southsamurai @ southsamurai @sh.itjust.works

Posts

12

Comments

4,217

Joined

2 yr. ago

Me around this dog:

Oops dropped some ham!

Five seconds later:

Oops dropped some ham!

Five seconds later

Oops dropped some ham!

And then stop, because I don't want a dog to be unhealthy, but I'd feel really bad about not dropping some ham

It really varies too much between industries to give a single answer. Someone at an insurance company is going to be doing something vastly different than an accountant, and they'll be different from an architect (though only part of what architects do is in the office).

That being said, office work for the average worker, as in a salaried or hourly worker with a fairly rigidly defined job description, is usually going to be paperwork, even though there's not always paper involved.

It's taking information and moving it around, in one way or another.

As an example, one of my exes worked for a company that handles employee benefits, investments, and other services to other companies. Lets say a worker has an IRA, gets a nice insurance policy, and there's a pension fund.

Her job is to take data from the company that contracted with the company she worked for, enter that data into the system in an properly formatted way, run calculations, then trigger the appropriate funds being moved from one account to another. No meetings unless something goes wrong. It's all day data entry and management.

Now, before that job, she worked at a tax service under a CPA. She would get actual paper back then. Receipts, forms, and look for deductions for the client, then print out the church correct tax form, have the client sign it, then send it off. She would finish one, then start the next, all day long during tax season. Off season, she would be receiving accounting records from clients and entering them into the system of the company she worked for, and process things like withholding.

Pretty much, neither of those jobs required leaving the desk her entire shift.

Now, my best friend runs a department at a community college. He leaves the actual desk frequently. There's meeting with his superiors, meetings with his underlings, meetings with vendors, budgeting work, orders, policy decisions, disciplinary decisions, and the list keeps on going.

My best friend's husband was a flunky at architectural firm. When he was on a project, his job was drafting designs per specifications given to him. It required doing some oh the work, meeting with the architect, then changing anything per their decisions, or finalizing those plans. From there, once plans were ready to be used by someone to build something, he would essentially coordinate between contractors and his office to troubleshoot any snags with things like permits, supply issues, etc. So it was usually a lot of desk with work over a few weeks or months, then weeks or months barely at a desk, but still mostly in office.

Myself, I never had a long term office job. But, during recovery from a work related injury, I was pulled into the office of the home health company I worked for. My injury precluded patient care, but I was okay for light duty.

I was placed in staffing. I would roll in early, about 6 AM, and check for any call-ins. That would be employees needing to have their case covered by someone else for whatever reason. I would call other caregivers based on availability, proximity to the patient, and hours already worked. The last one was to avoid overtime unless absolutely necessary.

The software used, I would type in the name, and their details would pop up with their address, phone number, and current schedule. Same with the patient.

The first step for me was always to check the patient's location, because that let me filter out people on the list as available by proximity before anything else, since I would have to just go down the list. I'd enter a name, check the location, and decide who to short list. Once I had the short list, I'd verify they were not going into OT, and start calling, with priority given to employees that had requested more hours.

Most of the time, a call-in would take fifteen to twenty minutes to resolve.

Once the morning run was over, it would be time for a quick coffee and come back to handle any afternoon call-ins in the same way. Have lunch, then repeat for evening/night call-ins.

During the few months I was doing it, most of the time, that was handled by maybe 2 or 3 in the afternoon. Some days it was all handled before lunch, and very occasionally by the time the coffee break was available. Very variable because there are days when folks just didn't call in as much. And there were days it was crazy, particularly when there'd be something like a bad flu run through local schools and the parents would either catch it, or need to take care of their kids.

But, usually, the afternoons were either straight up bullshitting with the ladies in the office (not flirting or messing with, just swapping healthcare war stories), or helping with sorting out patient intake and/or prioritizing staffing for new patients. A new patient means you either shuffle staff around, hire new caregivers, or break it to the bosslady that someone is going to need overtime until the other options could happen. Since I knew pretty much everyone, I was good at figuring out who would be a good pick for a patient's needs.

A few times, I did some of the initial onboarding for new caregivers. Get them the employee handbook, introduce them around, talk about expectations, that kind of happy horseshit.

