Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Qwertycoatl
Dec 31, 2008



FMguru posted:

also, since when are workplaces supposed to be places for expressing your True Self? they are places for getting work done and behaving in a professional manner. if you feel the overpowering need to express your True Self, well, thats what all the hours and spaces outside of work are for

it's probably for people who don't have a life outside of work

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rjmccall
Sep 7, 2007

no worries friend

Fun Shoe

at an earlier job, some of our directors were the sort of people who read management magazines, and they found some article about how humans can supposedly mentally handle relationships with about 144 people before they start to depersonalize everyone else, which i’m sure was just typical pop sociology nonsense. we were growing a lot / doing a major reorg / getting bought out at the time, and they gave us a pep talk about how they were aiming for that as the ideal size for an organization. every one of us was like, even if this amazing science fact were true, maybe some of us want to save some some of those relationships for, like, the other people in our lives? and management was just so disappointed in us

ultrafilter
Aug 23, 2007

It's okay if you have any questions.
:fart:



rjmccall posted:

at an earlier job, some of our directors were the sort of people who read management magazines, and they found some article about how humans can supposedly mentally handle relationships with about 144 people before they start to depersonalize everyone else, which i’m sure was just typical pop sociology nonsense. we were growing a lot / doing a major reorg / getting bought out at the time, and they gave us a pep talk about how they were aiming for that as the ideal size for an organization. every one of us was like, even if this amazing science fact were true, maybe some of us want to save some some of those relationships for, like, the other people in our lives? and management was just so disappointed in us

From Dunbar's number (bolding mine):

quote:

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person. This number was first proposed in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size. By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships. There is some evidence that brain structure predicts the number of friends one has, though causality remains to be seen. Dunbar explained it informally as "the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar." Dunbar theorised that "this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this, in turn, limits group size [...] the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained". On the periphery, the number also includes past colleagues, such as high school friends, with whom a person would want to reacquaint himself or herself if they met again. Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150.

A replication of Dunbar's analysis with a larger data set and updated comparative statistical methods has challenged Dunbar's number by revealing that the 95% confidence interval around the estimate of maximum human group size is much too large (2–520) to specify any cognitive limit.

rjmccall
Sep 7, 2007

no worries friend

Fun Shoe

lol. yeah, that’s definitely what it was

Internet Janitor
May 17, 2008

"That isn't the appropriate trash receptacle."


human resources is proud to announce that every employee will be permitted to have one friend, family member, or significant other outside The Organization

to facilitate this, each of you have been assigned one employee at random whom you must never interact or communicate with in any capacity; if doing so is ever vital to business tasks you have also been assigned an intermediary for facilitating said communication without forming a relationship

have a nice day

Cybernetic Vermin
Apr 18, 2005



to be fair to rjmccalls old employer they appear to have made room for *six* non-work associations

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008



rjmccall posted:

at an earlier job, some of our directors were the sort of people who read management magazines, and they found some article about how humans can supposedly mentally handle relationships with about 144 people before they start to depersonalize everyone else, which i’m sure was just typical pop sociology nonsense. we were growing a lot / doing a major reorg / getting bought out at the time, and they gave us a pep talk about how they were aiming for that as the ideal size for an organization. every one of us was like, even if this amazing science fact were true, maybe some of us want to save some some of those relationships for, like, the other people in our lives? and management was just so disappointed in us

iirc the best argument for that 150ish number was that many civilizations have independently organized their military to have a unit of about that size where everyone can at least kinda recognize each other.

it feels like a very pop history/evolutionary psychology “just so” story but I’d buy it


(it seems far more likely the size of a century/company/whatever was converged to that size due to how far a single centurion/officer’s voice could carry in a formation)

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Dec 10, 2021

Qwertycoatl
Dec 31, 2008



hobbesmaster posted:

iirc the best argument for that 150ish number was that many civilizations have independently organized their military to have a unit of about that size where everyone can at least kinda recognize each other.

it feels like a very pop history/evolutionary psychology “just so” story but I’d buy it


(it seems far more likely the size of a century/company/whatever was converged to that size due to how far a single centurion/officer’s voice could carry in a formation)

it seems kind of arbitrary even then since the century was subdivided into 10 smaller units, and multiple centuries were combined into cohorts or maniples. which do you pick as the fundmanental human group size?

