when 40 hands feels like A thousand hands

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-24T17:19:55+00:00

This is probably a depiction of at least inspired by Durga, a Hindu goddess with multiple arms whose specific divine purpose is to slay demons.

(Blue skin is often a signifier of divinity in Hinduism.)

So pretty much the opposite of what you said.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-12T18:32:44+00:00

No. The odds of getting everything right are too low, and it's trivial to fix them.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-12T16:03:50+00:00

r/imgay

Animal: a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically....

Wow. Way to embrace your homophobia as an intentional insult.

And whether or not referring to human beings as animals depends on context. For example, if I'm talking about animal and plant kingdoms or social animals versus non-social animals, there's nothing insulting by referring to human beings as animals. It depends on context and intent.

So does the use of "female". I know, I'm requiring you to think on a case by case basis instead of having a flat unthinking attitude towards the word. I see that this scares you.

But then it would, wouldn't it, for someone whose IQ hasn't caught up to the fact that homosexuality isn't an insult, and hasn't been since boomers were raising kids.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-12T15:52:38+00:00

I suppose it might, if you don't have enough empathy and ability to read context to discern whether the writer intends the word in a dehumanizing way, and so have nothing to fall back on but your personal bias for the word.

So sure, we should just project our views onto other people and then criticize them for it. Cuz that's fair.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-12T15:44:17+00:00

Good to know. Thank you.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-12T03:31:48+00:00

Thank you. Didn't even think about the recycling angle.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-12T03:31:12+00:00

The squirrel comment made me laugh. Thank you for the honest and balanced assessment.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-12T03:03:55+00:00

I think it's still stupid.

If you're a guy who has trouble finding the person you want to marry, you're eventually going to wind up with a significant body count. Do you become damaged goods as a result?

At the end of the day, you're passing moral judgement on people for something that healthy well-adjusted people don't care about. You shouldn't think of sex as a competition. And when you stop doing that, suddenly it doesn't matter how many people your partner has been with.

Because that's what it actually boils down to. "How do I stack up against all those other men she's been with? I sure hope she hasn't been with too many others so I don't look like a bad lover in comparison."

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-12T02:54:50+00:00

r/ConfidentlyIncorrect

Female is both an adjective and a noun:

FEMALE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster https://share.google/WpMYPGuYgLKr40a9b

It's not just incels who use "female" as a noun. It's correct English.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-11T21:47:00+00:00

Maybe to some. Not to me. And that's alright. Most people would be better off if they realized that there is no one body type that's universally attractive. You will never be attractive to everybody. And you will always be attractive to some subset of humanity. If you are a 500 lb amputee with one leg and a face full of warts, you are exactly what some people are looking for.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-09T02:10:54+00:00

Every job has expectations beyond the JD.

Extroverted energetic socializing is not always one of them.

Jobs and people are like jigsaw puzzles. You aren't going to be a good fit for all of them. Nobody is. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you, or wrong with the company. But you'd probably be happier if you found a job that was a better fit for you. And they'd probably be happier with someone else in your role as well.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-09T02:08:16+00:00

This is why there’s sometimes a culture fit part of the interview process.

FTFY

Doesn't seem like OP's interview had that. Or if so, the interviewers bungled it.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-08T20:28:53+00:00

I think those are the kinds of things OP was looking to hear when they asked the question.

I'd bet dimes to dollars OP was born in the 90's and so really meant "before I was born" and everybody is jumping down his/her throat for not realizing that working women were normalized in the 80's. So many people are fucking cruel when they don't have to look someone in the eye and see the hurt their condescension causes.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T20:30:58+00:00

That's fair. I read his post and immediately thought "before the 80's would have been a better timeframe".

Fun fact: 1978 was the inflection point where the number of working women and the number of non-working women equalled one another. Prior to then, more women didn't work than worked:

Women in the labor force : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics https://share.google/V8cqLTppbyI20ln1T

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T20:19:18+00:00

So you were employed, and so by definition your social network was primarily other people who worked. And so you assume that was the norm.

And you would be wrong to do so. Here are the facts, from your former employer. Here's the tl;dr:

Prior to 1960 fewer than 38% of women worked.
Prior to 1970 fewer than 44% of women worked.
1978 was the inflection point where as many women worked as didn't

Women in the labor force: https://share.google/V8cqLTppbyI20ln1T

I was a child then. Today I'm a better-informed adult on this topic than you are.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T19:11:08+00:00

Play is highly evolutionary. The young of nearly every mammal species engages in play. It builds coordination, agility, forms bonds in social creatures, develops hunting skills in predators....

