Gotta love pub grub.

Yes I figured that that was how it worked when Dad insisted I asked because, although, of course, logically what he was saying made sense, I knew intuitively that that isn’t the world I live in, and that unlike a white collar career, the minimum wage world does not care about making conditions or contracts that would attract or retain employees because they have 100% of the bargaining power and will find a different wage slave if you ask weird and inconvenient questions. That was why it was so awkward and I was reluctant to ask in the first place.

The thing is, while I’m all for a “fuck them” attitude towards insurance companies, if I’m going to commit insurance fraud, even if I think the risks are exceedingly low, I’m not doing it for Dominos, and doing it for them is indeed what’s happening there because in a just world this should obviously be the cost of offering a delivery service and by taking on this legal risk myself (and the burden of the increased premiums in the case of an accident) I’m gifting Dominos, the multinational megacorp, the opportunity to shirk what should definitely be their responsibility.

The insurance issue and terrible amateur legal advice alone wasn’t actually what made me pass on that job, despite really needing it at the time. The rest of the interview was a train wreck in terms of me evaluating them as employers and though they seemed keen to hire me anyway on the basis of me apparently having a pulse, I was fortunate enough not to actually be destitute at the time and so wasn’t obliged to accept the offer.

I dunno that seems awful c-c-cold. Are you just trying to cause a big s-s-sensation?

Lemmite? I was always figured Lemmings seemed the most appropriate name for Lemmy users.

I once interviewed to be a delivery driver for Domino’s and my Dad was adamant it was a bad idea and I should find different work and then insisted that I ask them about insurance if I was going to do it.

It felt super awkward because I was pretty young and people just don’t ask those kinds of questions for minimum wage. He wanted me to ask them if they provided insurance to their drivers when they’re driving cars for them on the clock and explained to me that if there’s an accident while using the car for work then my insurance wouldn’t cover it which I checked and indeed they wouldn’t.

The interviewer said they didn’t provide insurance but asked if I was insured and if I was, wouldn’t I be fine anyway? I said the insurance was not going to cover me while using the car for the job and the guy had this answer in a different tone like a kind of I’ve got this super clever scam that no one’s ever thought of but I’ll let you in on it vibe and leant forward and said “oh yeh, we know what to do here in that situation, what you do is you just say you weren’t working at the time”. I was incredulous but still a nervous teen and kind of meekly protested “but like what about the several pizzas in a bag and the uniform?” And he’s like “oh you just tell them you were on your way home from work and that’s your dinner”. That, along with many other fucked up things that occurred in the brief space of time this interview occupied convinced me to nope out of there.

Yeh dude, I’m going to try and commit insurance fraud… very poorly… for Dominos… who can’t simply provide the necessary protection to allow people to do the job they’re asking them to do. If I have to get my own insurance, if it has to be a special kind of more expensive insurance that’s going to cover me driving for work, then I’m a contractor, not an employee and I’m going to set my own rates and they’re going to be a lot higher then what they were offering considering I also have to maintain my own vehicle and pay for fuel and insurance, to a certain extent I even arguably have to use the skill of knowing how and also being licensed to drive in the first place which makes it not exactly “unskilled” labour in this first place.

Is that not how it works? I could have sworn I had it working that way the last time I used it in 2017. Had it rigged up as the location for Da Vinci Resolve database saves and also as a backup location for an Avid project that automatically copied to that folder every day. Wasn’t a fan of OneDrive as I had dropbox personally and didn’t want another cloud service where I stored all my data as one was probably bad enough, however the production I was working on had no IT infrastructure and no money and the computer we rented for the production for some reason seemed to offer oneDrive for free with the machine. (Maybe it was something to do with the 365 subscription it had?). On that basis since it was already there I used it and it actually ended up saving our asses later on after some other backup procedures didn’t end up being followed as they should have and the piece of shit rental machine totally and catastrophically broke. Still haven’t used it since, but I was pretty happy with it at the time and was only able to do all that because it was indeed a regular folder location on the machine that happened to sync with the cloud.

deleted by creator

I always just hear “better than a poke in the eye”, not the whole stick thing.

I thought that was the 70s that were all about that brown. Seems like 80s shifted to orange and pink.

FD I didn’t get to see either, well at least I didn’t see the 70s and not able to remember the 80s. This is just based on how it’s referred back to in the current era.

Somehow my tastes stagnated and ossified so I mostly only play my childhood games. That said those that stood up the most are

• Super Smash Bros Melee
• Super Mario 64
• Wave race 64
• 1080 Snowboarding
• Rise of Nations

Those 5 games have cumulatively, for better or for worse, consumed a pretty sizable chunk of my lifespan. Sounds depressing to think of it that way, but then they did such a good job of being fun that I continue to enjoy that time so you got to hand it to them, they’re hella good games.

