abff08f4813c

So I meant to write in the above comment that while not every case of quiet quitting is malicious compliance, and not every case of malicious compliance related to employment is the same as quiet quitting, there is definitely room for overlap - a situation where one is both quiet quitting and performing malicious compliance. I thought that this was such a case.

After reading https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/e285ec96adf8d443/5868d536-full.pdf I'm backing away from that. What the new whistleblower report seems to allege is that Reuveni was ordered to make statements to the court that he knew were wrong and misleading, and he outright refused - which is honourable but it's non-compliance rather than malicious compliance.

He also actively sought to confidentially relay the situation to folks higher up on the food chain in order to get them to push back against this, which is probably too much effort to count as quiet quitting.

Yeah, they should clarify that being at the G7 and also being a convicted felon is unusual.

Came here to say this. I wouldn't be surprised if he became obese because of the 33 years he put into the job, always working and not having enough time to himself to self-care.

Thank you! This is exactly why folks should comment and not just only downvote.

Those who actually read the article know that E.M. is a woman and the victim who is giving testimony (and whose full name can't be released pubicly), no connection at all to Musk aside from coincidentally sharing the same initials. But for illustration she might be named Ellen Marks, Eva Manns, Ellie Monet, etc.

I mean it's not really needed in Europe where true legal rights exist for employees, right?

This is more of a "only in the USA" kind of thing.

My solution to this is that I accept the other job offer, and I don't quit until the night before I start my first day in the new one. As a result I've never spent a single day unemployed. If something I'm counting on doesn't come through I'm already at my backup plan.

If companies won't be loyal to us in this way, why do we owe any loyalty to them in return?

Agreed. If only kbin.social had implemented this, it might still be up and running...

Great to see piefed.social taking steps to avoid the same fate!

Good question. I went through the code but I actually can't find that option, https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/src/branch/main/app/templates/admin//_nav.html#L14 (that's with the latest commit being https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/commit/c1c718180fc39d51a8ac1820f727491e17c86fbd as I write this)

From the screenshot it should be showing between lines 14 and 15 of that file.

In a working paper released earlier this month, economists Anders Humlum and Emilie Vestergaard looked at the labor market impact of AI chatbots on 11 occupations, covering 25,000 workers and 7,000 workplaces in Denmark in 2023 and 2024.

Hmm, Denmark you say?

Also Denmark,

Denmark doesn’t have at-will employment. Employers may only terminate an employee with just cause and sufficient notice. Just cause can include financial reasons or employee misconduct.

https://www.rippling.com/country-hiring/denmark-employees

Actually, perhaps this points at a way forward... we should employment laws in the US that match those of Denmark.

Not following how his inability to find a job has any connection to AI?

It's in the fortune article:

some of those few interviews have been with an AI agent instead of a human.
“I feel super invisible,” K tells Fortune. “I feel unseen. I feel like I’m filtered out before a human is even in the chain.”

That is, he's getting fewer chances to establish a human-to-human connection to an interviewer, which is hurting his ability to get hired.

The bigger picture is that folks are indeed losing jobs to AI, have had their jobs cut because of AI, see

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/klarna-ceo-says-ai-helped-company-shrink-workforce-by-40/ar-AA1EMHG6

Software engineer here - I make more than this guy did and I have roughly the same amount of experience in the industry that he does (perhaps a smidge more, going off of his linkedin profile).

For folks who are saying that there's something off about this guy - that would not have mattered two or three years ago. At most he would have just been seen as a highly talented dev who was also slightly quirky.

For those who say it's not about AI and more about the economy - well, maybe. We do have a couple of major ongoing wars right now and moves over the last couple of months by the recent administration of the US haven't helped.

But I was around during the crash back in 2008, and this still feels different. Harder. Before, I had recruiters just banging on my door. Now, it's tough to past the automated screenings unless I have a contact at the company who can refer me there.

Meanwhile, I'm hearing from my co-workers about how great AI is - how they ran their code through it and it came up with a bunch of unit tests for them and some boilerplate code. Vibe coding is already a thing. So is using AI to write your resume and cover letters and applying to jobs.

Likewise, I look upon tools like Devin.ai with increasing trepidation. Today, LLMs aren't good enough to replace a single senior dev, despite a lot of investment happening to move things in exactly this direction. It probably won't happen tomorrow, or even next year. But in 25?

Let's just say that this article really hit home for me.

The other point here is - the day that a person with no coding ability can ask an LLM to create and deploy an entire website, write and manage a brand new app from scratch, is going to be a day that's a win for the people. We want to lower the barriers to entry here, to give this highly elite power to others. Actually, there shouldn't be an elite at all - there should just be a democracy where everyone is equally empowered to create and build great things.

Working in tech will not remain this vaulted, lofty place for much longer. If we aren't content creators, or controlling company owners, then ultimately tech workers like myself are in the same position as any other kind of worker - we work for someone else and serve only at their sufferance.

It will have to go to court at this point but EC has done nothing wrong in terms of the recount.

Agreed. This isn't the step where the EC did wrong - it was earlier in putting the wrong postal code on the envelope that caused it to be returned.

You make it sound like a conspiracy that they counted more votes for the Liberals.

Not the OP but - I'd agree that this is definitely not the case. It seems to instead be a clear and accidental mistake on the part of whoever handled the printing of the envelope.

Now, while it's definitely troubling if the overall vote can be swung by an "administrative error" of some sort, there's no evidence that this happened more than in this one case. And thus it only matters because the final call was done to having a single vote more for the Liberal candidate.

If it was down to even just two votes for the Liberal candidate instead, getting this lost vote counted would not have changed the results. So definitely not a conspiracy.

They’re doing everything by the book.

I guess the point here is - laws can be changed. Perhaps not retroactively this specific case, but going forward the laws can be updated to better handle situations like this in the future where EC made a mistake.

This is a totally different situation, but when I went to exchange my expired driver's license at Service Ontario, one of the first workers that I saw there made a mistake and incorrectly refused my abstract.

I had to return after a weekend, and spoke with someone else who acknowledged the issue. At this point I was technically outside the 1-year window by a couple of days to be able to perform the exchange - but I wouldn't have been if not for their mistake. Luckily for me, they were empowered to correct it and accept the exchange.

So - is there a compelling reason to avoid granting EC the ability to correct their own mistakes, particularly in a clear-cut situation like this one?

They’re following the law.

Never stated otherwise.

They never saw the vote. They can’t count it,

I get what you're saying, but it's still disturbing that EC can cause a mistake of this nature and not have the ability to rectify it.

Certainly this isn't the worst case of disenfranchisement by Elections Canada (see for example https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/this-is-unacceptable-polling-station-problems-prompt-calls-for-investigation/ )

it has to go to court.

Thinking it over, there's a good counterargument here. Even if EC could directly order a by-election in this case (or even was given the power to just outright count the vote), someone would contest this and it'd likely end up before a judge at some point anyways. So might as well just go direct.