195 karma · joined November 24, 2013
Something entirely devoid of meaning so that it could never possibly hurt anyone's feelings for being someone who tells people what to do without leading by example so as to inspire people to do.
What I meant was that some of what is useful now won't be useful in years to come not absolutely all technology ever. Some people choose to specialize in company specific technology which wouldn't be at all useful outside of it.
I'm trying to understand exactly what on topic (you arguing that ageism is real but not explaining why people would possibly want to higher younger people over older people) you are saying.
If you really think I'm wrong say something which will change my mind.
To summarize the generalizations:
- Companies hire younger people for competitive reasons : they cost less, they are more willing to learn, they have less baggage and less liability
- Older people demand more - they know they can't take risks with jobs and want high paying positions
- Older people are less willing to learn the things younger people are for whatever reason
- Older people may have more fundamental experience, more general knowledge, but if they have specialized heavily in something which is obsolete they can't compete unless they learn something new
- We know that older people run the companies, and start up most new companies - so why are older people choosing younger people instead of their peers?
Are these all wrong? Your other posts have not been convincing. I'm sure if you care about this cause it would be worth converting someone who cares to your view point, because right now all I see are lazy whiners who don't want to compete and want an easy scapegoat to blame.
Won't happen. It will always be like this. People who refuse to adapt blame others instead of doing something about their own problems. If anything people will invent new isms to blame their problems on.
Not everything is timeless. Not everything everyone specializes now will be timeless. Some knowledge will be useful always, but if there is not demand for the timeless positions, or demand shrinks rather than grows, then even if someone has timeless knowledge that may not actually be useful in them getting hired, because what they know wouldn't give value to companies looking to hire.
>You're appealing to authority and the status quo, without actually addressing any of the issues head on.
I refuse to accept without evidence that companies are only hiring younger people because of their youth and not because they give the company some kind of competitive advantage.
>Like most of your arguments, this is a logical fallacy.
That was a question, which was refused any answer, not an argument. You are asserting that people have timeless knowledge making them more valuable employees than younger people without that timeless knowledge. I'm asking why then do companies make hiring decisions which go against their interests.
>is comparatively timeless
Why are companies apparently hiring younger people over older people who are vastly more experienced and given that timeless knowledge would give so much more value to their companies? Are they just plain stupid?
I live in a reality where technology is constantly changing, where people need to learn new things or get left behind in their usefulness. If they have years of experience in software or systems which no one uses anymore that doesn't guarantee them anything.
>It's an industry wide issue which is actually being addressed.
People solving their own problems instead of complaining about them on message boards? Mission Accomplished! Wait, so companies really were not hiring the best people who give them the most value and now suddenly are thanks to people speaking up? When did all of this happen?
>Ageism: people are not being hired because of their age only and not for any other reason.
>The risk, by the way, is negligible for employees.
What. Employees don't care that they might not have a job? Employees don't care that they might not be able to be paid?
>This doesn't make sense.
Companies don't want to pay for what they don't need. People feel entitled to what they feel they are worth and not necessarily what value they give to a company based on what the company needs. When they have a lot of experience but nothing useful to contribute they blame things which do not factor in at all in hiring.
>What are you basing this on? This reads like a caricature.
I think you are mistaking my snark for me actually asserting things.
>I already addressed this. If you're intent on repeating your original claim, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Whose responsibility is it to fix the apparent ageism if the people complaining about it don't want to do anything to solve their own problems?
The people who claim that women are discriminated against purely based on gender. If women really are being discriminated based on gender, and companies are hiring less qualified men in favor of more qualified women, then someone should be able to hire up all of the women who are being snubbed by all of the sexist companies and have a competitive advantage over them, right? Same situation with older people, right? Unless of course if this isn't about age or sex. I'm female and not getting any younger by the way. But I still don't buy the bull others try to sell.
>Age discrimination in this context applies to employee hiring.
Are older people better employees or worse? Are they hiring based on age or the other things and age is only an easy thing to blame?
>Is "risk taking" a criteria your company applies when looking for talent?
No startup is a sure thing. Younger people are less risk averse. It's not that a company wants people who will take risks it's that older people want more of a sure thing. They walk in and expect a salary which matches their years of experience, while most places hiring have no use for their experience. Their experience would add no value to their business, and so hiring a younger person who does not demand such a high salary is a better option.
>For one thing, the market can't reward new approaches if no-one tries them.
There is no law keeping the people clamoring about ageism from do that. No one can force others to nor should they be able to. Clearly if they believe that hiring older people is such a good move they should be able to make a lot of money.
I'm unaware of laws which make it harder or impossible for older people to get hired?
I'm not saying people are not paid money I'm saying older people will expect higher salaries based on their experience compared to younger people despite the direct value they can contribute to a company. Value = money.
>...but they already know so much more that learning is less important. They know it already!
Yes, they know so much... of things no one uses anymore, of outdated practices, and not what is making money right now. Technology changes fast and what is useful to know now won't be in 15 years.