I have wondered the same thing many a time. I don’t think it’s naive to wonder honestly. I find it genuinely confusing, not from a moral judgy standpoint but more of an effort to reward standpoint.

If you or I sold tobacco in exchange for a quantity we’ll call a “shit-tonne” for the purposes of discussion. It would change our lives considerably. As you said, you personally would do it, and I think odds are pretty good I would too. But if that 1 shit-tonne of cash doesn’t significantly change the recipient’s life or capabilities or long term security, I don’t understand why they’d bother with it. I think my confusion diverges from yours in so far as I don’t think the point of getting rich for the vast majority of people has to do with acquiring the luxury of a moral compass. It might be for some, but I’d say for most it’s at best a side benefit and for many irrelevant. However I do think that most of us without the requisite shit-tonnes of cash like to imagine the purpose for acquiring it is to avoid having to expend the effort required to acquire anymore thereafter. In this framework, which seems so obvious and relatable to me, you’d think you couldn’t hook wealthy actors in to shilling tobacco because basically, they just couldn’t be bothered, I mean why bother? You might keep acting if you find it fun but surely there’d be funner gigs than ads?

This is a more cynical way to look at it, but no less inaccurate than your theory of acquiring wealth to buy the ability to be moral. In the case of wealthy actors however, I think they’re maybe not the best example, the richest ones are very rich but their material desires are sometimes able to scale with their wealth. Nicholas Cage was a good example as he managed to get himself in to ridiculous debt ostensibly from insane spending on ridiculous things. Presumably he liked having those things and was able with some effort to actually spend enough outpace his unbelievably high earnings. In that context you might well take lucrative acting gigs for scummy companies to help you out of debt or to help you buy one more private island.

There’s a whole other tier of offensive and obscene personal wealth where you see people like billionaire CEOs. These people trash my model of the ‘purpose’ of acquiring wealth and by the actions we see them do, yours as well. These guys probably couldn’t spend all their money on material objects if they actively tried. Their motives are very obscure to me. I definitely judge these guys but I leave them just a little bit of slack in so far as it seems generally observable that acquiring this much wealth seems to make you want to keep acquiring more wealth. I may not know why, but it almost seems like some kind of a fundamental law or drive so it could almost have some exculpatory power, though not much and in any case would only lend credence to the idea that society as a whole ought to avoid the accumulation of quite so much personao wealth since if my observation is at all accurate it would tend to mean, that much like we hold it to be true that all drivers will be impaired after a certain amount of alcohol so too does wealth tend to corrupt the decision making and motivations of people who have too much of it.

I’ve read about the topic a little bit and there’s some concepts that make some sense. People do crave purpose, so if you make enough money to sit on your ass and avoid having to make money people have a tendency to create objectives for themselves to work towards and if they don’t it can lead to unhappiness. In the case of some of those who achieved such wealth they had such objectives on the way up too, so it’s how they’ve always lived their life (theoretically, if they supposedly got their through hard work and merit, big if). This does explain it I guess, but as an explanation it feels vague and weak. I’ve heard ideas around a kind of competitive peer pressure effect too, these guys want to be richer than each other. This is unsatisfying because it’s just so dumb but makes a lot of sense, especially because it kind of scales with wealth as well. Often as people at all walks of life take stock of their position they will assess how well they’re doing in comparison to where they were before and also in comparison to someone else around them so by those metrics you’re always going to want to be doing just that little bit better than a few years ago and your always going to want to be exceeding or approaching the person you’ve most recently set as a desirable standard. All of these ideas seem to explain the behaviour we see but to me all feel too wishy washy to really make sense but I guess that’s because it’s going to be lots of these drives acting in concert along with something that one probably just has to experience and which basically none of us ever will as it comes with becoming richer than god.

Personally I can’t but think that if instead of becoming rich, I suddenly got bequeathed all of Elon Musk’s wealth unexpectedly from his timely death then I’d very likely have far less ambitious and contentious goals than he. Not necessarily because I hold myself to a higher standard but because, I mean, why take over the world like a megalomaniac when it’s so much easier and more fun to do lots of drugs and go traveling and play with all the best toys? If I really crave purpose I can make a movie or something, I wouldn’t even have to be good at it, I could buy everything related to it being made and distributed. If I was talentless and it stunk and flopped, it wouldn’t be my problem and I could afford to spend my time getting good at it as a hobby even if each flop cost hundreds of millions. But maybe one the zeros started trailing on my account balance I’d suddenly start wanting to own everything and influence politics and just generally being a bit of a prick, it seems to happen to people.

