Kyle Lee7 said:Look, you can complain all you want about how everything here is broken, unfair, or just plain terrible. And sure, there are issues—especially in the public sector, where breaking through as a genuine expert is often much harder than simply being "well-connected." But at the end of the day, talented people find their way. They land great roles and climb the ladder because they actually have what it takes, and more importantly, they have the grit to chase what they want.
Think about it: an employer who genuinely needs someone capable—someone who can own their role, fit into the culture, and ultimately provide real value—isn't looking for someone to recite rehearsed clichés or put on a theatrical performance during an interview. I say this as someone who has been on both sides of the hiring table multiple times. I’ve seen colleagues and friends who are incredibly skilled secure amazing positions and skyrocket in their careers. They didn't get there by pulling strings or memorizing a list of five strengths and weaknesses; they got there because they are intelligent, educated, and driven professionals. They aren't just sitting around complaining about how unfair the world is or how incompetent bosses can be.
Yes, the world can be incredibly unfair sometimes. But that doesn't mean you're stuck, and it certainly doesn't mean you should pretend to be someone you're not just to get ahead.
I'm exactly the same way. 🙂 I’m definitely not one of those entitled hires. I’ve moved up through different companies and handled hiring myself. And those personality tests? I breeze through them every single time.
Still, my point stands: management here just takes a couple of seminars and suddenly thinks they're experts. Their actual skill set is nonexistent. It's baffling why these cliché psychological assessments even exist.
Every time, I get the same sixteen questions—one being the "strengths and weaknesses" thing. I've never struggled with them, mostly because I don't see the point. Since I'm not a psychologist, I assume it isn't really about the specific traits themselves. It's about self-perception—whether you're too full of yourself, too self-critical, or possess some delusional level of confidence. Unless, of course, you give an absurd answer like, "I lose my temper and slam my fist on the desk every time..."
Nathan Kelly5 said:I didn't intend for my post to be taken as an indictment that they do nothing, earn huge checks, and know nothing (though there are certainly plenty of those types—you see directors paying themselves bonuses for summer vacations while the company struggles with debt, or accounting heads who couldn't manage a lemonade stand). Even the executive level has it tough; they carry heavy responsibilities, yet the board sets vague goals that don't serve the long-term interest of the firm. The leadership isn't respected enough, so the company drifts without a strategy beyond chasing short-term profit. When that happens, the executives stop caring; they just do enough to secure their bonuses, and they couldn't care less if the whole thing goes downhill as long as the money hits their accounts... but again, this is straying from the topic and won't help the author, so we should probably move on.
In my mind, they all fall under the "management" umbrella... Which is precisely the point—we're constantly dealing with nonsensical decisions.
Nathan Kelly5 said:So that explains why most people around here land jobs through "referrals"—which is really just a polite way of saying "who you know." It might be slightly less common in the private sector than in government agencies, but it’s certainly more prevalent in domestic companies compared to major US corporations. That says quite a bit on its own.
America is only just beginning its transition from a capital-driven economy to a knowledge-based one—a shift the developed world completed roughly seventeen years ago. Most employers aren't intentionally sabotaging their own success; rather, they are doing so unconsciously. Because a vast majority lack the necessary educational foundation, they remain oblivious to the true value of human capital. They simply don't realize the damage they're causing.
Do you realize that the first major studies on how human factors drive corporate productivity were conducted in the U.S. between 1927 and 1932? It’s striking that while Americans were uncovering these insights nearly a century ago, we didn't even begin to consider them until after the fall of communism—and even then, only really within the last decade. It feels like we're still struggling to accept what they realized eighty years ago. There is still this prevailing mindset here that people naturally dislike working or avoiding responsibility, so why bother giving them autonomy or influence? Instead, the standard practice remains rooted in rigid hierarchies and micromanagement, attempting to force execution through strict control rather than engagement.
Please don't try to tell me otherwise. I’ve spent the last four years auditing domestic companies, and I can tell you that management incompetence here has reached an entirely new dimension. It's honestly tragic; most people who actually know what they're doing lack any real leverage because, in this country, the line between executive roles and ownership is far too blurred.
Here is a fresh example where anonymity is guaranteed, but let’s assume we are talking about one of those big-name corporations. Loans are maturing in foreign currency while leasing payments come in in USD, leading to millions in losses. You point out the discrepancy, but they aren't exactly eager to fix it. What else is there to say about the American economy? They won't risk their massive profits by simply correcting the books, and frankly, the human element seems pretty insignificant to them at that scale. I'll give credit where it's due—there are exceptions, of course, as there are still capable and driven employers in this country—but they represent a tiny fraction. In many ways, incompetence is just synonymous with how business is done here. And it isn't even strictly a mindset issue; looking at how much more efficient the Canadians are compared to us tells you everything you need to know. Look at how they handled the fallout when Walmart faced restructuring issues; it was obvious that any major player would try to dominate the market, which would naturally shake up the local food industry. Instead, we tend to hand over advantages that allow outsiders to dismantle us rather than trying to protect our own interests.
Everything I’ve laid out just highlights how nonsensical modern hiring practices have become. Take my old firm, for example: we had a guy who crushed every technical assessment we threw at him, yet they passed on him simply because he showed up to the interview in jeans. They viewed it as a lack of discipline. It’s absurd. About thirty years ago, a major study was conducted—one that most people here wouldn't be familiar with—analyzing the common traits of about 40 of the most successful long-term corporations. One key finding was that these companies actually tolerated eccentricity over rigid discipline. Yet today, companies hire based on sheer self-confidence, charisma, and "personality" rather than actual expertise. The root cause is pure arrogance. Managers are so convinced of their own abilities that they prioritize hiring people who are easy to manage and delegate to. It’s a total failure, and frankly, it feels like we're sliding thirty or forty years backward.
I won't even begin to explain how little they actually understand about employee motivation. The most basic rule when dealing with people on a manufacturing floor is simple: don't drown them in unproductive busywork, like endless administrative reports and such. Yet, 90% of employers do exactly that—mostly because they lack the insight, and frankly, they aren't even trying to find it. We could go on about this for days...
It’s hilarious to me. Even today, you see high-paid management types obsessing over whether someone clocked in at 9:00 sharp or if they "sneaked out" at 5:00 instead of staying until 6:00. They treat punctuality as a measure of work ethic—not talking about some cashier closing up early, but someone doing intellectual work that isn't tied to a client or specific hours. And this is happening at a massive private corporation. Unbelievable.
And they actually "track" it. Instead of evaluating the quality or completion of the actual task—or questioning what the supervisor is even doing if an employee leaves early—they just watch the clock. It’s pathetic. American management is a weak link.
Anyway, that's off-topic. Back to the point. I don't get why psychologists ask the exact same generic questions for every single profession. It’s always the same superficial nonsense. Then you end up stuck in some mindless job you could have done with half the credentials.
James Rogers4 said:It feels like you're subtly looking for an answer from an employer, so let me help you out..
- someone who is ready to get their work done on time and with a smile - someone who lifts the group's mood and stays positive and helpful - someone who doesn't start asking about vacation days after just one week - someone who doesn't ask for a raise a month after starting - someone who doesn't take maternity leave three months after being hired
And finally, most importantly—someone who provides a return on investment. In other words, any employer who sees you as someone capable of generating twice the revenue they spend on you will welcome you with open arms.
All these questions about strengths and weaknesses are mostly nonsense; nobody actually cares. Everyone just wants results and a solid ROI, because employees are essentially investments.
Because of that, you should craft a pitch that convinces an employer you'll be the one driving their profits, in exchange for a stable role and a steady paycheck.
Just as an example, if you had spent the last week analyzing my company, showed up to the interview, explained exactly why you're there, why you want to work for my firm, and how you contribute to my overall vision while guaranteeing you'll pay for yourself, I would have hired you on the spot.
That’s why people in marketing, sales, and management tend to do better in the job market—they provide a quick return on investment.
Please... what kind of elite executive role are we talking about here where you can just double a company's revenue?
James Rogers4 said:It feels like you're subtly looking for an answer from an employer, so let me help you out..
- someone who is ready to get their work done on time and with a smile - someone who lifts the group's mood and stays positive and helpful - someone who doesn't start asking about vacation days after just one week - someone who doesn't ask for a raise a month after starting - someone who doesn't take maternity leave three months after being hired
And finally, most importantly—someone who provides a return on investment. In other words, any employer who sees you as someone capable of generating twice the revenue they spend on you will welcome you with open arms.
All these questions about strengths and weaknesses are mostly nonsense; nobody actually cares. Everyone just wants results and a solid ROI, because employees are essentially investments.
Because of that, you should craft a pitch that convinces an employer you'll be the one driving their profits, in exchange for a stable role and a steady paycheck.
Just as an example, if you had spent the last week analyzing my company, showed up to the interview, explained exactly why you're there, why you want to work for my firm, and how you contribute to my overall vision while guaranteeing you'll pay for yourself, I would have hired you on the spot.
That’s why people in marketing, sales, and management tend to do better in the job market—they provide a quick return on investment.
So, I assume what you're trying to say with these quotes is: if I prove my value immediately, you'll take me.
Let's be real. That's not how it works. In large corporations where everyone has a "big idea," it's nearly impossible to break through unless you're already high up the ladder. American management is notoriously arrogant; they don't listen to the little guy with a great concept. A "big idea" only gets sold by someone with the right pedigree or status. The only places where a regular employee actually gets heard are at companies like Zuckerberg's or perhaps a small startup.
James Rogers4 said:It feels like you're subtly looking for an answer from an employer, so let me help you out..
- someone who is ready to get their work done on time and with a smile - someone who lifts the group's mood and stays positive and helpful - someone who doesn't start asking about vacation days after just one week - someone who doesn't ask for a raise a month after starting - someone who doesn't take maternity leave three months after being hired
And finally, most importantly—someone who provides a return on investment. In other words, any employer who sees you as someone capable of generating twice the revenue they spend on you will welcome you with open arms.
