I notice this pattern all the time in guides to "polite" workplace communication. Their examples are hypothetical, so they look at how positive something sounds without considering the underlying content, or go even further and change content to improve tone. The advice looks good on paper, but using it when there's an actual task at hand might just sound sarcastic or disingenuous. The worst example I've ever seen was something like:
> Instead of "I need that report by the end of the day", try saying "I really appreciate you working to get that report out soon, it's a big priority right now!"
That's absolutely insane, because those are two completely different statements. The second one sounds less demanding because it's not the same request. So the tip isn't positive communication advice, it's either a schedule rework or failing to convey a deadline.
As for this specific example:
> By adding an emoji below, it's clear that the sender is embarrassed to make this last-second request, and isn't trying to come across as sarcastic, rude, or overbearing
That wasn't clear to me at all. If you type in "embarrassed", Slack will only suggest :flushed:, although I'd also have understood :sweat_smile:. I guess the monkey was meant as "I'm hiding my face with shame", but Slack calls that emoji ":see_no_evil:", and at first glance it seemed like "I'm trying to not to look over your shoulder, but is this done yet?". If the problem is "making a last second request", there's no particular reason that emoji are the best way to address it - one example simply has more content than the other. So I like your direct phrasing, and I might add:
> Hi <name>, will you be able to have the report on X ready by <time>? I'm sorry it's such short notice, thank you!
I'd really just prefer to keep emojis out of any professional requests. If after work you want to go out for :beers: :D then sure, but if you're asking me to work late on a project, no amount of emojis will improve my mood.
I'm with you there, and it gets even worse when a company has their own emojis with a completely obscure meaning that is somehow expected to be understood. Like for some reason people in my company reply to messages sent out of the context of the channel with an emoji of the pokemon Charmander breathing fire (:charangry:). My own subtle form of protest is to use random emojis that really don't have any meaning. A personal favorite is :shallow_pan_of_food:.
imo, this is part of a more general problem with emojis. the "name" of the emoji does not always correspond to the image very well, so you have to confirm that the image actually conveys the tone you are going for. then as the recipient, you might sometimes wonder whether the image or the name of the image carries the intended meaning.
Don't filter input. Instead, prevent certain characters from being input in text elements. This is a user experience problem, not a software problem. The software can validate that a "name" is rejected if it does not follow the front end validations, but it doesn't need to do any more than that.
Of course, this argument does not extend beyond a "name" field to more complex fields. But more complex fields are less susceptible to introducing UX problems if certain characters are sanitized.
There's nothing wrong with having a prescription for marijuana, even if the "prescription" is really just a state medical license provided by a sketchy doctor that you slip 200 USD once a year.
But please stay off the roads while you're under "psychoactive" effects (read: high) . There are LEGAL drugs that are illegal to use while operating a motor vehicle.
Hundreds of millions of adult Americans use psychoactive substances on a daily basis (SSRI, MAOI, SNRI, Caffeine, Nicotine or worse, opiates / benzodiazepines) and are under no driving restrictions or legal ramifications for doing so.
Amateur means something more like "doesn't get paid". Professional means "gets paid."
Consider amateur marathoners. Some indeed "stop when they achieve" their first marathon. Others dedicate years to participating in marathons, and running culture. But they are all amateurs.
Some amateur marathoners "have a goal" - do a marathon. Some "have a process."
Most amateurs runners do not "think they are good at everything".
Many amateur runners have coaches, and join running clubs, and read advice books, all to get feedback and coaching.
Go down the list, and pretty none of it applies to dedicated amateur marathon runners.
Nor does it apply to other fields, like dedicated amateur birdwatching.
I think the list is more relevant for how it describes professionals, and less relevant for how it applies to amateurs. From professionals we expect a certain level of efficiency and proficiency. From amateurs we generally don't but that does not mean there are no skilled amateurs in a field.
E.g. Sir Isaac Newton who was a professional mathematician but an amateur physicist.
Professionalism to me means a few things:
- you earn money with the thing you do
- given a outline of the project you can judge how long it will take
- you also care about communicating your work
- once you agree to do something, you do it unless you can’t
I think you're overcomplicating how transferrable framework knowledge is. An expert React developer could switch to Vue no problem if there was demand for it. Similarly an expert Vue developer could switch to React no problem.
I am not. The original question was about starting a new project and the orinal answer was “depends on the project”. I am asking how it depends “on the project” and not on the person. What properties of the project would drive you to choose one over the other?
Clickbait. The author switched from Angular 2 beta 9 (not even a release candidate) because he was unable to migrate to Angular 2.0.0 since 'too many things broke to make the upgrade non trivial'. Yet somehow rewriting the entire app in Vue is easier?
You'd be surprised how simple it is to re-write an application in Vue. As someone who just finished doing so, I can say that development speed is like nothing I've ever experienced. The application I rebuilt initially took about 2 months to build with React. I rebuilt it with Vue in 2 weeks by myself. I am not venerating Vue, just simply responding to your concerns about rebuilding entire applications.
I did a rewrite from Angular 1 to Vue recently and it didn't take long at all plus it fixed a bunch of bugs that were problematic to fix in Angular. If you write your Angular 1 code in component style, moving them to Vue is pretty straightforward and a lot of the template conversions just involve changing keywords (e.g. ng-if -> v-if).
Are you kidding? (..not being sarcastic). Drug lords don't strike me as having quite the wealth that Gates has. Hell, I'd even assume drug lords pale in comparison to some oil Princes, but at least that's a more even comparison perhaps. Gates just has so much money that it's nearly beyond comprehension.
But, I don't know any of this, just speculating. Do you know more?
> Drug lords don't strike me as having quite the wealth that Gates has
Escobar at his height had an estimated wealth of $30bn - with inflation that is very much in the same ballpark.
And he had a huge share of his wealth in cash - you might know the anecdote that his operation spent $2,500 a month on rubber bands to bundle up cash...
Nobody knows what the wealth of today's global drug kingpins is, but I would be surprised if El Chapo Guzmán weren't worth tens of billions.
> Escobar at his height had an estimated wealth of $30bn - with inflation that is very much in the same ballpark.
Wow, that is very shocking! I frankly thought there was too much chaos to obtain >$10bn. Hell, I'd even be impressed with >$1bn. Guess I don't give them enough credit, and I also give countries ability to manage the crime lords too much credit.
He's talking about liquidity rich as in cash rich. Bezos and Zuck have a majority of their wealth in stock. Pablo Escobar supposedly made 10+ billion a year, mostly in cash. I'm pretty confident the person holding the most cash in the world is a drug lord or criminal. Anyone who's worth 100m (via legitimate means) would not be holding that much cash
> It'd be nice to get that report by this afternoon.
This phrasing is inherently passive aggressive since it's not a direct ask, regardless of how many emojis are included.
Why not:
> Hi <name>, will you be able to have the report on X ready by <time>?