DELETE CASCADE
Oct 25, 2017

i haven't washed my penis since i jerked it to a phtotograph of george w. bush in 2003


MrQueasy posted:

I keep seeing people saying "oh, I can't be my TRUE SELF" at work, and all I can see is "well, your true self must be ridiculously lovely then".

I am a Dude with ADHD who was raised Libertarian/Catholic and a lot of times I cannot control the leap from brain to speech. (You guys should know, you have to read my posts) If _I_, an old man -- after nearly two decades of computer touching -- have not been pulled into HR and officially reprimanded for saying something lovely, then I think the average Jim-Bob should be able to as well.

Like, I'm not saying I'm perfect, or that I've never offended anyone. That's impossible. But come ON guys... there's a difference between having to apologize and make amends occasionally and being a Seriously lovely Human Being.

how can you be both libertarian and catholic? "well you see the most important thing politically is individual freedom, everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting others, traditions and institutions don't matter and aren't binding, well except for this one institution, you have to believe exactly what they say about everything or you're going to hell forever"

rjmccall
Sep 7, 2007

no worries friend

Fun Shoe

Qwertycoatl posted:

it seems kind of arbitrary even then since the century was subdivided into 10 smaller units, and multiple centuries were combined into cohorts or maniples. which do you pick as the fundmanental human group size?

well, you see, a tribe of ten cannot support a management consultant

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

DELETE CASCADE posted:

how can you be both libertarian and catholic? "well you see the most important thing politically is individual freedom, everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting others, traditions and institutions don't matter and aren't binding, well except for this one institution, you have to believe exactly what they say about everything or you're going to hell forever"

I was raised that way, and no I still don't understand it. I slid into atheism and Leftism pretty quickly after leaving college.

My parents are a world of contrasts... (So much poisoning going on of American Catholics by the TradCath movement...)

Maximo Roboto
Feb 4, 2012



ultrafilter posted:

From Dunbar's number (bolding mine):

It's called the Monkeysphere.

Nomnom Cookie
Aug 30, 2009





Maximo Roboto posted:

It's called the Monkeysphere.

we don’t need to hear about your sex life

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008



Qwertycoatl posted:

it seems kind of arbitrary even then since the century was subdivided into 10 smaller units, and multiple centuries were combined into cohorts or maniples. which do you pick as the fundmanental human group size?

those are your "two pizza teams"

carry on then
Jul 10, 2010


MrQueasy posted:

I was raised that way, and no I still don't understand it. I slid into atheism and Leftism pretty quickly after leaving college.

My parents are a world of contrasts... (So much poisoning going on of American Catholics by the TradCath movement...)

traditional catheter

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

carry on then posted:

traditional catheter

I'd like to tell them where to stick it, that's for sure.

alexandriao
Jul 20, 2019

"What're quantum mechanics?"
"I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose."


MononcQc posted:

The classic utilitarian argument of "what if you give a lot of pain to one person, but it causes mild pleasure to a lot of others," except in this case it's one HN poster provoking a lot of mild pain to a lot of people to give himself some self satisfaction.

:actually: both JS Mills and Bentham spent a lot of time trying to make their equations not do that. The original spirit of Utilitarianism is an effort to make rich people respect poor people, and an attempt to find a calculus that rich people would be forced to obey in some sense. But it's since been twisted by blithering immoral idiots like those of the Less Wrong variety :/ Bentham and Mills also were the first in Western Philosophy to put forth that morals are relative, not directly determined by God -- i.e. Before Bentham, if the Church said running was immoral, it was Immoral. Running to get help for a fire, running to save someones life? Doesn't matter, those are objectively Immoral as determined by God. After Bentham, those acts would be allowed because they were done to save a life. The impact of Utilitarianism is largely good pre-1900s.

alexandriao
Jul 20, 2019

"What're quantum mechanics?"
"I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose."


