It feels to me like you don’t hate progress, but you hate late stage capitalism.

If progress happened without it being forced on you, without you “having” to adapt to not “fall behind”, when all your needs were provided for without having to compete to satisfy them…

Would you really mind progress that much?

I’m sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but I’ll give my perspective anyway.

Why do you care about getting “back in your industry/career”? Yeah you did it previously, but is it really what makes you happy?

When you have goals, you always think “once I reach this, everything will be better”. In my experience and with everyone I ever talked with, this was never the lasting case. Reaching some nice goal gave satisfaction for days or sometimes even weeks or months, but never longer. Then it was back to dissatisfaction and another goal.

The common path frequently described out of depression is getting back into the groove of setting goals, following them, not being satisfied, setting another goal, repeat. This is not how I got out of my depression and also not a good life.

I don’t think it’s important that you reach your goal of getting back in your industry or whatever. I think it’s important that you’re fine with not reaching it. I think it’s important to recognize that you can be happy and satisfied right where you are, exactly with what you have.

But I haven’t been trying hard at all…

There’s definitely a balance to be struck, and it depends on the table. I would only do this on a table where the rules are actually just guidelines.

For many others, a world needs to make sense internally. It doesn’t need to make real-world sense, but within the world with its different reality, things kinda need to be consistent. For example, if it is easily possible for a wizard to circumvent your will save by asking a trick question, the whole world would look completely different. Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.

A resourceful/logical player would now try to trick an NPC into agreeing first, and well, if it doesn’t work, you can still cast the spell normally, nothing lost. You could ask them to stop, or they could recognize themselves that doing it like that wouldn’t be fun, but if you act in the world you usually always try to make the best decisions. If you artificially limit that in a fourth-wall-breaking way, the game actually starts to lose its appeal.

If you allow stuff like this all the time, eventually the alternate reality of your characters will just become a random clown show. Problem solving will just be about who comes up with the most ridiculous thing that makes everyone laugh about its absurdity. There will be no logic or rational thought involved anymore, it’ll be no simulation anymore, just a sandbox. Which again, might be fine for certain tables, but many want to be able to immerse themselves in a different world that they can accept as at least possible, which is the actual fun for them.

So no, you aren’t necessarily “not fun” if you don’t allow this as a DM. You’re just playing a different kind of game with a different kind of fun.

I’m pretty sure the trials of death in super mario maker wins.

Over 4000 hours over 7 years just to beat one level.

It depends entirely on the maturity of the parties involved, it’s not really an “older/younger” thing.

But generally, the less mature you are, the more a relationship is selfish, i.e. you want to be in a relationship for your personal advantage, i.e. “i get sex when I have a girlfriend”. The more mature you get, the more relationships go into the direction of “I want to make the other person happy”. You still get your sex or whatever other advantage of course, but it’s much more fulfilling if you can actually give the other person what they need, and temporarily losing your personal benefit of the relationship doesn’t cause immediate breakups.

They don’t really. They are often learned the hard way, because no one attempts to explain them or just acts like they know but doesn’t really.

It’s relatively reasonable to expect a person to lie, it’s a bit less reasonable to expect two people to lie, it’s even less reasonable to expect someone to lie in a professional context where their livelihood depends on them not being discovered to be lying.

It makes a certain sense when you look at it that way from an employer’s perspective.

Of course, like you probably understand, it doesn’t make any sense after all, because in the end if you go to a doctor and lie about being sick (symptoms), the doctor is neither lying nor professionally liable and the whole thing is just an additional hurdle to go through.

But that hurdle is also part of the point to reduce the convenience of lying. And I’m absolutely sure that this additional hurdle has prevented someone somewhere from calling in sick while they aren’t.

Again of course, that likely hasn’t resulted in more work being done, because obviously the employee had a reason to lie about being sick. But whatever, I’ll stop now.

What to do with it is to act understanding and empathetic with people like that instead of standoffish and hostile. You still insist on the better way of doing things, but there’s no actual need to attack anyone that doesn’t support the better way of doing things, even if their reasons aren’t rational or even morally questionable/bad. It only serves to further entrench them in their positions, while the opposite might have a chance to happen in a more cooperative approach.

Funny how you made exactly the comment the article predicted within itself xD

Why would you ask questions when it’s the same day? Like, don’t all sicknesses start being noticed one specific day and thus you take sick leave starting that day? That’s literally the only way it makes sense at all

Seems like you’re an asshole boss to me

Maybe you should explain your intention instead of making cryptic belittling remarks.

No one insulted you. They commented on the fact that you don’t understand reality for most people. “Oh honey” means “oh you are so innocent :/ that’s really sweet, I don’t want to make you feel bad by explaining reality to you”. They were kinda being nice to you in their way.

I’m more nice because I think people should know reality:

Most jobs are so easily replaceable and have so little protections that if you start citing laws and taking sick leave like it’s rightfully yours, you’ll be fired a bit later for “unrelated” reasons.

Thus while you are right that you would be able to get your sick leave by communicating the law, you will not really get them because you’ll be out of work in a few weeks. If you want to keep your job, you don’t communicate the law and don’t take your sick leave.

Btw, unionize to prevent all this.

I mean the only thing it does is if you’re a minute late, you might as well go get a coffee and sit down in a park and be 59 minutes late.

When I call my doctor and tell them I have covid, I get a doctor’s note sent to me/my employer automatically without having to expose anyone

Don’t remember, sorry

Am on e/os/

Xposed is just an API which is provided by the LSPosed Magisk module.

idk where I got it from, but it’s called “Universal SafetyNet Fix” by kdrag0n

Yeah but I mean if your bank would offer their app through F-Droid as an addition to Google Play, there is no reason to assume the app suddenly got less secure because of that.

But, there’s no difference in security between using a different storefront? The difference in security depends on the app itself, not where it was downloaded from.