I’ll add to the chorus. No, by definition this isn’t gas lighting, but the behaviour is extreme and no less concerning. I’ll not try to give amateur psychological diagnosis over the internet like some here are apparently willing to do, but you don’t need that to know that she’s acting in a really fucked up way.

I wouldn’t say you were “in the wrong” for missing her text, I mean, you missed it, it’s not like you chose to do that, but I can see why from her perspective it felt temporarily frightening and it made her angry to be put in that situation (I’m assuming she was just frightened and that that’s justified where you guys live, because where I am, her request is strange in the first place and getting mad about it not being fulfilled is ludicrous). How she’s dealt with those unpleasant, but temporary emotions that had a perfectly reasonable explanation and resulted in no actual harm is unreasonable, unfair and ridiculous.

The questions themselves are as manipulative as they are pointless. “What would you tell my mother?” I hardly think that’s a particularly important consideration “she’s been kidnapped” probably, since that’s what’s happened in this scenario, the question is not asked to get an answer, it’s asked to maximise guilt because she thinks it’s your fault if some psychopath kidnaps her. The subsequent questions likewise are selfish questions to ask because realistic answers are implicitly unacceptable, she just wanted debasement and contrition. If the CCTV is broken then the police, who would be the ones investigating this, would have their investigation compromised, there’d be little you or anyone could do about that hence asking because she wants some kind of super hero saves the princess type of answer or for you to have no answer so she can pounce. She’s extracting false or unrealistic promises on purpose as a kind of emotional salve. The worst and most concerning of all is the request that you kill someone for her, this is real life, not John Wick. I can only assume and hope that she doesn’t really actually believe you’d do any of this nor really want it and it’s just part of this stupid punishment where you’ve got to promise the moon over and over until she feels you’ve made an idiot if yourself for long enough. If she really is sincere about that request and wants to bring it up again in any serious capacity that really would be time to leave because the fact that she has a manipulative streak and is now apparently murderous as well raises a lot red flags, but most likely she was never serious to begin with and this will likely not be something that comes up particularly often. This was up to you but frankly I would have stopped the game of make believe at that point and not actually made a promise to kill people on her behalf even if it’s all non-specific fantasy, it’s not a prospect that should be entertained on any level. The thing about the cat was just funny and honestly would have been kind of sweet if it wasn’t for everything that came before. It is evident from the order of questions and the fact that you had answers to everything at that point that she was reaching for a “gotcha” to prove you don’t think about things because you’re somehow inconsiderate.

This response to an everyday wrinkle in the fabric of life is something to keep an eye on because if she cannot deal with being temporarily made to endure bad feelings on occasion without having to make you pay then this is going to happen to you a lot and the things you’re accused of or indirectly implied to be responsible for will be long and absurd. Let her cool off on this specific incident and if after there’s been time to reflect, she still brings it up again with the same manipulative and guilt tripping approach I’d suggest to her that maybe it’s not working out. If this single incident has shaken her faith in you so badly maybe she could take some responsibility for her own safety since apparently nothing you say will convince her that you’ll be of any use in that regard.

Yeh that definitely sucks they’ve rigged it up in a way that’s unusual for this type of work and also forces you in to this situation. Redirecting is good and probably your best option, canny and sensitive people will notice you doing this and take it for the hint that it is but dense or uncaring people will probably carry on steering things in to places you don’t want to go. If you’re forced to eat with them then yes redirecting the conversation will work up to a point but it is a subtle skill to do so non-obviously. It’s hard to advise specifically what to say like a script, though I would say if you just totally ignore the question altogether and switch topic very bluntly it’s going to come across strange and prompt confusion and questioning. You’ll need to somehow maintain the initial thread of their topic as lip service and then turn off down an unrelated avenue fairly smoothly. It’s what politicians do professionally. Reading the other responses to your post I think they’ve got some really good ideas on how to deal with this if you really get forced in to conversing against your will. It’s a subtle art of contributing basically nothing and rephrasing their same question back to them. I think another commenter suggested something along the lines of “I don’t know much about that what about you?” and similarly bland and useless resonses. This is friendly enough not to piss anyone off and lame enough to be totally uninteresting which hopefully invites little follow up. If they continue on their original track, you can combine this with seguing to another topic.

I didn’t suggest this to you initially because it doesn’t sound like your natural style and I think advice is best if it allows the recipient to handle things mostly in their own way while helping to avoid pitfalls in doing so. I guess you’ll have to navigate this daily frustration in a way a little outside of your comfort zone by carefully appearing to engage whilst really not and hopefully they’ll find you so boring they don’t bother anymore. Hopefully you don’t mind this giving the impression that you’re a boring person to the remaining 50% of your peers that don’t bother you so much but sometimes it’s a necessary evil.