Tbh, I liked it most days, but not as much as patient care. Don't think I could have done it for years or anything, but as a temporary thing, it was nice.

See? Totally different daily routines and work between industries.

Are you Armstrong?

Because that's a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch

Ahhhhh, my homie, delete this. Quickly. And never ask such a thing on an insecure service again.

I'm not saying I don't understand, I do. But you gotta at least pretend to show basic caution.

Right this very second, my chicken preening herself next to me, occasionally pausing to make sure I see her preening herself so that I continue to sweetly praise her

Definitely an unpopular opinion!

I just ran into a mini discussion about this very subject.

My conclusion was, and is, that he was decent for a pope. Not the best human, not a great human, just a pope that was an improvement over previous popes. And I stand by that based on the improvements he did make. I suspect he maybe would have gone further if he thought he could do so and make it stick in practice.

But he never would have gone far enough to satisfy me into abandoning the ACAB theory of monotheism. You know, where individuals within the cop/Christian/Catholic group may be decent people, but they're part of a broken, corrupt, hateful system and aren't actively working to change that at full force, so they're still bad anyway.

Which is a long winded way of saying that I disagree with your title, but agree with the contents of your text body, at least with the broad strokes.

But you gotta realize, if you or me are giving lip service on camera, it don't mean shit. But if the pope pretends to be a nice guy, he can actually change minds in doing so. So I ain't mad at a pope that's willing to be on camera and encourage better behavior, even if he's s dipshit behind the scenes. And he did speak for better treatment of people, and there are actual Catholics that took it to heart and started acting better, so again, I ain't mad that he was a bit of a dick behind the scenes

You gotta understand something. It's all speculation.

There's no official rules stating a pope has to be a certain age. There's no procedural factors that make it mandatory.

This means that unless the Cardinals over time state that age was a factor in their voting, the rest of us can only guess, and the Cardinals involved in the election are supposed to never reveal what goes on during the voting.

While it's definitely possible to apply sound reasoning into why popes tend to be well past middle age overall, there have been popes under 50, and even a couple under 40. One was a pope multiple times, and was first elected at 12. That's Benedict the 9th, and it was over a thousand years ago, but still.

The Cardinals are supposed to be picking the pope based on their worthiness to be pope, but there's been plenty of times where it was politics and power mongering all the way.

Like any institution, the church has changed and shifted over its incredibly long history, with all the ups and downs of its influence, wealth, and power. So, obviously, selection of leadership isn't always the same.

In our lifetimes, we've not had anyone under their 50s. And there seems to be a general trend towards popes with known and proven ranges of belief about the major issues that the church aristocracy deems important.

To me, that points to selection excluding younger candidates because it's hard to have a reasonable certainty about a candidate's specific beliefs on a given issue until they've had time to show their beliefs, or speak about them consistently. However, that assumes all the Cardinals are acting in good faith, with the pun being both intentional and relevant.

I think it can be safely argued that the popes of the last fifty years have been compromise picks. Fairly conservative in most things, but with outlying stances that move away from established practice. And I use conservative not in the standard political way, but with it being more about "conserving" established dogma and policies within the church. That those policies match other uses of conservative is true, but one doesn't have to follow the other.

When a candidate is a compromise it tends to end up where the need for a body of reputation and history is even more important during negotiations and arguments about who to elect, so it would make sense that age would be a factor because of that.

But even all of those conclusions are speculation, it just includes the reasoning for that speculation.

Look, ima be real here.

As long as people aren't lined up watching other people excrete wastes, I'm fine with whoever wants to use whatever bathroom.

Like, I'm a dude, and y'all trans men are welcome to stare at the wall right beside me. We will piss in solidarity. Y'all trans women, take the stall if you want/need, or post up and piss right along with the rest of the folks evacuating their bladders. You cis women, c'mon in, the water's fine. Just understand that there's some unwritten rules involved. And, if you haven't a penis, bring one of those funnel things for urinal usage as pissing on one's feet is considered unmanly.

When you're at the urinal, you only ever look at your neighbor if you believe they may need an ambulance. Otherwise, you pick a spot with some interesting graffiti and stare at it, but only if it is not beyond two inches to the side of the urinal you are using. If at a trough, use your shoulders as the border.

