funchords @ funchords @lemmy.sdf.org

Barbershop quartet singer, weight-loser, philosophy student of life

---

Read more

Posts

7

Comments

69

Joined

2 yr. ago

cook and sous chef

Mad respect from me. I can't think of a more difficult job, you have to keep up, you have to juggle orders were some things are easy and some things are hard, you have to deal with the temperature and the standing and the moving. This is a tough, tough job!

A new study by human resources and payroll services platform Gusto Inc. shows smaller companies that have embraced remote work cite higher performance, better employee retention and strong corporate culture built on a foundation of flexibility. As small companies compete with deep-pocketed giants for talent, those gains could provide an edge.

“SMBs are increasingly looking to extend the flexibility that their workforce enjoys,” said Gusto Economist Liz Wilke. “Not only to attract them, but to keep them less stressed, more able to manage their lives, and to build a culture and a team that works for them.”

Companies that started in the past three years are 31% remote and 46% hybrid for their workforces, far higher percentages than more-established companies. Only 22% of younger companies are fully in the office, according to Gusto. Overall, companies that were 100% on-site before the pandemic are split between hybrid work and being fully in the office, with 8% fully remote.

from: https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2023/06/13/remote-work-small-business-success-tips.html (paywalled, unfortunately)

Nobody is forcing anybody -- freedom is in the freedom to abstain, and all of us can abstain from working for an employer that demands RTO. There are plenty of remote jobs remote roles are possible, and the smaller the company, the better the job because you (as the individual among fewer) are valued. Big companies don't care and don't have to care.

It's probably another fact missing from this article, but while larger companies are doing RTO, smaller companies are not. Larger companies are making a mistake here, most likely. They've got problems and are blaming remote work rather than innovating. Smaller companies are nimble.

This is terrible reporting, emotional, practically yellow. Two academics are quoted. The article and headline tell you how you should feel about this. This should have never gotten past the editor's desk.

Barbershop quartet singing (ala The Barbershop Harmony Society). Instant friends and such satisfaction to hear yourself lending a note into four-part chords. (It's the basis of my username.)

The result of about half of recent lander missions from Earth is failure.

The USA hasn't tried one recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon

Working out with weights

I would disagree about your average because it’s brought down by people working multiple jobs

No, as these are the numbers reported by worker's themselves (Robert Whaples's research) and not by their disparate employers. But looking at it as you suggested, it comes out to 34.3 hours.

Here are two more views on it:

https://ourworldindata.org/working-more-than-ever (world trends)

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/january-2007/working-hard-or-hardly-working-the-evolution-of-leisure-in-the-united-states [dated]

The unemployment rates in the USA and Canada are both far below norms. These robots aren't taking anyone's irreplaceable job. Of all the things they are (ugly, intrusive, annoying), one of the things they're not doing is driving up unemployment. At worst, someone has to change jobs.

yet work more than any other time in history.

My impression is that we're the most leisurely, per capita, than we've ever been. The average workweek now is 34 hours, down from 60-70 in the 1850s.

Unfortunately, I'm finding Lemmy 2023 just as shallow as Reddit 2023.

One of Roddenberry's first series was called The Lieutenant which aired on NBC for a season -- until it was canceled due to a falling out between the Marines and the network over a race-based episode that nobody wanted but Roddenberry forced through (too preachy they worried). Episodes of this are available on YouTube and you will see some of the Trek stars that appeared in Where No Man has Gone Before.

Relevant Article 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans: ‘A lot of executives have egg on their faces’ -- CNBC

Lemmy.world announces blocking communities via Discord

I can't even verify if this was posted on their site.

• Discord is currently up. It's usually up.
• https://lemmy.world/ is currently down. (Cloudflare - bad gateway.) It's often down.

If you have the Google app on your phone, Discover is a choice on the bottom bar.

Example : https://lemmy.sdf.org/css/themes/litely.css

This loads for me. I also have CSS rendering before and after a hard refresh.

. I’m just saying the reasons given seem… Idea driven.

There are two different problems

The exploding-heads website is the one that is "... Idea driven" (nicely said by you). Just as someone else mentioned, somebody might find my ideas distasteful and want to defederate with my instance just because my opinion doesn't agree with theirs, I wouldn't want to be treated that way, and that consideration should probably go both ways no matter whether I like their opinion or sense of humor/irony (or not). As a user, I have felt no impact about this “problem” but Federation or not is more of an administrator question and I am not an administrator.

The rammy.site website Is a website that has lost its administrator somewhere, so nobody is minding the store. That is concerning because it becomes an attractive nuisance to the network itself. Should there be concerning posts or other forms of malicious traffic, there is no one to raise those concerns to. As users, this doesn't bother us very much, but this may be something for the administrators that federate with it to consider.

It looks fine to me on both Chrome and Firefox.

For those looking for a Lemmy weight loss community, visit !loseit@discuss.tchncs.de and help us grow one!

This is too severe and unhealthy.

Your body is burning not just fat tissue, but lean tissue as well, and likely so fast that it can't replace it fast enough to keep up. Even with 5000 Fridays, you're taking in 8000 a week which is less than 1200 a day, less than some old short inactive grandma would use to lose a few extra pounds (not from 270).

Weight loss puts increased demands upon the body. Gallstones, malnutrition, dehydration, and electrolyte imbalances can happen when those demands exceed the body's capability to cope with them. More minor side-effects include hair and nail problems, irregular female menstrual cycles, constipation, dizziness, fatigue, and headaches.

I just saw your post. Wanted to say hi. I lost from 298 and also lost pretty fast, but didn't need to go all that severely. I also had a few goal-weight adjustments but I've kept it off basically for 8 years now (170s now, at 5'11 male).