Anyway, this is a real... well... holy poo poo. Spoilering because the reveal is uhhhhhhHHHHH



Kranar 34 minutes ago | undown | parent | context | flag | favorite | on: The Strange, Unfinished Saga of Cyberpunk 2077

I'll go against the grain and say that you can rush a game, you can overwork people, and that in many cases, for many companies, doing so is the only path to success. We're talking about one of the most successful companies in Poland that you only know about because they managed to produce some of the most popular and profitable games ever created, and they didn't get to this point by letting developers and managers take their sweet time.

Are you going to try to tell me that The Witcher 3 was developed by having everyone work a standard 8 hour day and that the team was given as much time as they felt was needed to produce it? Of course not... it was developed with just as much of a crunch, pressure and "inhumane working conditions" [1] as Cyberpunk 2077, but because it was a resounding success on all platforms, no one batted an eye.

The issues with Cyberpunk 2077 have next to nothing to do with crunch time, they simply tried to make a game for a platform that was never going to be able to support it, regardless of how much time they took. The game on PC is a masterpiece of technology, it looks and feels amazing and it's a resounding success. The failure on PS4 and XBox is because those platforms were still very large markets and they wanted to take advantage of them and well push come to shove, there's just no way of making the game play well on them.

That's all there is to this story, making a game for a platform that can't support it is going to be a failure. Now that Cyberpunk has failed, people will use that failure as a way to argue about things that likely have nothing to do with the cause of the failure, and you know maybe that's a good thing and better working conditions come of it... I don't know... what I do know is even if CD Projekt Red decides to change its working culture for the next game they make, there's dozens of other new game studios rising up and it may be the case that the only way for them to compete with the existing giants is to work day and night to the bone on making the next masterpiece.

[1] https://www.gamebyte.com/cd-projekt-red-admits-crunch-period...

reply

Internet Janitor
May 17, 2008

"That isn't the appropriate trash receptacle."


even apart from the lesswrong "shut up and multiply" amoralism there's also the Great Man fallacy at play- the absurd unstated premise is that only through the creative vision steered and shaped by the rapist harvey weinstein could have each film succeeded. surely it had nothing to do with the thousands of people who actually did the loving work to make the movies, and surely the rapist harvey weinstein could not have performed his critical role of sitting in some meetings had he not fueled himself by raping women

Sapozhnik
Jan 2, 2005



Nap Ghost

you do not, in fact, "gotta hand it to them"

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004





alexandriao posted:

Bentham and Mills also were the first in Western Philosophy to put forth that morals are relative, not directly determined by God

nah

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004





i just want to list like half the early moderns and 90% of the greeks and non-christian romans here COME ON

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004





utilitarianism suffers all the same problems as talk of "close possible worlds" as used in contemporary metaphysics, epistemology, etc. in that you're not discovering things when you articulate these half-formed scenarios, you're stipulating them with no way to tell whether or not the scenario you've (partially) described is even coherent. it's the philosophy version of "imagine we had faster than light travel but everything else was the same."

