Posts made by Ganymede

@surreality said in A fully OC supers MU:

Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick a maximum of two.

It's like the options at the local brothel.

@Warma-Sheen said in The Basketball Thread:

On the surface, it looks like they overpaid. But if they can start winning next season, all of that will be forgotten.

I think we all had a conversation about the Leonard trade last year too, and this came up.

This trade legitimately makes the Lakers a contender now, especially in light of the Thompson and Durant injuries. There's not enough talent on the Spurs to make them truly dangerous against a combination of James and Davis, and Harden and Paul are two ball-hogs that can't seem to get on the same page (I could say the same about Westbrook and George).

The next domino to fall will be Leonard. I think that he is honorable enough to figure out where he's going before August, and I do think that the Raptors are his most likely destination. But even if Leonard doesn't come back, there are some great free agents guards and forwards that could be signed on to take up Leonard's minutes. The Raptors have substantial depth that they could use to ride out the regular season, and then turn it on during the playoffs.

@ZombieGenesis said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

I think you are right though, the theme/setting/IP isn't everything. It is something though and can be a huge part of that initial draw. Once you get past that initial draw, however, you do need to have a secure infrastructure in place and a clear idea of what the game is and how to sustain it.

You should probably have a clear idea of what your game is and how to sustain it before you determine the infrastructure, and even begin on putting it together.

I'd love to collaborate with you because I have ideas, but not the time to pull it together. You probably need to find others that you can work with who can pull in some ideas, invest some time, and assist you. It sounds to me that you put your projects together with a small cadre of folks, so maybe you ought to consider reaching out to others.

@Arkandel

If Leonard goes west, it is to the Clippers. Then again, I don’t see him liking the entire circus of media over there.

I hope he stays as the King of the North.

Mass Effect.

With Ares.

But, fuck I just can't get off my ass to do it.

@Arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:

Why rush for 1-2 years of LeBron's effective prime?

You just answered your own question.

James had his first major injury this year, and it won't be his last. You need Davis, period. If you have confidence in your talent evaluators, then it shouldn't hurt too badly; there are many draft picks out there looking for their shot, and even more undrafted folks who could make a difference (e.g., FVV).

Having Davis means you can "load manage" your stars if you want to. We have seen how and why that works. You could argue that you can't do that in the West, but I disagree; Toronto had a better record than the Warriors (which was pretty important), and still ended up just behind Milwaukee while giving Leonard that time he wanted or needed to rest up.

Being a champ or prospective champ is important. Think about what might happen if Boogie moved to the Lakers; last time I checked, he is a free agent now. Boogie is clearly chasing a ring, and I would opine that his best shot at it is going for a mid-range contract and sticking to the Lakers. You could add Bogdanovic, Redick, or Ross on an affordable 1-year deal to get a ring, and holy shit you could run the West.

@Arkandel

They still have Kuzma.

There are plenty of good shooters that will be available. They need to surround Davis and James with strong shooters and defenders. I concur that they don’t need another all-star.

The big problem is that the Lakers have no talent evaluators. If James has a hand in hiring Stephenson and Rondo, he clearly doesn’t either.

@Warma-Sheen said in The Basketball Thread:

Sloppy play cost them games they didn't need to lose. (And I'll always and forever question their lack of 4th quarter effort to win game 1.)

This is very true. I don't know how stifling Toronto's defense really was, but giving up 6 TOs in a quarter is unacceptable. The Warriors are the best with the new long-ball game -- they never missed an uncontested 3, as far as I saw -- but they are going to continue to fail if they keep turning the ball over.

@bear_necessities

I may be stopping by as well.

@BobGoblin said in The Basketball Thread:

Leonard sat out all last season following his spurs tantrum. "Handling stars" include year long rest?

"Handling stars" means "listening to third-party doctors instead of team doctors" and "respecting that pushing your stars while they have career-threatening injuries is bad for you and business." The fact that the Raptors basically let Leonard dictate his playing time is probably what helped him perform so damn well during the championship run.

