I interpreted GP's message as "We used to lean-on and learn-from our friends, families, and coworkers, and insodoing we ourselves improved in a symbiotic way".
The "job" in the speech example would be "hey Joe, can I run this speech by you?"
In that scenario, the friend would:
* feel valued,
* connect with you,
* have something to do socially instead of "sooo uh whatcha been up to... uh... nice weather...", and
* get to hone their own speech skills by critiquing in a safe environment.
And.. yeah... it is the "job" of a friend/coworker to say "yes" to that question, right?
Ok; That's good feedback. Job may not have been the right word. I admit I didn't pass my comment through an LLM, so thank you for helping me improve and push harder. ;)
Yeah, but it's also one of the downsides. "Care about the plan of their surroundings" can just as easily turn into the HOA drama that many prefer to avoid.
HOA drama sucks for sure, but just outside of my HOA controlled neighborhood, I see also the houses with junk cars in their yards and grass gone to seed.
As much as I hate many stupid rules and seemingly unfair application of them, I do like that it mitigates against people that just don't give a shit about their property or the impact of their life choices on others.
> HOA drama sucks for sure, but just outside of my HOA controlled neighborhood, I see also the houses with junk cars in their yards and grass gone to seed.
You don’t need a potentially abusive and/or rent-seeking HOA for this. My locality controls for all of these potential issues through local ordinances.
Sure, but you don't need to buy in an abusive HOA community.
I live in a "town" (Reston, VA) that has a notoriously strict HOA. But, it mostly applies to buying/selling and home additions. And it's very consistent. Each subdivision within Reston also has its own HOA that's run by the owners and in charge of regular community upkeep. It works out, as long as you perform due diligence up front and know what you're buying. I don't know anybody who would claim it was abusive or rent-seeking - just mildly annoying sometimes.
As the sibling comment said, you start by reading the HOA covenants. If there are rules in place that you can’t abide by you simply don’t buy the house.
All the stories of people who bought in HOA areas and then got fined for having a work truck… I have little sympathy for them because that would’ve been in the HOA docs which were provided during contract negotiation.
The next step would be looking around the neighborhood to ensure that the rules are actually being fairly enforced. If the covenant say no work trucks, but there are work trucks parked at every third home then that’s indicative of a problem may or may not be an issue to you depending on your line of work, but it’s something to keep in line.
There are other things you can check as well. For example, ask for the HOA finances. Are they doing regular capital projects and do the budget seem reasonable? Do they have enough money in the bank for unforeseen capital expenses? Again not always a dealbreaker, but those are things you need to know and people frequently don’t bother asking about.
You get a copy of the HOA bylaws before you close/finish buying. Read those bylaws to find out what rules exist. Some, like no having junker cars in your front yard, are going to be agreeable. Others, like the HOA gets to judge and prohibit certain flags, or the color of the paint on your house, are going to be vaguely worded, giving room for the HOA to be unreasonable. Additional bylaws can be introduced later, but usually reading the bylaws will you give your an idea of what you might be getting into.
Exterior paint color is a good example. In my little cluster of townhomes, there are about six colors that we are allowed to pick from. And no two homes next to each other can be the same color. My house is currently a light green and in theory, I could paint it to be a blue or a tan, but not a grey because of one of my neighbors. I don’t find it to be particularly vague or onerous, but if I really wanted a pink house, I would’ve seen that in the HOA documentation upfront and not bought here.
Though it could also be a case with a HOA, a government employee is much more likely to not give any fucks about local ordinances than the board of HOA, composed of people who are directly affected by violations.
This has more to do with how the neighborhood is going (literally “to the dogs”) than it does with renting - you’d be surprised at the houses that look owner occupied but are actually rentals.
I assume he's saying Disney owns the 1992 film so the 1999 film is not theft, but he wants it to be because he doesn't like the 1999 film. Thus the quotes.
That's not a charitable reading of the comment, and furthermore, it's not even a reasonable assumption. Other comments clarify that the "theft" is in quotes because it's a figurative theft, not from Disney to themselves, but from Disney to the earlier, non-copyrighted folk tales it drew inspiration from. And the "theft" is that the Disney IP supplanted (via ubiquity) the public domain versions to the point lots of people aren't even aware they exist. Nobody is arguing it's literal theft, hence the quotes.
I don't think it's "uncharitable"? Seems perfectly reasonable to not like a remake.
He says:
> ... this corporate remake is a worse creative "theft" than ...
Context is that "this" is the 1999 film.
A sibling comment makes a separate point that even the 1992 film is not original content but nowhere in falcor84's comment does he refer to the franchise as a whole being "theft".
Regardless, it's clear from the post that the context is the 1999 film being `creative "theft"` which I inferred meant they changed the story in ways he didn't like but... he can weigh in if he feels like it.
What's this have to do with the thread you replied to?
And... anyway... Google just changed its homepage to make "AI Mode" / LLM responses the norm. LLM usage is just going to be the norm for the foreseeable future. Doesn't matter if a wary set of "laypeople" are reticent. They're still going to ask Google questions and be affected by it in their digital lives.
I treat it like housekeeping and treat features like hosting a party. Guests/stakeholders are people who want what you can make. The party is the feature they want.
They don't care whether it was difficult or easy for you to clean the house. They just assume keep your own house tidy ... and they know you don't when you only host once a quarter instead of once a month.
They assume you're a functional adult who manages his own space.
Tech debt is like that.
Thus - the business folk don't get a say in whether it's in the sprint - cuz it's not "the party". Instead it's your Scrum Master or whatever saying "hey kids - clean the mirrors and Jane this time you're sanitizing the toilet."
I'm 100% with the GP - I've avoided reading the book due to the manipulative sound to the title... Ironically I have read The 48 Laws of Power, hah.
I read it though thinking "I'll bulwark myself against manipulators by understanding their tactics" whilst the "Influencing People" book just sounded like manipulative self-interest.
You've changed my mind; I'm going to read it right away.
The "job" in the speech example would be "hey Joe, can I run this speech by you?"
In that scenario, the friend would:
And.. yeah... it is the "job" of a friend/coworker to say "yes" to that question, right?