Stack Exchange
log in

G_B

 Discussion on question by Inquiring M…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
GB supports the mod strike
Oct 22, 2024 14:05
The standard advice for people who run into legal trouble while travel(l)ing abroad is to contact their country's consulate. Those travelling on government business, including military, may be given additional "who to call" resources. It's not believable that somebody in this situation would be asking a girlfriend they've never met for money, rather than going through those channels. One of the most common tactics of scammers is to pressure you to hand over the money RIGHT NOW, to prevent you from thinking it over. The more urgent it sounds (jail threats) the more likely it's a scam.
 

 Discussion on answer by TheDemonLord:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
GB supports the mod strike
Nov 17, 2023 05:43
@Steve And also very dependent on the speaker - as Joe Jackson sang about another slur, "don't call me a f*ggot, not unless you are a friend". When used with hostile intent I expect it'd still be taken as a slur, but much less likely when used in the acronym of an advocacy group.
GB supports the mod strike
Nov 17, 2023 05:38
@Steve It's a very nuanced thing. I know older gay folk who object vehemently to "queer" because they experienced it as a slur in the 1970s-80s (when reclamative use was starting to take off but not to the extent of the late 90s and onwards) but I know a lot of 20-30s who embrace it because they see it as more inclusive and flexible, particularly for people who are still figuring out where they fit in the acronym or want to escape the "gay vs. bi" tribalism of earlier decades. ...
GB supports the mod strike
Nov 16, 2023 13:09
@Steve I'm aware of the saying; presumably the name was a play on both that and the "homosexual" meaning. Can't speak for use in northern England these days, but the OP appears to be in Australia, and "queer" is in pretty common use here particularly among young adults.
GB supports the mod strike
Nov 16, 2023 06:17
As with *many* reclaimed terms, it's not as black-and-white as "it was considered a slur up to X date and then it wasn't". The distinction between "slur" and "reclamative use" depends on context, not just the calendar date. The fact that some people were still using it as a slur in the 1990s doesn't in any way debunk the fact that it clearly was also being used self-referentially by then (and indeed well before). The fact that it wasn't widely used outside gay communities is a bit irrelevant since gay communities were the ones who had most occasion to use it, and that kind of slur->reclamat…
GB supports the mod strike
Nov 16, 2023 04:30
PS - it's one thing to have a disagreement about the facts, it's quite another to accuse somebody who disagrees with you of intentional deception ("as you well know") on no evidence. It's very difficult to have a productive discussion if you're going to be slinging personal accusations of that kind based on no evidence.
GB supports the mod strike
Nov 16, 2023 04:30
Self-correction: the rehabilitation of "queer" actually started a bit earlier than the 1980s. For an earlier reference, here's Tom Robinson's "Glad To Be Gay" gladtobegay.net/versions/original-demo as recorded in 1976 with lyrics like "even in prison they look after the queers" and "tell anti-queer jokes". I think my first encounter with the word was his 1979 performance of the same song in The Secret Policeman's Ball. More than a decade before "Queer Theory" was a thing.
GB supports the mod strike
Nov 16, 2023 04:30
@TheDemonLord This is utterly backwards. "Queer" was generally considered a slur through much of the 20th century, but from around the 1980s it started coming back into favour, with people using it in a self-referential/reclamative kind of way. For instance, in 1990 the AIDS/HIV activism group formerly known as ACT UP renamed to "Queer Nation", the TV show "Queer As Folk" came out in 1999, and "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" started broadcasting in 2003. I don't know where you're getting your info from, but your confidence in your expertise is sorely misplaced here.
GB supports the mod strike
Nov 16, 2023 04:30
@TheDemonLord "Queer" has been used as a term for homosexuality at least as far back as the late 19th century. The "queer theory" you're talking about dates to the late 20th century, about a hundred years later. The argument that any group with "queer" in the name must be based on this particular "queer theory" is about as sensible as arguing that anybody who refers to themselves as "black" must be a member of the Black Panthers.
 

 Discussion on answer by TheDemonLord:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
Nov 16, 2023 00:20
Note that the site reporting the "highly favourable settlement" (of which they cannot provide any details) is a party involved in that case. It would be unwise to rely very heavily on an interested party's summary of that outcome; even in cases where everything's on public record, it's not uncommon that participants will report the outcome in the light that serves them best.
 

