I am increasingly frustrated that not even professional IT people can connect a printer to computers with different OS because printers themselves have proprietary software. It's maddening.
And to your point about the autosaving, I will say that Google Drive saves automatically *but* you really have to know how to use it so you don't inadvertently write over your original file when trying to make a copy. Oh, and as convenient as the cloud may be, in order to upload something to, say an EHR system or literally any website that requires an attachment, the user must first download it, which requires a PC with a hard drive.
One more bellyache: wet signatures. I'm not even going to elaborate on this anachronism.
Front and center: Microsoft OS has a list of file handling icons with words alongside - no hover required. Except for paste! It's just the icon. Maddening.
The change from 'Personnel' to 'Human Resources' was not a simple re-labeling, but a categorical, ideological, change. The remit of Personnel was limited to hiring and firing, but the scope of Human Resources takes in the whole company, while their ideology leans loony left . CEOs did not live in terror of their Personnel departments!
I was initially confused when dealing with people from the Big 4 consulting world - they label people as "resources." This is possibly now getting replaced in certain contexts as "talent." My biggest pet peeve is the lazy use of the word "unpack" instead of more specific terms like "explain," "explore," "uncover," "investigate." Anyone who uses "unpack" a lot has probably watched too many smarmy Ted Talks.
Having "resources" is like having "access" to them. "Money," on the other hand, is something that most people, most of the time, have to put effort into acquiring. Resources are just given to you, or not.
Ah, good point. We will be like baby birds, in our nests of 15 minute cities, necks craned for whatever George Soros decides to drop down our throats -- assuming we've been good and haven't been making waves.
Yes, it’s code for minorities and women are completely helpless and oppressed so they need assistance. Maybe they have money, but they don’t have transportation or stores nearby, they might need mental or emotional support to get through their day, etc, etc. They want these products for free. They’re angry that men don’t need tampons so they shouldn’t have to pay into the “patriarchal capitalist sytem” to get them.
I had the impression the tampons in the boys rooms were for trans boys, ie, girls. It’s a big deal because nobody cared until “boys” needed them, then they made sure the boys had them so they could be politically correct…those boys are so special.
You are exactly right! All of it is so confusing…girl now but wears boys clothes, now a boy or used to be a boy… your daughter is now your son? They want us to be confused.
Your daughter has actually been your son all along, and that’s why he needs his birth certificate changed to male, but also he needs testosterone and a double mastectomy to become your live son, otherwise she’ll kill herself and be your dead daughter.
Everyone, men and women, has to have toilet paper. If tampons are to be free, it follows logically that toilet paper should be free, too. But wait, men...
I think I see your point, and I agree. A fiat money economy ("wage-slavery") is already a degradation of real ownership, but a stockpile of "resources" doled out to the dispossessed masses is a yet further degradation.
I think "resources" is meant to communicate overall wealth or access to it rather than cash on hand, because "money" implies that you've drained your account, whereas "resources" means you're just not in a position to get the products. As if all the doors were closed to you.
It's a typical lament about feminine hygiene products, underpinned by the assumption that prices are high because it's a captive "audience," and if men needed the products they'd be free.
I will chime in! If I highlight starting with the first word of a sentence, a definition pops up! I am retraining myself to highlight from the bottom up, as I don't need the aggravation of seeing a common word such as "the" or "today" defined!
Zoom must employ a boatload of people who justify their jobs by constantly changing their interface. I use it infrequently enough that every time I go to schedule a meeting, I have to tackle a new way. Its most recent iteration is as ineffective as what you describe, Josh.
Someone posted a meme recently that said, "with a wallet full of money and a tank full of gas, we were free." Now I can't get that out of my head. No surprise they want to do away with that scenario.
Euphemisms: I don't know if it's because there are certain words not allowed or that trigger a negative response on social media, but I am so bloody tired of people "unaliving" themselves, I could unalive myself to not hear it again.
That particular one *is* to evade bad word filters on social media. I once said on Facebook, I thought with obvious humor, that I was going to kill my kid for doing X, Y, Z and I got a 24-hour ban within nanoseconds.
I noticed you cannot use words like "force", "kill", etc. even if using humor or explaining something you read in an article, etc.. AI picks up on certain words as violent, or bad words, so you have to misspell words or use another word to avoid getting temporarily banned from social media sites.
This overbearing nannying has got to STOP. How to get it to stop? STOP using those platforms. Sigh😔 Like that will make any difference because the majority have gotten locked into the habit or convenience or addiction. My life practice has been never to start something that has addictive attributes, but I must confess I don't have a particularly addictive personality so it's not like I'm suffering the torment of doing without.
"She used the word "resources" so many times. People didn't have "resources to afford" the products. What was the word she wouldn't say? Money."
And either one is inferior to "People can't afford tampons." When did everyone get reprogrammed to talk/write like they're getting paid by the word?
Or, I dunno...maybe she can't say "money" because she lives in an animal cartoon where raccoons trade gooseberries for tampons, but the gooseberry economy is tanked.