animist
Aug 28, 2018

help

that's also category theory, neoclassical economics, and string theory lol

ErrorInvalidUser
Aug 23, 2021

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS


intelligence lol

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004





not category theory (at least what i'm familiar with)- that doesn't make predictions about the empirical world or rely on stories about it. the problem is "i tell a story about the world like THIS so the base concepts must be put together like THAT". proving some theorems, even if they're of the form "postulate p implies q" isn't the same as "here's a story about hedons, therefore buy bitcoin". but i'm not a mathematician

i don't know enough about economics or string theory to comment much other than to say that the criticism sounds right for the former but for the latter i thought string theory poo poo was just a bunch of speculative mathematics with no testable conclusions. that's not really science but it's also not the problem i'm talking about. but i might just be misunderstanding the criticism

animist
Aug 28, 2018

help

nah I just meant, they're all based on vague unfalsifiable rulesets masquerading as "obvious" or "fundamental" truths. string theory's similar, it's an argument "this math is so beautiful so it's obviously gotta be scientifically true". but according to particle accelerators... doesn't look like it, at least so far.

e: like string theory the math is fine, but all the physicists who keep being surprised we're not finding the particles predicted by string theory because "it was such a nice story so we were sure it was true"

animist fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 12, 2021

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem

that pesky euclidean geometry, with its parallel postulate that may or may not apply to the real universe

Maximo Roboto
Feb 4, 2012



Penisface posted:

what a great idea! after all, none of the starships have blown up completely in the sky, raining debris everywhere

Build the waste containers out of airplane black box material, problem solved

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004





*makes a dedekind cut*

animist
Aug 28, 2018

help

im a rational line intactivist

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004





lol

Pulcinella
Feb 15, 2019


quote:

koheripbal 49 minutes ago | parent | next [–]

I don't know if this is the same chemical that is released by decaying humans, but the few times I was exposed to decaying human bodies (forgotten elderly people in apartment complexes), I felt an overwhelming calming feeling.
The smell is overwhelming, but I specifically remember the feeling it created.

:stare:

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019





e: didn’t even see the post above. good brains think alike

mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Dec 13, 2021

Pulcinella
Feb 15, 2019


^ :hai: It’s so perfect I’m wondering if it’s an intentional joke post.


hn thread: I was exposed to decaying human bodies, I felt an overwhelming calming feeling. Could this be exploited for test taking?

Pulcinella fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Dec 13, 2021

fritz
Jul 26, 2003



mawarannahr posted:



e: didn’t even see the post above. good brains think alike

smell alike too

Doc Hawkins
Jun 15, 2010

Dashing? But I'm not even moving!




Qwertycoatl posted:

it's probably for people who don't have a life outside of work

i think it's for encouraging people to not have a life outside of work

fritz
Jul 26, 2003



PaulHoule 6 minutes ago | prev | next [–]

Part of the story of men and women is that a women's sexual value is at a peak very early (let's say 18) but a man's sexual value peaks later (at least 30+).
The sexual invisibility many men feel as teenagers is a trauma that will live with them for the rest of their lives.
Eva Illouz writes about this stuff eloquently
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2012/05/24/book-rev...
and says that 30+ women who are still single want more of everything out of relationships than men will give them, including sex.
reply

mystes
May 31, 2006



Bostonian 15 hours ago [–]


'DeBoer is skeptical of "equality of opportunity". Even if you solve racism, sexism, poverty, and many other things that DeBoer repeatedly reminds us have not been solved, you'll just get people succeeding or failing based on natural talent. DeBoer agrees conservatives can be satisfied with this, but thinks leftists shouldn't be. Natural talent is just as unearned as class, race, or any other unfair advantage.'

Ok, but it's better for social progress if the naturally talented keep most of their earnings and can afford to have large families, so that their talents are passed on. IQ, athletic and musical ability, looks, etc. all have substantial genetic components.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

post hole digger
Mar 21, 2011


fritz posted:

PaulHoule 6 minutes ago | prev | next [–]

Part of the story of men and women is that a women's sexual value is at a peak very early (let's say 18) but a man's sexual value peaks later (at least 30+).
The sexual invisibility many men feel as teenagers is a trauma that will live with them for the rest of their lives.
Eva Illouz writes about this stuff eloquently
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2012/05/24/book-rev...
and says that 30+ women who are still single want more of everything out of relationships than men will give them, including sex.
reply

Paul Hole

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply