Ok, so this is a bit weird, but... I am set off by businesses or management that make patently terrible decisions - especially if I work there. I can barely hold it together in a meeting without shouting like a lunatic. I bottled it up until I started to lose my hair (not recommended). I eventually left to start my own business, where other people can rail about my poor decisions. Not everyone can/should start their own business, but you can look for another job that is a better fit for you. Remember when you interview, you are looking for cultural fit as much as they are looking for an employee.
The challengee is (at least) two-fold: (1) existing homes that were once not in wildfire zones are now in them due to climate change, (2) some of the reason building is allowed into fire zones is to alleviate housing availability.
it occurred to me, if you have the ability to communicate with the engineers in person or on a video call, you could (maybe) avoid the pitfalls of text only. Anywho, don't hesitate to reach out if you would like more detailed support. 😃
I don't think so. I have 2 disabled kiddos and they aren't suffering, but they don't have it as easy as their peers - which can be heartbreaking to watch.
My experience is you get the best response if they understand why you need the information and at what level of detail. They seem to respond well to clarity, organization and logic (who doesn't!), so prepare your communications to include the background they need (how does your request help them in the long run), what it is you need from them (and in what format), and when you need it by. Trust is built by demonstrating your value to them. Think about ways you can help them get the info to you (start the work for them, book time on their calendars to focus on the request, sit with them and help them produce the info).
Side note: engineers sometimes offer information that is not executive ready - you will either need to translate or tell the engineer who the audience is for the information.
I do a fair amount of stock images purching, and the stance of the businesses I work with is that it isn't worth the risk of suit and embarrassment to get a slightly cheaper image that isn't as good. It might not be universally true, but that has been my experience at F500 companies.
Because it is not as good, doesn't have a consistent style (needed for branding), and may put the business at risk of law suits. So, buying stock images is preferred.
So hear me out... I think AI could be financially very helpful to artists, while giving them a chance to do more meaningful work. Businesses buy a ton of stock photos, graphics and art. An artist could create a library of original digital pieces (they probably already have it) and use that for the source of new AI generated digital content, which in turn would go back into the source library. This reduces the cost/time associated with soulless stock/business content, but positions the artist to maintain a revenue stream. With the extra time, the artist could work on their preferred pieces or be commissioned to do one-offs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2023/03/31/new-research-women-more-effective-than-men-in-all-leadership-measures/