This is disgusting, but when a woman runs out of tampons and can’t get to the store or a nearby CrossFit gym to steal a few (CrossFit women tend to have massive periods) there are so so so many other things she can use to uh, tide her over.
"Resources" like "assets" has become a buzzword used by people to get other people they really give a sh$t about you. Your company calls you a "human asset" supported by "Human Resources" (now becoming "Human Capital Management") until the day they give you a layoff notice. Then off to the unemployment line and eating noodles with butter you go.
Human Resources are little cutouts of people that are tucked away in a drawer in the HR Department, used when needed. The name is strangely dehumanizing.
Spanish has the verb "regalar," which means to "give as a gift," in contrast to "dar," which is generic "give." English has a lacuna, because "give" doesn't imply a gift. It could mean lending or giving it just to look at for a sec.
I don't like the phonetic quality of "gifted," and "gift" as a verb sounds awkward, but people *are* trying to fill a linguistic gap.
That's interesting, about the distinction in Spanish between giving a gift and just giving. I don't remember hearing "gifted" prior to the last thirty years or so. It always seemed as if, in context, it was clear whether it was a gift or just handing something to someone.
I'm one of those that took up using the word "resources" instead of money. This was because when I would argue about costs of things with people they would just suggest the government print more money and give it out to people to buy the goods and services that are currently too expensive. Then this would lead to me needing to tediously explain that printing more money doesn't lead to larger supply of things. I found when I replaced "money" with "resources" it avoided the tedium.
Nail head, meet hammer. Brilliant observations.
I am increasingly frustrated that not even professional IT people can connect a printer to computers with different OS because printers themselves have proprietary software. It's maddening.
And to your point about the autosaving, I will say that Google Drive saves automatically *but* you really have to know how to use it so you don't inadvertently write over your original file when trying to make a copy. Oh, and as convenient as the cloud may be, in order to upload something to, say an EHR system or literally any website that requires an attachment, the user must first download it, which requires a PC with a hard drive.
One more bellyache: wet signatures. I'm not even going to elaborate on this anachronism.
Front and center: Microsoft OS has a list of file handling icons with words alongside - no hover required. Except for paste! It's just the icon. Maddening.
If your Windows user account isn’t locked down, you can restore the legacy right click menu by following these instructions
https://pureinfotech.com/bring-back-classic-context-menu-windows-11/
I often wonder what was so wrong with the word “personnel” that companies changed it to the creepier “Human Resources.”
The change from 'Personnel' to 'Human Resources' was not a simple re-labeling, but a categorical, ideological, change. The remit of Personnel was limited to hiring and firing, but the scope of Human Resources takes in the whole company, while their ideology leans loony left . CEOs did not live in terror of their Personnel departments!
Make Personnel departments great again!
The word “person“ is contrary to communist ideals.
We must not speak of “persons“ or “individuals“.
Humans are cogs in “the collective,” to be used for “the greater good.” 🤯
I was initially confused when dealing with people from the Big 4 consulting world - they label people as "resources." This is possibly now getting replaced in certain contexts as "talent." My biggest pet peeve is the lazy use of the word "unpack" instead of more specific terms like "explain," "explore," "uncover," "investigate." Anyone who uses "unpack" a lot has probably watched too many smarmy Ted Talks.
There's no mystery here. The interfaces are increasingly programmed by Gen Zs and Millennials and they're idiots.
Unfortunately, "like" can only be clicked once.
They are not all idiots. Some are blithering idiots.
They are not all blithering idiots. Some are gibbering imbeciles.
Having "resources" is like having "access" to them. "Money," on the other hand, is something that most people, most of the time, have to put effort into acquiring. Resources are just given to you, or not.
We are being primed...
Ah, good point. We will be like baby birds, in our nests of 15 minute cities, necks craned for whatever George Soros decides to drop down our throats -- assuming we've been good and haven't been making waves.
Yes, it’s code for minorities and women are completely helpless and oppressed so they need assistance. Maybe they have money, but they don’t have transportation or stores nearby, they might need mental or emotional support to get through their day, etc, etc. They want these products for free. They’re angry that men don’t need tampons so they shouldn’t have to pay into the “patriarchal capitalist sytem” to get them.
I had the impression the tampons in the boys rooms were for trans boys, ie, girls. It’s a big deal because nobody cared until “boys” needed them, then they made sure the boys had them so they could be politically correct…those boys are so special.
They don’t care because “boys” need them, they care because trans need them.
You are exactly right! All of it is so confusing…girl now but wears boys clothes, now a boy or used to be a boy… your daughter is now your son? They want us to be confused.
Your daughter has actually been your son all along, and that’s why he needs his birth certificate changed to male, but also he needs testosterone and a double mastectomy to become your live son, otherwise she’ll kill herself and be your dead daughter.
…un huh, b-d-b-d b-d b-d…whaaaa?
Everyone, men and women, has to have toilet paper. If tampons are to be free, it follows logically that toilet paper should be free, too. But wait, men...
On the contrary, income, as you well know, is “distributed.”