 Discussion on question by Lunartist: …

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 22, 2023 17:24
FWIW: "There are known to be several hundred ‘twins’ in Australia who have the same name and birth date" One of the more challenging scenarios I've heard about from colleagues who worked in data matching is the case where a couple have twin boys both named "Mohammed".
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 22, 2023 17:24
@seg If an org is large enough to have name collisions to deal with, it is assuredly large enough to have employees who'd object to having their year of birth in their email. It doesn't buy a lot of disambiguation anyway - given that most employees will probably be within a two-three decade age range, by the time you have about five or six John Does the "birthday problem" says you're likely to have two with the same birth year. Instead of supplementing one non-unique identifier with another even less unique one, better just to go straight to something that's guaranteed to be unique.
 

 Discussion on answer by TheDemonLord:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
Jun 3, 2023 10:10
@Itération122442 What you're saying there is actually very different to what TDL said. [For clarity, my second comment "leaving aside the zany conspiracy theories" was in response to a comment which has since been deleted, not to the original answer.]
Geoffrey Brent
Jun 3, 2023 10:10
@nvoigt I'm not a defender of Pride Month as a corporate/workplace thing - as per my own answer, I think it very often becomes a way for employers to pay lip service to D&I. That's not what my reply to TDL was about.
Geoffrey Brent
Jun 3, 2023 10:10
I can't believe we still have to have this conversation in 2023, but: LGBTQ-related D&I in the workplace isn't about "rubbing genitals". It's about people being able to say things like "I need to take leave because my husband is having surgery", or list their partner as next-of-kin in their personnel file, or participate in "what did you do on the weekend?" conversations the same way everybody else does.
Geoffrey Brent
Jun 3, 2023 10:10
Leaving aside the zany conspiracy theories... this response suggests a very simplistic understanding of how workplaces function, how staff management works, and how leave systems work in many organisations.
 

 Discussion on answer by Thomas Schwar…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Geoffrey Brent
May 2, 2023 10:47
@Obie2.0 I agree that they have little in common. My point was that when invoking historical traditions of "apoliticality", we need to be a little sceptical about which of those two kinds might have been involved. Even in "basic research that drives life-saving technological advancement", though, the history of science has been political for a long time. For instance, US academics were among the targets of McCarthyism in the 1950s, and being seen as overly sympathetic to Russia, Communism, and/or pacifism could get one in hot water.
Geoffrey Brent
May 2, 2023 10:47
"Science and scientists have traditionally held themselves as being above nationality" - very debatable. Scientists have quite frequently picked sides - see e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Ninety-Three or the life histories of Weizmann, Haber et al. and fields like eugenics have strong political associations. Apoliticality is sometimes invoked by scientists looking to be excused from responsibility for the real-world consequences of their work, though...
 

 Discussion on answer by Neb Uzer: Is …

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Geoffrey Brent
Feb 6, 2023 16:49
@mjt I think the 1988 date is the recipient's birthdate, not the date of the certificate?
Geoffrey Brent
Feb 6, 2023 16:49
Also, "its right and privileges" - should be "rights". Of course, "three PhDs" is a bit of a red flag on its own.
 

 Discussion on answer by Seth R: Accid…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
Oct 10, 2022 22:10
Generally good advice, but in addition to "I just realised I misread the policy", this one probably calls for "and I realise this was a major misjudgement". OP really should have realised that $300/day was too good to be true, and if they just approach it as a matter of missing the fine print, the employer is likely to have serious questions about their judgement.
 

 Discussion on answer by Joe Strazzere…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
Oct 6, 2022 19:38
@sleske It's potentially a crime for salaried employees too, if they're taking leave and not filling it in.
 

 Discussion on answer by nvoigt: As a …

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
Oct 6, 2022 19:37
@maxathousand I provided that one as an example, but if you google "leave fraud" you'll find that the concept is by no means restricted to Queensland. Nor to my knowledge did the Qld case depend on the person being a public sector employee; the law under which she was convicted is a general definition of fraud, not specific to public sector. "Dishonestly gains a benefit or advantage, pecuniary or otherwise, for any person" is all it takes.
Geoffrey Brent
Oct 6, 2022 19:37
@DJClayworth It would certainly be fraud here in Australia, and I suspect just about anywhere - obtaining money/benefits under false pretences is the usual definition. Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission on "timesheet and leave fraud".
 

 Discussion on question by Bilbo: What…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Geoffrey Brent
Aug 19, 2022 20:15
@AzorAhai-him- I think Bilbo is using "witness protection" very loosely here, just meaning somebody who wants to avoid being connected to their old identity for safety reasons, rather than meaning that they're part of an actual organised program. (Bilbo, if I've read that correctly, I'd suggest editing to clarify that, since it seems to be causing a lot of confusion.) If they ARE part of a formal WP program, this question would be better asked via their WP contacts, not here.
 

 Discussion on answer by Kilisi: Is it…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
Jun 15, 2022 19:56
@Kilisi I wish everybody had that same confidence in saying no to every unwanted invitation. But for a recovering alcoholic these things often aren't simple.
Geoffrey Brent
Jun 15, 2022 19:56
@Kilisi "Not going out of your way to buy a flask" and "saying no when you're already in a bar, surrounded by other people drinking, and the boss offers you a beer" aren't the same thing. For many people in recovery, avoiding situations that might tempt them to relapse is part of their coping strategy. Any ex-alcoholic is likely already putting in a lot of effort to stay on the wagon; it's basic courtesy for the rest of us not to throw extra temptations in their way.
Geoffrey Brent
Jun 15, 2022 19:56
Substance abuse exists as a widespread problem because many adults are fallible and don't have foolproof strategies for coping with every situation.
 

 Discussion on question by yeet1000: H…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Geoffrey Brent
Jan 5, 2022 03:51
@TCooper The second paragraph on that page remarks that adopting accents other one's own is a hard thing to do - I'm not sure why you're citing it to the opposite effect! If you check the examples given there, just about every one involves actors who had professional vocal/dialect coaching to achieve those convincing accents. The fact that "accent coach" is a profession, and that even highly experienced actors routinely use coaches, is a strong clue that it's not easy.
Geoffrey Brent
Jan 5, 2022 03:51
@TCooper Counter-examples arise almost every time a US actor plays an Australian, Scots, Irish, ... character. Dick van Dyke is still apologising for his Cockney turn in Mary Poppins. There are some successes (Renee Zellweger did a pretty good job in Bridget Jones, give or take argument about whether she had the right kind of English accent) but by and large, the standard required for acting is nowhere near the standard required to pass among native speakers.
Geoffrey Brent
Jan 5, 2022 03:51
@Abigail Actors do it badly all the time. New Zealanders aside, I have rarely heard a non-Australian actor manage an Australian accent that was good enough to convince Australian audiences. Mostly the standard is "is this close enough for an American audience to get what it's supposed to be?" rather than "could this actually fool a native?"
 

 Discussion on question by LiveInAmbeR…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Geoffrey Brent
Dec 11, 2021 17:14
@AlexP "10 tonnes useful lift" seems much too small. The Hindenburg's final flight carried 97 crew + passengers, which makes about 5 tonnes of humans even before factoring in food, furniture, luggage, and fuel. You might be thinking of a 10-tonne allowance for mail and cargo, but that is in addition to all the other stuff the Hindenburg was carrying. (And presumably a building doesn't need to carry fuel!)
 

 Discussion on question by DJG: Is it …

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 29, 2021 09:10
@jcm My "our funding is perfectly legitimate" T-shirt is raising a lot of questions that are already answered by the T-shirt.
 