KD is a competitor, but it seemed clear to me that he came back from an injury when he shouldn't have. His Achilles injury is career-threatening now, and he may be out for a season to have it heal properly. He could use his contract's opt-in to make the Warriors pay for a year without him hitting the court, and I'd recommend he do so.

I don't think Ujiri is going to leave, even if the money is good. He could negotiate an extension with Toronto for the same money, and have the staff and players that made him successful. Leonard is a question mark, but this championship might make him sign up for a least another year, while Lowry, Ibaka, FVV, Anunoby, and Siakam are still under contract (through 2020). I think the key is whether Gasol opts-in to stay, and whether they are able to resign Green. The only roster player for the championship signed beyond 2020 is Powell.

@Warma-Sheen

I think the takeaway from this is resilience. The Raptors weren’t injured as badly going in, yet they had two hard-fought series. And Leonard will set the tone for how teams handle their stars workload.

@Ganymede said in The Basketball Thread:

Toronto in 6.

You will all bow to me.

@Rinel said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

Still, asking someone to pay a hundred dollars for me to go through PDFs for an hour and rename them feels obscene on a visceral level.

I hope you don't think this is what I do or like to do either. But I can tell you that I have accumulated over 2,000 hours of pro bono work in under 10 years because I use the billable hour system.

But that's another topic for another day.

@Rinel said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

Billables are antiquated af tho.

Do you mean hour requirements or billables in general?

We just follow the medical industry's lead, yo.

@BlondeBot said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

I have never heard of 'Sorry, I'm not coming in today because I'm volunteering.' being an acceptable excuse to miss work in any vocation, for any gender.

The disconnect may be that I work in a profession where the concept of "sick days" and "vacation days" are mashed together.

Many attorneys don't get "sick days" or "vacation days." We work in small offices which run on the concept of getting billable hours paid. The more hours, the more money, the better off the firm. Larger firms or public entities are going to work differently, as do corporate counsel, but for the most part the legal profession in mid-sized cities operate on a "get hours get paid" basis.

Frankly, I think the concept of "sick days" and "vacation days" is antiquated and should be abolished, but that's another topic for another day.

So, where "sick days" and "vacation days" aren't used or important, people just take time off to handle their outside obligations. Around here, this includes fucking snow delays and other bullshit that comes with spawning. It is not uncommon to have firms lauding the volunteer work done by associates and partners (when they could be in the office), and at the same time lecturing women about how important it is to commit to their firms or suffer career failure. And the messages between the genders are sometimes offensively biased: a man goes off with the national guard to Afghanistan for three months, and dumps his work on his fellow associates, is a hero; however, a woman who has to spend a week with her sick child is somehow not committed to her firm because she couldn't find babysitter arrangements.

"Sorry, I'm not coming in today because I'm volunteering to help the people affected by the recent tornadoes" has been common over here in southern Ohio as of late, but man if I haven't heard stories of women reamed for asking for a day off to take care of their sick kid.

@BlondeBot said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

That said, comparing a volunteer duty to an obligation is like comparing apples to baseballs. The hypothetical man in this instance has no actual obligations that would cause him to miss work or suffer dire consequences.

I'm using it to demonstrate a gender bias that we can appreciate. I selected the "volunteer obligation" deliberately.

@faraday said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

My point is that responsibilities outside of work should have nothing to do with your qualifications for work. If you can do your job, that's all that should matter. But in reality that's not all that matters. Employers bias towards people based on perceptions about their commitment or their ability to do things outside of work, and that causes a bias in hiring against certain demographics.

I want to interject here to say the following.

There is more definitely an employer bias against people's outside commitments, and I believe they are highly sexist. A man who volunteers for the United Way "is committed to the community"; a woman who has to go take care of a sick child "is not committed enough to the business." It's horrible, ugly, and fucking nasty bullshit that I see and deal with on a daily basis.

