!twnw@fedia.io their wealth must be taxed. It’s not even an issue of “can we survive without a wealth tax” but “how long”. These people are gluttons and will never stop hoarding.

Anything but taxing the rich. No no no, can’t have that now, can we?

Nice title bait

Isn’t it better to use natural methods of killing rats? I thought ferrets were natural enemies of rats and thus the perfect way to get rid of them. No poison leeching into the ground or killing things like birds. It’s like using goats instead of lawnmowers.

Misogyny: people lose their minds

Misandry: pfff, hahahahaha

What a surprise when you make it one of the main countries to exfiltrate wealth out of Europe. If the Irish cared, they’d vote against such laws and for a wealth tax.

Thank you very much! If I had money to donate, I would!

I think you’re both on the same side and find that there aren’t enough protections for consumers and that the existing ones are being ignored. You @Zoot@reddthat.com and @imecth@fedia.io are describing how things are currently working out in reality despite the laws, @MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip is describing how things are legally despite their disregard.

We can probably all agree that we need to enforce the existing laws and expand them.

Thanks. I’ll wait with testing that then.

Where are they going to post on next? Xitter-lite aka Bluesky?

The government has previously said it would enforce a total ban of X if it was determined to be necessary by Ofcom.

What are you waiting on? Another deadly riot?

In my experience, technical people with those skills quickly rise past their non-technical peers.

They aren’t held back by the org that limits technical salaries and request that they take on leadership responsibilities?

What does this mean?

1. Social pressure - There’s a need to be “seen”. Being a technical expert on ground doesn’t make you " seen".

Ah yes, exposure 🤔 So maybe by making technical experts seen, it would normalise increasing their salary.

2. Money - The higher you go, the more money you make.

I’m questioning why this is the case ;)

Leadership is undoubtedly important and good leadership even more so, but why do you bring singularity (“one person can only do so much work”)? Experts work in teams too. Is there some kind of connotation with expertise that leads you (or people) to believe that is something which cannot be brought into a team?

A good leader can enable a team of people to work together achieving more than the sum of their individual contributions.

That is true, but isn’t the ability of the team members important too? For example, if you have a team of juniors, you can get to a goal, however the question is in what state. And if the leader is just a leader but doesn’t have understanding of the sector, why should their leadership be valued more than that of the team members who do?

As for force multipliers, experts can be force multipliers too. An expert that helps out and resolves (or even prevents) tricky situations for fellow team members (or the entire team) can improve team cohesion and productivity. Experts also often have an educative role in the team to spread knowledge and understanding. That seems to be valued less, and I don’t understand why.

Also traditional companies don’t typically have knowledge based employees. There’s a limit to what high expertise can bring. This is what has led to management as the promotion track.

That is true, but you can become an expert in multiple things. For example you become an expert brick layer and then you become an expert plumber, and so on. Or in a knowledge based company, you become an expert payroll accountant, then an expert tax accountant, then an expert revenue accountant, etc.

Management is also a skill. And it’s arguable a more useful skill since it’s more transferable than a narrow focus. At very high levels you have a lot of responsibility figuring out where your company is headed.

So people value knowing where to go more than being able to get there? Is this the gist of it? If so, why? I don’t understand why one is more important than the other. You can have the best plan on the planet, but if you don’t have the people to get you there quickly, safely, and in top shape, that plan is just that, a plan.

Maybe we’re misunderstanding each other. I’m not talking about technical people going up the ladder. I’m asking why going up the ladder is valued more than becoming or being an expert on the ground.

I’ve deleted multiple posts for different reasons:

• answers were crap (mostly offtopic, missing the point, simply attacking me instead of the question, etc.)
• mbin doesn’t support muting notifications from topics, so I’d just keep getting them, so it was simpler to delete than wait for people to stop talking
• I got my answers and it wasn’t that important

I don’t give 2 shits about “points”. You could make this the most downvoted comment on the planet and I would leave it up (if I didn’t get notifications)

@stopkillinggames@mastodon.social should make a list of killable games so that people can be aware of which games they are buying may end up killed and useless.

Gamers are less capable of self-control than heroin addicts. Trying to get them to stop buying games is a fools errand.

That entire premise falls apart when you let a person with a different skin color enter the room of children that have never seen that skin color before. There are even videos of it where children scream in horror.

And humans didn’t just evolve from one central location. They evolved in parallel on an entire continent. They then also mixed with different subspecies.