🐙🐢📚 Octopus @octopus@cybre.space

you can't just put 50 blocked tickets on a kanban board and say you're agile*

*actually you can and that's in a nutshell why agile is shit

t-shirt with a gay pride DNA helix and the text:

I Contribute To My Cousins' Evolutionary Success

I try to end my days on a positive note which is why I always stay awake past midnight

it's possible that "good/bad at job" is not usually a good categorization, in that most jobs have more than one aspect & my guess is most people are at least decent at one aspect of their job?

and if there are jobs that *nobody* is good at b/c as a society we haven't figured the thing out yet (maybe interviewing job candidates, or the field of "change management" ?) (possibly b/c the thing is actually impossible and we should be solving a different problem instead)

& when it comes to people being "bad" at their jobs, I wonder how that breaks down into intrinsic (skills, knowledge, experience, maturity) vs. extrinsic (mismanagement, overwork, lack of support, lack of feedback) factors

and how much is people simply not caring whether they do a good job or not (which might be entirely rational)

something I think about a lot is:

* what % of employed people are actually good at their job? what % are "not bad" at it?

* what would a society that only employed people in jobs they're good at look like? would there be a lot of unemployment?

my vague guess is that people in "leadership" roles often aren't good leaders, and roles that require both technical skills and communication / emotional / "soft" skills are frequently filled by someone who is only good at one of those two.

in other news, no progress on the job application front

(some progress on the self-organizational front which is hopeful? but it also feels like something I'm doing *instead* of applying to jobs.)

having a hypothetical conversation like

me: "sorry."
me: "I don't want an apology, I want you to work on the problem."
me: "yeah but I'd rather apologize than try to fix things."

it's frustrating too that whenever this kind of thing happens, people think I'm being obstinate / difficult / "overly literal" on purpose and I'm, not? I put a lot of effort into figuring out what to do when instructions vague or absent. I'm actually not that awful at it, but people expect you to be *perfect* even when they don't provide even minimal instructions (or different instructions, or instructions that are obviously false…)

afterwards dad asked why I didn't just tell him I was waiting for my dad and I said "He didn't ask." Which is true but my dad took it to mean that I was being difficult on purpose.

Thinking more now it wasn't just that the guy didn't ask, it was that he was driving the conversation and displayed zero curiosity, zero interest in new information and zero willingness to consider that he might be missing something. He was creating something other than a collaborative dynamic. He didn't seem to want know anything, he just wanted me to not be an edge case.

I checked afterward and you don't need a membership to fill prescriptions or get an eye exam, at least in Ohio.

(at no point during any of this have I turned to see where this counter that he's talking about is)

I think about saying that I do mind, or just disregarding his preferences, but, again, I am actually not trying to fuck with people. More importantly I've stepped in the "if you don't you mind" trap before and have zero willingness to put up with that speaking-out-of-both-sides-of-your-mouth bullshit. So I say "okay", turn around, and wait in the car for my dad. My dad shows his card and we go in together; guy says nothing.

he asks: "Do you have a membership card?"
I say: "No."

"Why not?"
This really throws me off.
"…?? Because I never acquired one?"
This does not appear to satisfy him.
"I mean, that's the default state? Most people aren't born with one?"

He says: "You need a card to shop here."
I say "Okay" confidently, nod, and turn to walk away, because I'm not here to shop, I'm here for an eye exam & to meet my dad.

"You are a member then?"
"No."

"Well, this is a membership club."
"Right."

"You'll need a membership card to buy anything."
"Okay."

"So, what you need to do is, go to that desk over there and they can get you signed up."
"Do I _need_ a membership to be in the store? Or just to shop?"
"To shop."
"So I don't need to go to the desk and sign up?"
"I would prefer that you did."
(confused) "Oo… kay?"

I would prefer not to, and it seems weird that he expects me to find his preference more important.

I turn to go.

"So if you don't mind, just go to the counter over there…"

went to the optometrist, that part went well but really frustrating experience w/ the card checker guy at ginormous "members' club" shopping center. I was meeting my dad (has a membership) there, and didn't want stand outside in the cold when there's chairs inside.

I watched some people go in & the guy by the door didn't particularly seem to be interacting with them, plus he turned around and was messing with a stack of water bottle pallets, so I figured I could just walk past him like everybody else was doing.

He nonverbally tries to get my attention and I should have just waved and kept on walking but, and this is important, I am *not actually trying to fuck with people,* I'm just here for the eye exam.

massaged my neck enough that I can turn my head enough to see behind me & to the left while driving! still not full range of motion though

discovered that I am extremely opposed to a "video interview" (not over video link – pre-recorded)

*especially* with the body language being rated by an AI

spent the last week or so orbiting around (on particular guy's) understanding of buddhism & not accomplishing the goal of "plays an instance of this video game to completion instead of quitting 1/3rd in"

as opposed to: looking for, appliying for, or following up on jobs

there was a brief discussion on "spiritual but not religious" here (I think kicked off by @shel?) not too long ago

this article makes sense to me:
https://meaningness.com/metablog/sbnr-spiritual-but-not-religious

but possibly only because I read this one first:
https://approachingaro.org/twilight-of-the-isms (by the same author)

(hello yes I'm staying up late reading david chapman again)

encountered an amazing take on western import of hindu/buddhism spirituality: it's almost all bullshit (in that westerners don't take it seriously enough to work) —but— is still a good thing because it builds westerners up for their next life & after a few go-rounds they should be reborn as people who do have the ability to take it seriously

it'd be kinda fuzzy and indistinct probably, but would carry the feel of communing/communicating with something "other". probably only in a small fraction of the people who take it most seriously & are most flexible/suggestible in that way, but like. still.