I think I see your point, and I agree. A fiat money economy ("wage-slavery") is already a degradation of real ownership, but a stockpile of "resources" doled out to the dispossessed masses is a yet further degradation.
Resources “belong to everyone.” Until there are none left.
Right, while the real wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. But pay no attention to that....
I think "resources" is meant to communicate overall wealth or access to it rather than cash on hand, because "money" implies that you've drained your account, whereas "resources" means you're just not in a position to get the products. As if all the doors were closed to you.
It's a typical lament about feminine hygiene products, underpinned by the assumption that prices are high because it's a captive "audience," and if men needed the products they'd be free.
Which, I'd like to see the data on that.
I will chime in! If I highlight starting with the first word of a sentence, a definition pops up! I am retraining myself to highlight from the bottom up, as I don't need the aggravation of seeing a common word such as "the" or "today" defined!
Zoom must employ a boatload of people who justify their jobs by constantly changing their interface. I use it infrequently enough that every time I go to schedule a meeting, I have to tackle a new way. Its most recent iteration is as ineffective as what you describe, Josh.
Someone posted a meme recently that said, "with a wallet full of money and a tank full of gas, we were free." Now I can't get that out of my head. No surprise they want to do away with that scenario.
Seen on Instagram earlier today. Seems apropos:
If you press your temple and your taint at the same time, you can screenshot your soul.
I can’t stop laughing at this.
Euphemisms: I don't know if it's because there are certain words not allowed or that trigger a negative response on social media, but I am so bloody tired of people "unaliving" themselves, I could unalive myself to not hear it again.
That particular one *is* to evade bad word filters on social media. I once said on Facebook, I thought with obvious humor, that I was going to kill my kid for doing X, Y, Z and I got a 24-hour ban within nanoseconds.
I noticed you cannot use words like "force", "kill", etc. even if using humor or explaining something you read in an article, etc.. AI picks up on certain words as violent, or bad words, so you have to misspell words or use another word to avoid getting temporarily banned from social media sites.
This overbearing nannying has got to STOP. How to get it to stop? STOP using those platforms. Sigh😔 Like that will make any difference because the majority have gotten locked into the habit or convenience or addiction. My life practice has been never to start something that has addictive attributes, but I must confess I don't have a particularly addictive personality so it's not like I'm suffering the torment of doing without.
Yeah. I’ve been misspelling or disguise spelling words like vaccines and pandemic for a while. But “unalive” really chaps my ass.
"She used the word "resources" so many times. People didn't have "resources to afford" the products. What was the word she wouldn't say? Money."
And either one is inferior to "People can't afford tampons." When did everyone get reprogrammed to talk/write like they're getting paid by the word?
Or, I dunno...maybe she can't say "money" because she lives in an animal cartoon where raccoons trade gooseberries for tampons, but the gooseberry economy is tanked.
This is disgusting, but when a woman runs out of tampons and can’t get to the store or a nearby CrossFit gym to steal a few (CrossFit women tend to have massive periods) there are so so so many other things she can use to uh, tide her over.
Elizabeth Warren said we used to be able to trade seven raspberries for a home, so your comment made me chuckle.
Seven raspberries won't even buy a teepee now!
We need that old black dude who ran for mayor of New York for decades. “The pads are TOO. DAMN. HIGH.”
"Resources" like "assets" has become a buzzword used by people to get other people they really give a sh$t about you. Your company calls you a "human asset" supported by "Human Resources" (now becoming "Human Capital Management") until the day they give you a layoff notice. Then off to the unemployment line and eating noodles with butter you go.
Human Resources are little cutouts of people that are tucked away in a drawer in the HR Department, used when needed. The name is strangely dehumanizing.
"Associates", "team members", and "cast members" are equally irritating replacements for "employees".
The vernacular of the woke.
Who’s got the “resources” for butter in this economy?
"Gift" and "gifted" as verbs. There was nothing wrong with "give" and "gave".
"Reached out". Just say "asked", "called", or "contacted".
Gifting is especially annoying.
Spanish has the verb "regalar," which means to "give as a gift," in contrast to "dar," which is generic "give." English has a lacuna, because "give" doesn't imply a gift. It could mean lending or giving it just to look at for a sec.
I don't like the phonetic quality of "gifted," and "gift" as a verb sounds awkward, but people *are* trying to fill a linguistic gap.
That's interesting, about the distinction in Spanish between giving a gift and just giving. I don't remember hearing "gifted" prior to the last thirty years or so. It always seemed as if, in context, it was clear whether it was a gift or just handing something to someone.
The changes to Microsoft's apps are maddening.
Yep. It's almost as though they do it deliberately.
WTF is the point of new Outlook or new Teams?!
I love how they just completely change things and make us feel like Luddites because we don't magically know how to use them.
I'm one of those that took up using the word "resources" instead of money. This was because when I would argue about costs of things with people they would just suggest the government print more money and give it out to people to buy the goods and services that are currently too expensive. Then this would lead to me needing to tediously explain that printing more money doesn't lead to larger supply of things. I found when I replaced "money" with "resources" it avoided the tedium.