>Myth : http://www.kauffman.org/what-we-o/research/2009/04/educatio.....
Great, so why are older people discriminating against other older people?
Calories in calories out is incorrect. A person who accepts this as truth is setting themselves up for painful failure.
You see people obsessing over youth. They are not. They are valuing risk takers, people who know modern tech, people who don't expect to be paid so much just because they know more less useful to the current situation skills and knowledge. The quality of a low age itself is irrelevant. It will be the same 15 years from now. Current younger people will feel more entitled to higher pay, will feel less willing to compromise or settle for jobs which their younger peers would be happy to get. Ultimately if someone brings value to a job it's the stupidity of the employer to not understand their value. If a company can make 10x more from hiring someone why wouldn't they? Companies which don't hire the best value makers don't do as well, which allows those companies which do hire those people to float to the top. It is the same thing with women. Any sane businessperson would hire people no matter their gender if those people can make them more money, and anyone who is leaving value on the table by being discriminatory despite the lost potential leaves room for their competitors to destroy them. If you think older people can make you more money ultimately then you hire them and rule the tech world.
An overweight person can be eating caloric diet equal to a skinny person and not only not lose any fat, but also be painfully constantly hungry, and be technically starving themselves as their body leeches what it needs to run from their vital organs.
Meanwhile a fit person can be eating excess amounts of calories, but because they eat minimal carbs/sugars their body doesn't hold onto the extra calories they are eating (mostly eating fats, veg, meat) and they more easily lose body fat, and not only that but be constantly feeling full and never have hunger on their mind.
Obesity is an inflammatory disease. It's not as simple as the amount of food you eat irregardless of what you eat. What you eat is extremely important, and when you eat right portion size is less important because your body won't allow you to eat more than what you need.
>staff are either incompetent, or racist. I hope for incompetence. Either is bad, but racism is much worse than incompetence.
>protected characteristic
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-e...
Does that include names?
I agree that it's a stupid policy, but calling things which are not really racism racism only dilutes actual racism and victims of racism.
"Google+ naming filter thinks American Native Indian style names are not real names"
Of course it's not malicious. This guy is not good people.
Thank you for the details. Spreedly looks great.
>If the mechanic exists solely for gameplay reasons, rather than for manipulating the player, it's not taking advantage of anyone.
If a person spends 100 hours in a game which requires ridiculous grind that's less evil than if they spend 5 hours in a game and spend $2 to unlock extra turns sooner than just waiting while having equal amounts of enjoyment?
Time is money. You may not value your own time but I and others do. Even in "pure" experiences if elements of play are there for gameplay reasons (every game having different goals) it can cost a person a lot of money just by playing it for a long time.
If a game is premium only, meaning it cannot be play for free, if people win in the game is that unjustifiable for those who cannot afford to play at all?
If people play and enjoy pay to win games (even though I have yet to find a game which is actually pay to win instead of pay to gain a small advantage which doesn't guarantee victory) do those who do not deserve to have their wishes met and those who are enjoying it losing what they like?
>Skill-based matchmaking is better.
There is a thing called smurfing.
Parents are the ones who should keep kids out of casinos not the state. There are parents who buy their kids scratch tickets. Even with the laws, you can't stop bad parenting, and when you start to legislate things to save the children you ruin things for everyone. Right now the new South Park game is less available in Australia and Germany because they think of the children so much, they want to censor and protect so much, that adults can't have what they want. What effect does this have? Kids want what they can't have more. In states where alcohol is more restricted kids try to get it more, because it's cool. In states where alcohol is less of a big deal instead of idealizing getting drunk people apologize for their friends who do drink too much. Better parenting, better families is the solution not more laws!!!!!
>F2P/IAP games within the existing gambling laws
No. If there is no monetary gain possible then it's not gambling (pretend things are not real, things owned by other people are not your property). If you care then spend your own time and money to help to get parents to understand that it's their job to protect and educate their own children and not any problem of the rest of us. Don't try to give states more power to steal more liberties just so you can build up another fantasy of doing something.
Makeup is effective at making people look more attractive than they would look without it that doesn't make makeup evil or dark.
Very small percentage of the population. Please don't try to take away my liberties when you think you are smarter than everyone else.
>think of the children
>but there needs to be more effort to reduce the harm to children
It's called parenting.
Look at all of these people getting tricked into playing stupid match three games! Stupid sheep liking trash - that's a bug! They should like what I like! I have actual taste and plays real games and not this shit no one would play. They would pay for power? Bah! No one pays to have advantages. Sports competitors don't spend thousands of dollars to give themselves slight advantages in physical events. Why would anyone do that. Speaking of which, why would anyone support Duck Dynasty??? It must be a glitch in those human brains again.. so easily manipulated! They are obviously being tricked into liking that stupid show.
I'm not so arrogant that I think I'm smarter than everyone else. I think it's the simple case of me liking what I like and them liking what they like. If they like to spend their money on things I see as wasteful that's their choice. They probably feel the same way with how I spend my money.
Everyone is happy. It's not evil.