May 29, 2020 at 5:13 pm
Time frame makes sense, though we usually clear up false positives from users. Not sure many people have many spam posts across their entire time here, but a good point.
May 29, 2020 at 5:17 pm
I was thinking of our recent exchange with someone that multiple of us considered spam, but you did not because you were familiar with their posting style
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please follow Best Practices For Posting On Forums to receive quicker and higher quality responses
May 29, 2020 at 5:26 pm
used to be 3 per post - and when it happened all posts for that user would be gone (not sure what happened to the user on the background)
on old forum we could report same post multiple times - so would be easy for someone with the correct "trust level" to quickly block a spammer
but I was informed sometime ago that this had not been implemented intentionally due to abuse (or attempts to)
May 29, 2020 at 5:45 pm
If you "report" a post now, it goes to spam. We can un-spam it as admins. With the way that spammers work, we decided to live with the few complaints we get from users when their post is mistakenly marked.
There also is an automatic system that marks some, and it learns, so after a few posts, it starts to mark them automatically.
May 29, 2020 at 10:00 pm
Yesterday my work announced that they were extending the work from home policy at least through Labor Day. With me living in one state and working in another, that certainly makes it easier to navigate the different timetables.
Drew
J. Drew Allen
Business Intelligence Analyst
Philadelphia, PA
May 30, 2020 at 5:37 pm
Labor Day probably makes sense. Easier to put this out there and then change later, than keep extending it.
No update from RG, but quite a few people are thinking we may go through all of 2020. We had a survey this week asking if people would WFH for the rest of the year. Most of my colleagues were in favor.
I am not. I want to go see people, at least a bit.
May 30, 2020 at 6:03 pm
Labor Day probably makes sense. Easier to put this out there and then change later, than keep extending it.
No update from RG, but quite a few people are thinking we may go through all of 2020. We had a survey this week asking if people would WFH for the rest of the year. Most of my colleagues were in favor.
I am not. I want to go see people, at least a bit.
We have a mandatory department-wide Teams meeting every morning. It's mostly a complete waste of 15 minutes with some rare exceptions. That's followed a mandatory morning scrum. Good useful 15 minutes. That's about all I need (heh... I mean all I can stand) for "human" contact. Our team also has an optional "lunch meeting" on Friday. That's ok... some pretty good ideas come out of that and well as some interesting stuff that people are doing.
Other than that, though, I'm pretty much digging this WFH stuff. If I could get them to lighten up on the morning meetings, that would be good because, a lot of times, I'm sending my last email at 2 or 3 in the morning because I need to do a lot of the stuff I do after hours or on weekends.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 30, 2020 at 6:32 pm
So yesterday we got a bit of good/bad news...
Good, in that the wife has been called back to work and goes back on Tuesday.
Bad, in that the wife got called back to work and will be making LESS per week than she was getting from unemployment, with the extra $600/wk that the gov tacked on.
But frankly, I'm glad she's going back and so is she, in part because having a 40-hr/wk job is a much less stressful source of income than unemployment (especially when you add in the "will she FIND a job when the lockdowns end or when the unemployment runs out?")
How is it that your wife will be making less per week when she goes back to work?
The government only makes up 80% of her salary with the additional 20% being optional from her employer?
May 30, 2020 at 6:44 pm
jasona.work wrote:So yesterday we got a bit of good/bad news...
Good, in that the wife has been called back to work and goes back on Tuesday.
Bad, in that the wife got called back to work and will be making LESS per week than she was getting from unemployment, with the extra $600/wk that the gov tacked on.
But frankly, I'm glad she's going back and so is she, in part because having a 40-hr/wk job is a much less stressful source of income than unemployment (especially when you add in the "will she FIND a job when the lockdowns end or when the unemployment runs out?")
How is it that your wife will be making less per week when she goes back to work?
The government only makes up 80% of her salary with the additional 20% being optional from her employer?
When she returns to work, she won't get that extra $600.00 authorized by Congress. Which means she'll be making less money to expose herself to the virus.
May 30, 2020 at 6:50 pm
I don't know if I'm lucky or got over the "burnt out" long ago. I "lost" my daycare in September, which means that up until pandemic became a thing, KKC and I were taking turns working from home to watch the kid. I had 3 days a week because my workplace was more flexible with the WFH thing and he had 2 days a week.