If there is no other choice, and you have to speak with someone next to you, do not look at them. Look up at the ceiling. This way, everyone knows you aren't looking at their junk, and nobody has to worry about being measured.

However, be aware that if you shake it more than twice, you're playing with it, no matter what it is. So, take it to a stall, you heathen.

If in the stall, remember the courtesy flush. It is also strongly encouraged to give a "sorry bros" if nearby stalls are occupied. Rounds of applause for extraordinarily thunderous flatulence are allowed; but please, no standing ovations.

Should you find a hole in the stall wall, be aware that it is your obligation to gently stroke anything that comes through said hole. I don't make the rules, I just follow them like everyone else does.

Also, it is imperative that when the circle jerk starts, that your hands are well lotioned, and you sing along with everyone else. It will usually be either "row, row your boat" or "Michael row your boat ashore", so make sure you have the lyrics memorized, and do try to stay on key. In the event the standard songs are not in play, it is acceptable to hum along; just don't expect much in the way of aftercare.

I would strongly encourage everyone to memorize and share these rules, since very soon all ladies' rooms will be forbidden to all. Can't have anyone that might have a penis, even if that penis is in their womb. You know how penises get in the ladies' room, jumping around, spitting on everything, leaving a mess all over the counters, throwing the sanitary supplies into any waiting receptacle (including the astonished mouths of bystanders). All of which is just flat not acceptable when said penis is in the womb still, show some respect.

I mean, if it gets solved, leaving it up would be better, particularly if the reason for it is something that might happen to someone else

I mean, I asked, I didn't call, then I said if

There really is a difference

Legit question, but that's a no for me.

While it's partly that it's not really useful, and makes other features a better priority, it's also partly because it would make people that think influencer is a valid job title plague lemmy.

Neither of those is worth casual curiosity

You aren't going to get many genuine answers, I suspect. Not because of stupidity or it being obvious, because I don't think it's either.

It's because lemmy isn't secure forum. Too easy for things to be found and any responses are used to get rid of. So any stupidity would come from giving anything other than a fake "I follow all laws, but object to X laws".

Which, I follow all relevant laws, even when I object to them.

However, I have my own moral code, and would adhere to that regardless of whether or not there were laws perfectly aligned with them. It does not match the majority, except in the broad issues, but it isn't so far off as to be incompatible either.

Most of my personal code is derived eternally at the end, but some parts were discovered externally. In other words, when running into a moral or ethical rule, I examine it and internalize it if it fits my needs, reject it if it doesn't. Some bits and pieces are purely internally derived in origin, as they stemmed from experience in childhood before I encountered external sources regarding those matters.

Thing is, my personal morals aren't necessarily something I expect others to follow just because I believe something is morally right/wrong. That's part of my code; that until someone else's code interferes with mine, or someone else's, life, IDGAF, it's their business. When it isn't my life being interfered with, my code doesn't automatically decree that I need to do anything about it, but it does allow for intervening when the situation makes it useful, necessary, or just desirable.

I'll use shoplifting as an example. If I see someone stealing from a chain store like walmart, I didn't see them. If I see someone lifting from a small shop that's locally owned, my code gives me options ranging from informing them they've been seen and need to leave, all the way up to beating their ass if I feel that is the appropriate response to the specific situation. However, it also allows me to ignore it if I feel that's more appropriate.

See? Not like the majority, but it's not so far off as to be unrecognizable.

Part of that is that I firmly believe that all ethics are situational (and they are), and that morals can be situational as well. There are very few things I believe in so strongly on a moral level that there's no room for them to bend when unusual circumstances occur.

Pretty much the only thing I'm fully, 100% unbending on is bigotry. Won't put up with it, won't tolerate it. That being said, I'm still aware that what is and isn't bigotry isn't perfectly defined. There's blurring at the edges, specific cases where what seems like bigotry may be a language barrier, or a cultural barrier. And that, unfortunately, some of those edge cases aren't even universally decided on by the targets if various forms of bigotry. So I can only rely on my own sense of right and wrong when it isn't clear cut.

That means that when I encounter an unusual situation, I'm more likely to seek clarification before jumping in, and that I'm more likely to jump in by explaining why what they're saying/doing is a problem, even if they aren't being a bigot intentionally.

You see alllll that rambling? That's the kind of shit that I do in my head any time I run into a new moral dilemma, or discover a need to reevaluate an old belief. Which can be pretty fucking often. I don't like to let my code sit unexamined for long, so I poke and prod at it when a specific subject comes up, even if it's nothing I need to do anything about. You run into that a lot online.

Such a mammalian post rolls eyes and licks them

Mastodon on my pen name.

Piefed for the hell of it.

Used to use one of the "key" forks, but the instance I was on shut down, and I never went back.

Haven't really bothered with the rest because they don't fit any needs, and tend to be based around things that aren't my personal interests enough to use regularly. Peertube, I'll never put videos up, but I use it when other people link to it.

That's really it. I don't want/need the kind of services friendica is for, nor whatever the name of the Instagram clone is, and loops is totally not my thing.

I don't have anything against them, mind you, I just don't use those kind of platforms

No, extroverts and ambiverts have trouble with interrupters too.

In a work environment, I find it best just to say I'm having trouble keeping up, and could first person please continue. Most of the time, it's gonna work fine

Makes sense to me. There's a lot to be said for specialists handling bulk labor like that. Someone with experience will do it faster, and better, so even were you inclined to raise for meat to save a little cost vs labor, it might not make sense to for exactly that reason.

We have pets, the eggs are just a side benefit. I keep thinking about adding a few working girls what with egg prices, but not only is that a big bump in labor, it's a big outlay for setting up for that. Since our two provide enough for us, I just can't see gearing up on a hypothetical that I could provide for friends and family.

I love the silly little critters though :)

No worries, you aren't required to have perfect English :)

I guarantee your English is better than anything else I speak.

They're looking healthy and happy.

Those food, layers, or pets?

Your question is pretty jumbled up, and it's difficult to tell exactly what happened. So I'm going to ignore that and stay general

Ableism isn't necessarily the same thing as disliking something. As an example, my crippled ass uses a cane. It isn't if the sound of the cane on pavement bothers you. You may have sensory issues, or a headache, or just not like tapping sounds.

Ablism would be seeing me using the cane and making assumptions based on it.

Being an asshole would be making fun of me for using a cane, whether or not it was also because of ableism where you make assumptions and act with prejudice towards me.

Erratic behavior can be, and usually is disturbing. It draws the eyes, it makes you notice the person. It is perfectly okay to not like that feeling, or to avoid it, even when that behavior is from a disability. It is not okay to treat the person poorly in any way when it's you that has a problem dealing with something someone can't help.

That's when it turns into ablism, when the way you treat the disabled person is different than how you would treat someone without that disability.

However, you are not obligated to stay around a person that is behaving erratically. Doesn't matter why they are, you have every right to walk the fuck away, and it isn't a bad thing to do so, as long as doing so doesn't put then in danger. It is a bad thing to walk away while grumbling about the gods damn noisy cripple, or the crazy Tourette's tics, or the stimming, or whatever might be making you nervous. You can't tell why a person is erratic just by looking. But you don't have to treat anyone poorly.

Also, when you're the one that dislikes something like that, it's on you to leave a public space so long as they aren't being dangerous to themselves or others. Insisting that the person with cerebral palsy fuck off back home is ablist, and being an asshole.

In general, we are all free to like or dislike anything. It's how we treat people that matters. You could be the biggest bigot in the world, but if you keep it to yourself and never treat anyone poorly, it doesn't matter.

Now, what is and isn't actually erratic is not something clearly defined. It just means that they're behaving in a way that deviates from the norm rendering their behavior unpredictable; and the norm can be pretty fucking dumb sometimes. As an example, someone laughing is not always appropriate, but it isn't erratic by default, but some people think laughter in public isn't acceptable, and that they can't trust people that would behave in such a way. So, that laughter may deviate from the norm, and seem erratic to some people, but seem perfectly normal and happy to others.

But you have to always remember that you don't automatically have the baseline if what is and isn't acceptable just because you don't like it. There's times you will, but it isn't automatic, particularly when you're in public or in shared spaces.