All these questions about strengths and weaknesses are mostly nonsense; nobody actually cares. Everyone just wants results and a solid ROI, because employees are essentially investments.
Because of that, you should craft a pitch that convinces an employer you'll be the one driving their profits, in exchange for a stable role and a steady paycheck.
Just as an example, if you had spent the last week analyzing my company, showed up to the interview, explained exactly why you're there, why you want to work for my firm, and how you contribute to my overall vision while guaranteeing you'll pay for yourself, I would have hired you on the spot.
That’s why people in marketing, sales, and management tend to do better in the job market—they provide a quick return on investment.
Sure, they sell themselves well, and that's where it ends. They look good on paper, while their bosses assume they can't do any better. Managers I know who actually understand their craft perform far worse than those just climbing the corporate ladder. It's common knowledge that most managers are just dead weight.
Finally, HR management is incredibly amateurish, relying on a handful of basic seminars... basically just sitting there listening or sleeping. Anyone with enough confidence and charisma can call themselves a manager. And they do, but they aren't increasing the company's bottom line.
Alex Barnes8 said:Thanks for all the input. As far as my appearance goes, those dark circles under my eyes are what bother me most. I don't touch alcohol, yet I have bags under my eyes like a heavy drinker. I remember reading somewhere that sugar—at least in large amounts—hits your system much like alcohol does. Not that you get drunk on it, obviously, but maybe it affects the liver or something similar. That’s why I was looking for a real explanation behind it. What else could be causing this? It isn't insomnia, because I've been taking sleep aids for a while now and I'm finally sleeping better, but the dark circles just won't budge.🤷
Have you actually seen a doctor? Any actual findings?
Look, there’s no deep philosophy or hidden wisdom here. You put garbage in, and you become... well, let's just say you end up feeling like garbage 🙂
I’ve been there myself. There was a time when I nearly worked myself into an early grave, especially with how I was living—terrible diet (both in terms of what I was eating and how much), way too much soda, endless coffee, and spending basically my entire life stuck in some stuffy, air-conditioned office
My advice? Just start moving, but take it slow. Don't go rushing into some intense, suffocating CrossFit box where you'll just burn out after five minutes. Start with something low-key—maybe some hiking, some light stretching, or beginner Pilates. And honestly, try to view it as your way to blow off steam and decompress
As for the food side of things... I don't know if you're much of a cook or not, but at the very least, you need to establish three solid meals a day and actually eat some healthy snacks. And I mean *healthy*—we aren't talking about grabbing a Snickers or a bag of chips on the run
And please, just try to enjoy the little things every single day
Benjamin Wilson7 said:You’ll read somewhere how you can get it for nothing, but here, it’s treated like some sacred relic we aren't allowed to mention.😉 Nothing like that is actually free.
If it were actually that simple, I wouldn't be asking questions here... I'm asking because I genuinely don't know. 😢 And I'm always open to advice via DM.
Listen, I have a specific requirement... I want to be prompted for a password every single time I access a certain folder and everything inside it. I can't have someone just sitting at my PC and snooping through whatever they feel like. And no, I don't want to deal with the hassle of setting up a separate user account.
Is there a straightforward fix for this? I've been digging around online, but most suggestions involve permanent file encryption, which is way too clunky for stuff I need to access frequently.
I'm looking for the USD/DEM exchange rates from either 1980 or 1985. I'll figure out the rest myself once I have the data. Where can I find this?
Obviously, historical data tells you nothing about the future—who knows what's coming next? But regardless, I want to see what happened 20 or 25 years ago.
It’s a straightforward question. I just don't know where to find an archive like that...
Everyone keeps insisting that betting on the long-term strength of the USD is a losing game because the exchange rate against the USD has skyrocketed over the last two decades...
Now I want to see this data for myself—maybe a graph or something I can plot manually. Is there any way to download historical USD/USD rates from twenty years ago?
Thanks to anyone who helps me solve this mystery everyone seems to be talking about.
Sure, I eat my fair share of steak... I’m asking because my numbers have been trending downward for four years straight now, which has me wondering what the deal is. So, basically, there's no reason to worry...
Alright, here’s the situation: For several years now, my routine blood work has consistently shown these specific values falling below the standard range: glucose 77 (79-115) creatinine 0.9 (1.1-1.9) urate 1.8 (2.4-6.1) GGT 0.1 (0.15-0.6) triglycerides 7.4 (9.0-31.0)
What am I looking at here? What are the actual implications, and more importantly, how do I fix this?
Kimberly Williams said:You get way more than just the temporary rush (which, let's be honest, isn't even that great). You get your health back, you feel refreshed, you save time (man, you save so much time), you get a little extra cash, and most importantly—freedom!
Look, the choice is yours, but being free from tobacco is pure bliss. 🙂 👍
EXACTLY!!!! 👍 👍
If I had only known how energized and light I’d feel WITHOUT cigarettes...
I honestly regret all those years I wasted as a smoker, trust me. 👍
Don't let yourselves fall for it, people. Seriously, do you have any idea how much money you're throwing away on those stocks because of YOUR own weakness? 😳 😠