Then Covid19 hit and now his workplace has to be flexible. But also, last month, we got a childcare reprieve because we have self-isolating relatives who can take the kid most days of the week now. So, win-win?
Either way, I got used to this well before everyone else had to. So it wasn't much of a change or shock to my system.
May 30, 2020 at 7:50 pm
I started working from home back in October 2019, so there really was no change for me when everyone else at work started doing the WFM thing. Of course a majority off the team I am on has been doing the WFM thing even longer than that. Parsons actually encourages it for those that can do it.
May 31, 2020 at 1:00 am
Jonathan AC Roberts wrote:jasona.work wrote:So yesterday we got a bit of good/bad news...
Good, in that the wife has been called back to work and goes back on Tuesday.
Bad, in that the wife got called back to work and will be making LESS per week than she was getting from unemployment, with the extra $600/wk that the gov tacked on.
But frankly, I'm glad she's going back and so is she, in part because having a 40-hr/wk job is a much less stressful source of income than unemployment (especially when you add in the "will she FIND a job when the lockdowns end or when the unemployment runs out?")
How is it that your wife will be making less per week when she goes back to work?
The government only makes up 80% of her salary with the additional 20% being optional from her employer?
When she returns to work, she won't get that extra $600.00 authorized by Congress. Which means she'll be making less money to expose herself to the virus.
Ah ok, I thought you might be from the UK, in the UK you can't earn more money from government support than you job that I know of.
May 31, 2020 at 1:16 am
The U.S. Congress decided (wisely for once) that they wanted people to want to stay home without worrying about the bills. So they authorized an extra $600.00 per (I think) unemployment check to keep people self-isolating during the pandemic.
Of course, the Republicans in power (to separate them from the Republicans who got kicked out for being sensible people) promptly decried this saying people wouldn't want to go back to their jobs (which was the point because PANDEMIC) and are now trying to undermine it by telling people they can't get unemployment if they are offered a job and refuse it due to being worried about getting sick.
Which makes absolute sense if one is a sadist and wants to make money off the suffering of those in or near poverty, and none at all for those who actually have empathy.
SET @RANT = OFF;
May 31, 2020 at 1:21 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor wrote:Labor Day probably makes sense. Easier to put this out there and then change later, than keep extending it.
No update from RG, but quite a few people are thinking we may go through all of 2020. We had a survey this week asking if people would WFH for the rest of the year. Most of my colleagues were in favor.
I am not. I want to go see people, at least a bit.
We have a mandatory department-wide Teams meeting every morning. It's mostly a complete waste of 15 minutes with some rare exceptions. That's followed a mandatory morning scrum. Good useful 15 minutes. That's about all I need (heh... I mean all I can stand) for "human" contact. Our team also has an optional "lunch meeting" on Friday. That's ok... some pretty good ideas come out of that and well as some interesting stuff that people are doing.
Other than that, though, I'm pretty much digging this WFH stuff. If I could get them to lighten up on the morning meetings, that would be good because, a lot of times, I'm sending my last email at 2 or 3 in the morning because I need to do a lot of the stuff I do after hours or on weekends.
So, does this mean you understand why I was looking for remote positions in the past?
May 31, 2020 at 1:24 am
The U.S. Congress decided (wisely for once) that they wanted people to want to stay home without worrying about the bills. So they authorized an extra $600.00 per (I think) unemployment check to keep people self-isolating during the pandemic.
Of course, the Republicans in power (to separate them from the Republicans who got kicked out for being sensible people) promptly decried this saying people wouldn't want to go back to their jobs (which was the point because PANDEMIC) and are now trying to undermine it by telling people they can't get unemployment if they are offered a job and refuse it due to being worried about getting sick.
Which makes absolute sense if one is a sadist and wants to make money off the suffering of those in or near poverty, and none at all for those who actually have empathy.
SET @RANT = OFF;
I understand the rant, however, without the pandemic refusing a job while get unemployment was reason to lose unemployment.
Viewing 15 posts - 64,906 through 64,920 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply