Wages Citizenship

I think a large portion of lemmy is too focused on making lemmy popular. Fake engagement and posts that nobody cares about don’t create engagement. Instead, more focus on just enjoying lemmy would ironically lead to better posts and discussion. Likewise, people post the same articles to the same communities seeking engagement. It leads to dupilication which waters down the discussion, ironically, also leading to less engagement. I think federalised communities, as has been discussed would be a good solution. However, it strikes me that they don’t want to miss out on karma, for some reason. So, short term gain, for long term hassle of multiple posts. If some of the most prolific posters posted to the most relevant community and cross posted elsewhere, then maybe communities would coalesce more.

Lemmy is pretty international. We have right wingers here, but it’s not really representative. The USA right wingers only make up a small portion of worldwide population, so don’t stress. It’s not an echo chamber.

Surely we van look at apps that allow more informed data but without the anxiety. Like, here’s your data, this is less frequent than average. Or, here is your data, its the same as before. Or here is your data, its slightly different again, so we’ve already notifies your doctor, but usually this is nothing to be concerned about. Etc.

Lots of patients with other conditions have yo do similar, like diabetics monitoring sugar levels. Or asthmatics who can induce attacks by getting stressed about attacks.

We could build in some mindfulness exercises which help with anxiety. I’d say overall, its better.

She just tried to relaunch after her last album didn’t do well. By all accounts her first single has bombed. Would we not be better having Australian musicians rather than be a marketing machine for international popstars?

Bracing? Wont they make huge profit on the absurdly high interest?

Of course some may default, but its extra profit from the others.

Their idioms have implications beyond what he’s saying. He’s either changing his story or doesn’t fully understand them.nor my point.

Given the lady doth protest so much, my money would be on retrospective shanging of the story, not clarification.

Oh, she has charisma and confidence, like trump. Its just misguided. People saw through it and SNL skits destroyed her as she appeared stupid and everything she said after that reinforced the stupidity not the folksy.

The tea party became the maga movement.

Its also not too far fetched for him to catch covid. I’ve caught it twice in the last 12 months despite boosters and meeting much less people and being responsible. For me, it was a sniffle, for him probably a good deal worse and he might have realise his physical fitness is worse than he thought, especially after the debate and the reaction to it. Nothing like some illness to show us were not infallible, even when potus.

Just like in this discussion, youre changing the narrative deceptively.

Now they are on the phone. They weren’t before, that stage had passed.

Sure, you are now retroactively changing your intent but it doesn’t change the meaning of your words.

You say listen to what youre saying. I did.

If you said, when they call advise of the current rate, is agree. Your version seems to be past that stage. In no world does anyone think that you would be obliged to honor the quote. So either your advice is not really advice, to do what is normal and advise them of your actual rate. Or, as appears more likely, you want to leverage the mistake using their sunken cost of time after arranging a meet, knowing in advance their expectations dont match the rate.

If everyone else gets it why is there another comment calling you a LinkedIn lunatic? Its not a term I would use, but I see their point. Your comment is one of two things: A pointless comment offering no advice as of course they would clarify. A comment to say leverage it to your advantage, using deceptive tactics.

Walk it back all you want but in context its clear to me which was the intent. Perhaps you meant no I’ll will, but it reads as exploitative. In quoting for any kind of work, but especially programming based work, there is a knowledge differential. This justifies fees, but the same knowledge differential is often used to take advantage of those with no concept of the work involved.

What about Palin? I’m sure she gave an initial boost, but isn’t she thought to have cost the election?

Laughing Kamala and dour don.

I am listening to what you are saying. ok, so you did imply this is not the first contact. Just using a phrase to do so. Obviously you meant something different.

Walking out the door, also a phrase. Again, one that’s situational. It means they are on site. For talking on the phone, I’d say hang up. So again, implying its not the first contact.

Look, I also think it can be correctly handled, but your whole post makes it sound like a pushy sales narrative that is deceptive. Youre not outright calling for deception but the implication is there. I’m not the only one noticing it.

Maybe your choice of words is wrong, but when someone tells you who they are, listen.

How do you get them in the door to tell them without the call? Youre advising using an error to your advantage to massage someone to be a client using a bait and switch tactic.

It may not have been thenolan, being a genuine error, but that’s your plan to take advantage of it. If they purposely gave the wrong amount, would it be bait and switch in your view?

Way to go on the straw man, though.

I’m saying they should not get to the point that they walk in the door. If they call, correct immediately.

It should be corrected, by Dad, prior to a call, rather than used as a sales funnel, which is the suggestion.

Honest mistakes happen, but using an honest mistake to purposefully continue to mislead to get them in the door and then correct them is a bait and switch.

In most industries, that’s considered a bait and switch. Decpetice conduct that can lead to fines.

If you contact them immediately, to rectify an error, then not so much.

All the money went to legal bills.

Are you a casual? That means zero hours guaranteed. When they need you, they call and offer shifts. Similar to zero hour contracts elsewhere.

However, you get a 25% bump in pay for this arrangement. If it does not suit you, you should not have taken the role.

If the role is not casual you are entitled to be paid for the hours your contract is for if part time, or 38 hours o’er week if full time.

Check your contract. Some of the bigger retailers have an enterprise agreement instead if an award rate, so worth checking if that applies instead.

She should start calling him a coward before they start negotiation. He can’t stand women talking crap about him. A woman of color, he’d have a canary.