all team members, it doesn't say anything about letting participants say "gently caress this project, I'm not doing it." And you seem to be the person mistaking participation for engagement. Merely being (or "participating") at a mandated event does not "create a broader sense of community in the company." To create that sense of corporate community, you need engagement. To get engagement, you have to allow the involved people to engage - which is much more difficult to do under a mandate. People don't engage if they are mandated to solve puzzles and they don't engage if they are required to be somewhere they don't want to be - for whatever reason they may want to be elsewhere. As for "attempting to create some sense of community can be health for both the employee and the company" that is bollocks. If you attempt and fail, you can actually damage the overall health of your staff and damage the "community" of your company because they start seeing the company as an adversary. Once that threshold is reached, it's a quick, short trip to feeling stressed. And then you absolutely cannot restore "community" without the team-level people involved because you have just made the entire company an outsider, which distorts their views of what is issued from the company.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
We, as in my team and some directly related teams, have voted on what to spend the company's yearly budget for a team event. We're going to go driving a long row of ancient deux-chevaux cars, and will make sure to all make a stop at the McDrive. I'm looking forward to it, because my colleagues aren't bastards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
I don't go to work to socialize, I come there to work. If I wanted to socialize I wouldn't go to work but hang out with family and friends. You don't pay me to be a prostitute, just let me do my job (new thread title?). My god I sound like an antisocial asperger while thats really not the case. Oh who am I kidding...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
LochNessMonster posted:I don't go to work to socialize, I come there to work. If I wanted to socialize I wouldn't go to work but hang out with family and friends. It's you, you're the guy who ruined open concept seating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:We, as in my team and some directly related teams, have voted on what to spend the company's yearly budget for a team event. We're going to go driving a long row of ancient deux-chevaux cars, and will make sure to all make a stop at the McDrive. Look at this sheep right here working for the man on a team outing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Virigoth posted:It's you, you're the guy who ruined open concept seating. Open seating at the ad agency I worked at turned into Subwoofer Wars. Concrete floors, no drop ceiling for that "cool" industrial look and sound bouncing off of every goddamn surface in sight. The creative team at one end of the floor fired the first shots and then client services at the other end responded. I sat in the middle. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 13:55
|
|