I can remember our new associate frustrated and in tears because she had to take yet another day off because of a sick child. She was worried (because I was not a partner at the time) that she might lose her job because she was taking too much time off too soon from her hire. I had to reassure her repeatedly that the partners understood, and that they measured a person's commitment based on work product quality and timeliness. And that I would defend her to the death if otherwise. Now that I'm a partner, I'll guaran-damn-tee it.

Our firm has long-trended away from the antiquated "sit on your ass in your office" mentality of other firms, preferring to allow our staff to take needed time to be away from work with the understanding that the work will get done well and on-time, whenever. You can work from home, from the office, during office hours of after hours, and no one would be checking your clocking-in-and-out. Obviously, it's easier to get work done during business hours (because we do need to call courts and lawyers), but the firm is committed to making sure our attorneys and staff can reasonably raise families.

You may be able to make more at another firm, but good luck on that 2,000 billable-hour requirement.

@Kanye-Qwest said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

yeah and he also entirely neglected to acknowledge or mention the mountains of bias that have absolutely, 100% resulted in these types of jobs being almost entirely staffed by men, so let's not act like that omission means nothing.

The responses infer this neglect or ignorance. Is there any evidence? I don't see any. I see no denial of experience; I see no denial of the very fact that you are presenting here; and I certainly don't deny it. And, more to my point, has anyone jumped down my throat about my thought processes, neglect of acknowledgment, or mention of what I already know and believe?

Apparently not.

@Apos said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

Saying, "hire the best candidate" is one of those things that makes me raise my eyebrows because... I mean, of course they will. ... It's one of those things that's already well understood, and saying so says a little bit more about the person saying it than the person being told.

Emphasis added. Since I believe that Ghost and I have said the exact same thing, why is it that my advice elicited no accusation of neglect or ignorance, but Ghost's did?

Folks.

We are all on the same side. Why are we responding to one another as if were not?

Maybe we should all take a step back.

I want to add that holyshitballs pressing and pushing for equitable treatment is annoying and exhausting as fuck, and I acknowledge -- and I want everyone to know this -- that I am 100% fine with people venting about this topic right here. Like, I can only imagine what Sparks, Auspice, Faraday, or any other woman in the IT industry has to go through. I don't even want to think about it. Don't step back from the anger and rage. Don't take your foot off the pedal.

I just don't think Ghost deserves to get run over for saying everything I did, unless you all intend to run me over too.

@Sparks said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

Do you know how many times I've seen a conversation about ...

Do you know how many times I have seen ...

I'm going to step in and take some flak because I want to.

I don't see anything in what Ghost said speaking to your experience or contradicting your frustration. To the contrary, it appears to me that Ghost understands the constant battle being warred in the boardrooms and hiring halls. Yet nothing Ghost has said is, to me, incorrect.

But you did ask him to step away. And then comes the dogpile.

How many times does a person have to say the following for everyone to put down the firebrands and pitchforks?

"Choose the right people/good team."

This is what Ghost has said from his first post. Actually, what he said was:

"Build a team who can do the job."

And I have to defend this because I said the exact same thing.

"Hire the best people for the job, regardless of gender."

@Ghost said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

At the end of the day, IT is about skills and experience. It's a Catch-22 because if you take a female candidate who isn't as skilled as another male candidate, your team will suffer. If you give a woman a bump out of bias, then you're not hiring her solely for her skills, which isn't right either. At the end of the day, all you can do is build your team with the best people you can get, and if that ends up being a diverse team? Great. If not? It was the applications you had available at the time.

That's the advice. And I concur with it. That's why I responded with my post about intangibles. We had a male candidate that, on paper, looked better, but a female candidate that, in reality, was better. I stood there and advocated for the hire because I saw the intangibles, and, lo, I was right.

If Arkandel is going to do the hiring, he's going to need to do the defending. He's going to need to advocate for whoever he hires, regardless of gender. And if that's the case, as Ghost said, focus on the skills and experience when taking a position, and, as I said, don't forget about raising the intangibles.

Dave Chapelle was right, and I remain concerned.

@surreality

I'd get those for the vintage value.