I think the doughnut thing is actually just some folks wanting a laugh and trying to be witty. The phrase made sense as it was intended and was taken as such (a person from Berlin), and the fact that there is coincidentally also a doughnut given that name is unlikely to have registered in anyone’s mind while present at the speech and if it did it probably wouldn’t have merited much more than a smirk since it’s not a mistake to have said that, it’s just a funny coincidence.

I’m sure there’s probably more than one pizzeria somewhere with a pizza on the menu called “New Yorker” and if someone said in a speech “I’m a New Yorker” no one’s going to pissing themselves laughing at the person for being such a baffoon to have accidentally called themselves a pizza.

The guy seems to be able to sweet talk his way in to any room and convince people to do and say the most humiliating things on camera. If him being British become an issue I think he can just act his way out of it and somehow everyone will believe him in spite of it being a publicly known fact.

You’ll likely run in to a little bit of trouble because you’re having to make explicit what would have been better for them to have inferred and when it’s made explicit like that, it will come across as very weird to people and they’ll probably have some trouble not taking it personally (even if they shouldn’t).

Some understanding of the general tenor of how this group talks would make for better ways to communicate what you want to say but as general advice, your proposed ways of addressing this seem like they’re on the right track in spirit but you’re phrasing them in ways that imply a note of contempt.

This is probably because you really do harbour some contempt for these guys given the way you described them, like calling them childish for example. If you actually want to express some of that animosity then your suggestions are probably fine but if you’re concerned about the “right” way to set these boundaries you might want to try and keep it neutral. This is also good if you don’t want to earn their contempt either which is probably advisable even if you don’t like them very much since you have to work with them and if they feel offended and hold a grudge it could risk spilling over in to the actual work.

I like your idea of saying outright that you’re not a talkative person, hopefully they’ll feel a little guilty about having forced you in to having to say that and will not try to drag you in to the conversation so much from then on. The additional bits around that concept don’t seem advisable, you don’t have to chastise them for not realising you don’t want to talk, that’s likely to be unproductive, the point is you don’t want to talk. Similarly the “and I hope you respect that” addition is good for being firm but also comes across a little aggressive, best deployed only if you’ve already made your wishes explicit and they’re clearly not respecting that.

Eating elsewhere, if that’s an option is great, it you can already opt for that do it, you can avoid even having to bring anything up and the physical separation makes questioning you about it really inconvenient. If they ask you about it later that’s when you can say you need time to unwind and that’s also by far the most socially acceptable and understandable reason that people are less likely to take personally. I don’t know if you resent the idea that your reasons have to be socially acceptable to these guys or should have to be massaged to avoid them taking things personally, but ask yourself this: do you want to teach them a lesson and demonstrate your contempt for them, or do you want to just be left alone to work and to continue to work effectively with them? Pragmatism over principle would make sense here.

If it gets to the point where you have to actually say to another adult, in a work environment, “leave me alone” then odds are it probably won’t even work and your coworkers are complete idiots that need to be fired. However if that’s really the case, saying that, even if it doesn’t work is probably good since at that point things are probably going to escalate and at least no one can say you did or said anything inappropriate.

In short, take the easiest route if possible and just eat somewhere else at lunch and redirect the conversation back to work if they keep talking to you during work. If you end up somehow having absolutely no other remaining options but to explicitly tell them you don’t want to talk be careful to communicate in a way so you only express this simple desire and don’t imply some sort of judgement or contempt towards them. Try to be nice about it.

They do many many useful things and the utility is valuable enough to begrudgingly have to accept the frustrating experience of using them. We generally really do have to accept it as well because as with all useful technologies, they become ubiquitous and then useful technologies are built off the fact of their reliable ubiquity and then those technologies replace existing ones and you find yourself needing smartphones to get by in society. They’re close to a necessity if not in reality, a necessity where I live, but places like China for example it is simply impossible to go about life without one. I honestly don’t what people do there when their phone is broken, just getting out the door to pick up a new one would be a challenge.

This is a tough one, I’m going to guess Marx?

I don’t see why that moment was unsalvagable, the whole back story not withstanding, people get startled when woken, and it’s usually only momentary. Were there no words spoken or anything?

Not gonna lie, I was pretty excited to find out what apple fries were before realising you just sliced up sticks of raw apple and put it on a plate. Looks like a nice sandwich in any case. Got that nice Hotel Food look.