hissss it burns ussss

I don’t remember them being reformed at all in TNG, but I admit it’s been awhile. I picture them as capering caricatures in TNG. But I’m thinking specifically of that moment where Quark argues with Odo that he can save them a bunch of small dangers by making one big gamble; it shows the Ferengi way of thinking about things as not just allegory, but as an actual culture that succeeds in some ways and fails in others.

Edit: Which I liked since the federation is ostensibly all about interacting with new and different cultures.

Edit edit: Not to say any of that invalidates your own feelings about it. I care about and find meaningful some stuff; you are under no obligation to feel the same way, nor are you wrong for not doing so. I only share because sometimes it’s fun to hear other’s perspectives, and I appreciate you sharing yours with me.

Not every character moment has to be climactic. You gotta mix in some slow-burn stuff there too. And also remember that early episodes like this had to do a lot of heavy lifting to reform the Ferengi from their disastrous TNG appearance.

To me, it felt like the episode mattered because you got character development. It’s the first time we get to see exactly how Odo and Quark’s relationship works, and we also get to see Quark’s…“unorthodox” problem solving style, in contrast to how federation weenies go about things.

Today is a good day to die.

Tell Bashir to get the cortical simulator ready, I’m going in.

They’ve all programmed their replicator profiles to include “Ethanol, 22.5ml, Chilled” in all orders they place containing the word “synthehol”

What’s more fun, demoting pluto or announcing the discovery of a new planet every week for a couple years?

I see, thank you. That sounds like the kind of common-sense thing that I will never be able to convince a manager of XD

ELI5?

I’m not confident I’m remembering correctly, but didn’t she have a line to the effect of “They can courtmarshall me if we make back”

<3

I understand, but also, please don’t. As bad as it is right now, the world is still a better place with you in it. Call or text 988 if you’re feeling suicidal, there are people there ready to listen and help.

My headcanon is that it’s entirely perception. Kind of like how plating the same food in a pretty way can affect how you rate it’s taste. The replicated food can be identical down to the molecule, but the knowledge that Sisko’s Dad handmade your dinner makes you think it’s tastier.

May I direct you to the first two words of your post?

That strikes me as highly reflective of google’s position of power; from the employer’s perspective, the point where the diminishing returns are no longer worth it is related to the point where they’re losing too many applicants from interview exhaustion. If you’re not google, not offering the kind of pay and such that google does, your break-even point is likely much sooner.

Additionally, from the worker’s perspective, the only-3-interviews rule is an assertion of our power. And, as an added plus, if enough people adhere to it, it will shift that break-even point even for places like Google, and resist the shifting of that burden onto unpaid workers.

The question that raises from a process improvement perspective then is “were the first 3 rounds really effective tests?” Perhaps a better solution is not more interviews, but more focused interviews conducted by the people that actually have the knowledge and power to make the decision. (And if the knowledge and the power are divided among multiple people, another great improvement would be empowering the people with the knowledge.)

Yeah, it saves you money…by costing the prospective employee. There’s only so much we as employees can or should be willing to give up for free, and it’s 3 interviews.

I also question if more than that is really improving the quality of your hires. Far more often (100% of the time, in my experience), multiple interviews are more a symptom of bureaucracy; multiple managers insisting that they get to stick their fingers in the pie, rather than actually learning anything more meaningful about the candidate.

Never do more than 3 interviews. And that’s assuming they’re relatively short, maybe 1 hour apiece. Any more than that, and they don’t want you bad enough.

There are probably legitimate uses out there for gen AI, but all the money people have such a hard-on for the unethical uses that now it’s impossible for me to hear about AI without an automatic “ugggghhhhh” reaction.