 Discussion on answer by Acumenus: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 13, 2021 00:09
If your advice is primarily aimed at "preserving personal honor" rather than getting hired, it might be helpful to make that clear in your answer. Otherwise some reader might mistakenly think that you're suggesting this as a way to actually get a job offer.
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 13, 2021 00:09
Just to clarify, when you say "smart", do you mean "candidate who wants to get hired" or something else?
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 13, 2021 00:09
"I can only imagine" - and that is the problem with your answer. It's based on imagination and speculation rather than any actual experience with how these questions work and why they are asked. Noting that you've repeatedly passed on the invitation to clarify whether you've ever used these tactics successfully yourself, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the answer is "no". If you seriously believe people criticising your answer is "harassment", you are welcome to use the flag button on the offending comments to report them, and see how that goes for you.
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 13, 2021 00:09
@yshavit Exactly this. When I interview a candidate, I have a list of the skills I'm looking for, and my hope during an interview is that the candidate will give me the opportunity to tick off as many of those as possible. (Occasionally they demonstrate useful skills I hadn't thought to look for, and those are great too!) Trying to dodge answering these questions is a great way to lose out to the candidate who made it easy for me to tick off those skills.
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 13, 2021 00:09
@Acumenus The point of an interview is for each side to acquire the info they need to determine whether the candidate and the employer are a good match for one another. When interviewing, I'm happy for the candidate to ask the questions they need to determine whether we're the right employer for them, even if time requirements mean continuing that conversation outside the interview. But that's not what you suggested. 1/
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 13, 2021 00:09
Your answer presents these mirror questions not as a way to gather the information you need - indeed, lines like "token questions" and "farce" make it clear that you don't see value in such questions - but as a matter of gamesmanship. In an earlier edit, you offered them as a way to run out the clock on the interview. It's very unlikely that the candidate's information needs will be symmetrical to the interviewer's, so a candidate who simply flips the questions is more likely to be seen as a petulant time-waster than asking in good faith. 2/
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 13, 2021 00:09
I'll ask again: have you actually used this strategy in an interview yourself? If so, did you get hired? 3/3
Geoffrey Brent
Jul 13, 2021 00:09
This answer could be improved by clarifying whether you have actually used this method in interviews yourself, and if so, how that worked out for you.
 

 Discussion on question by Sursula: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Geoffrey Brent
Jun 18, 2021 16:01
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/… "...it is disingenuous to claim that Islam has no colour. There is actually quite a strong racial dimension to Islamophobia... there have been instances where non-Muslims from Asian communities have been lumped together with Muslims and discriminated against. After the 9/11 attacks, some bearded and turbaned Sikh men found themselves coming under hostile scrutiny. Following the more recent Boston bombings, some media outlets described suspects as being of "Muslim appearance" – whatever that is."
 

 Discussion on answer by Michael Welch…

Imported from a comment discussion on outdoors.stackexchange.c...
Geoffrey Brent
Jun 7, 2021 16:33
"Charcoal NEVER does anything but help you" - are you sure about this? In addition to the exception for vitamins that you acknowledge, I've heard numerous claims that charcoal can be dangerous for people who take oral medications, because it can inactivate those medications just like it inactivates harmful substances.
 

 Discussion on answer by rs.29: Feedba…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
May 31, 2021 14:04
How hard is it to comprehend that "unable to solve" and "unable to solve without help from others" are two very different things? Or that "failed to write a technical document on this occasion" and "categorically unable to write a technical document, even after OP gets advice on how to guide that work" are not the same?
Geoffrey Brent
May 31, 2021 14:04
Anyway, the voting on this answer has given a pretty good indicator of its quality, so I'm checking out of this discussion now.
Geoffrey Brent
May 31, 2021 14:04
"Seeking help from strangers on Internet" is a very common problem-solving strategy, and often an effective one. In fact, it's the whole reason sites like this exist. By your logic, nobody should ever ask for help on SE because doing so means the problem is impossible?
Geoffrey Brent
May 31, 2021 14:04
And, no, "there are several sections where I do not understand what they mean" is not the same as "gibberish". That's quite an exaggeration. Further, refusing to do one's job and work with an ADHD co-worker is not "the safest option", it's a good way to get fired and/or involved in a discrimination suit.
Geoffrey Brent
May 31, 2021 14:04
Literally every sentence you've written here is wrong, some of them several times over. OP never said they were "unable to solve" this problem, but they did clearly say that giving this colleague feedback is their job. There are many people with ADHD in the workplace, and the idea that they should all be left to medical specialists is seriously disconnected from reality - as I can vouch from person experience. (More than that, in many places, it would be outright illegal.) Nobody is portraying this as "trivial". And for that matter, OP has never specified that the colleague is a "him".
Geoffrey Brent
May 31, 2021 14:04
This is a sweeping and inaccurate generalisation. I have managed staff with ADHD, I have been managed by somebody with ADHD, and I can vouchsafe that many people with ADHD are quite capable of communicating well and writing structured reports. Without knowing the individual, it's massive overreach to assert that "he is simply unable to write report of any kind".
 

 Discussion on question by eipi: Is it…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Geoffrey Brent
Jan 24, 2021 17:39
(whoops, apologies for wrong pronouns there, OP)