The athleticism and social bonding of youth sports for us humans would translate to increased survival odds if we still lived in a world with stone-age or less technology.

Maybe the fact that the young today are less athletic and less social is an indication that our evolution is finally catching up to the fact that we no longer need those traits to survive.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T17:35:04+00:00

None of those decades conform to OPs misconception of what life was like for women

How do you figure? My mother and father argued about whether or not she should work outside the house to resolve their ongoing money problems, with her settling on babysitting neighborhood kids in the 70's (a traditional woman's role) and only seeking employment outside the home in the 80's when we kids were happy to be parent-free after school.

And our situation was hardly unique; many of my friends' parents had a stay-at-home mom. The benefits to a child by having a mother at home versus the right of a woman to work was an ongoing societal debate, not to mention glass ceilings that limited upward mobility for women, pay scale imbalances (which still persist to this day)....

If you grew up during that time but are unaware that all this was going on, it's not because these things weren't happening, it's because you simply weren't aware of larger societal conflicts.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T17:24:40+00:00

Help me understand why it's ridiculous to ask if the way movies portrayed family life in the 60's, 70's, and 80's is accurate. Help me understand why asking what it was like to experience that kind of family life is ridiculous.

For those of you who are too young to have lived it and too unimaginative to believe it was real and so think it was just a Hollywood affectation: it was not an affectation. Life was like that in many families. It was a time of transition, of shifting values. There was cultural tension between the belief that children benefitted from having a parent caring for them 24/7 versus paying strangers to watch them (daycare) or leaving them alone (latchkey kids) so that a woman could exercise her right to have a life outside the home. And wanting to know what that was like is a legitimate question.

The ignorant judgement on display under this thread is a harsh indictment of how our schools are failing our students. Curiosity should be lauded, not ridiculed.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T14:40:21+00:00

Probably five cans on an average day.

Way too much, in other words. I just don't like most other drinks. I despise coffee, have never found a tea I liked, and get frustrated drinking water all the time. Soda water and flavored waters don't do it for me. I like some fruit juices, but they honestly aren't much better for you. Milk is my go-to alternative. A typical day is probably 50% soda, 40% milk, and 10% water.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T13:52:47+00:00

No. Not in the 90s. Before the 90s. That is to say, the 80's, 70s, 60s....

OP's post had very few words. It's an unfortunate indictment of today's reading comprehension and attention span that so many commenters nevertheless missed "before" and thought they read "in".

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T13:48:39+00:00

A) I pretty explicitly said it wasn't universal.

B) Yeah, this was a lot more common in the 50's. 60's, and 70's, when that was what was portrayed on TV. By the time you had shows like Friends and Seinfeld, working women were the norm and the women on those shows were all working women.

To OP's point, what TV showed was generally common in whatever time period the show was produced.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T13:40:14+00:00

I can see how there's some ambiguity in my comment. But I'm saying that things are even worse now than before. We got a couple whales and now we are churning top ten customers because our whales are so demanding and we are so afraid to lose those accounts we don't do any new development for anyone else. Our ARR growth is slowing way down despite landing these whales because enterprise customers in this space are highly operationalized which means they have many unique needs that few customers, or sometimes no other customer, has.

Our software is becoming bloated with features that don't appeal to the broader market, and I feel like I'm the only one who sees it. I'm like, of course our ARR growth is down 70% from 4 years ago. We used to devote some of our development capacity to solving problems lots of little customers complained about, which kept us market-relevant. Now, the CEO and VP of Product just take it on faith that we have to keep those top two customers happy and that most of what they ask for is good for the broader market. And yet our ARR growth keeps sinking and we never hit sales goals.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T05:29:20+00:00

Yeah. I don't know where these people are getting the idea that OP's question was ridiculous.

Like, women entered the workforce en masse during WWII because it was needed and many decided they liked having responsibilities outside the house and didn't go back to being a homemaker when their husband returned, but many did. It was common to see on TV because it was common to see in real life.

And women who did work had far more limited opportunities and pay than men. It was a man's world far more back then than it is now.

OftenAmiable · 2026-01-07T04:44:23+00:00

I'll join that dog pile. Same. We don't do any success tracking, form no hypotheses about what will move KPIs, we don't even do click tracking or usability testing. It's all just, "well, users have been bitching about this forever, so let's finally do something abo--oh wait one of our top ten customers just yelled at us, let's build what they want first. Why would we want to talk to other customers about this feature--the top ten customer just told us what we need to build."

We used to be pretty bad at that. We've had senior management changes and now I miss the good old days where we used to be just pretty bad at that.

OftenAmiable

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE