In my experience, technical people with those skills quickly rise past their non-technical peers.

They aren’t held back by the org that limits technical salaries and request that they take on leadership responsibilities?

What does this mean?

1. Social pressure - There’s a need to be “seen”. Being a technical expert on ground doesn’t make you " seen".

Ah yes, exposure 🤔 So maybe by making technical experts seen, it would normalise increasing their salary.

2. Money - The higher you go, the more money you make.

I’m questioning why this is the case ;)

Leadership is undoubtedly important and good leadership even more so, but why do you bring singularity (“one person can only do so much work”)? Experts work in teams too. Is there some kind of connotation with expertise that leads you (or people) to believe that is something which cannot be brought into a team?

A good leader can enable a team of people to work together achieving more than the sum of their individual contributions.

That is true, but isn’t the ability of the team members important too? For example, if you have a team of juniors, you can get to a goal, however the question is in what state. And if the leader is just a leader but doesn’t have understanding of the sector, why should their leadership be valued more than that of the team members who do?

As for force multipliers, experts can be force multipliers too. An expert that helps out and resolves (or even prevents) tricky situations for fellow team members (or the entire team) can improve team cohesion and productivity. Experts also often have an educative role in the team to spread knowledge and understanding. That seems to be valued less, and I don’t understand why.

Also traditional companies don’t typically have knowledge based employees. There’s a limit to what high expertise can bring. This is what has led to management as the promotion track.

That is true, but you can become an expert in multiple things. For example you become an expert brick layer and then you become an expert plumber, and so on. Or in a knowledge based company, you become an expert payroll accountant, then an expert tax accountant, then an expert revenue accountant, etc.

Management is also a skill. And it’s arguable a more useful skill since it’s more transferable than a narrow focus. At very high levels you have a lot of responsibility figuring out where your company is headed.

So people value knowing where to go more than being able to get there? Is this the gist of it? If so, why? I don’t understand why one is more important than the other. You can have the best plan on the planet, but if you don’t have the people to get you there quickly, safely, and in top shape, that plan is just that, a plan.

Maybe we’re misunderstanding each other. I’m not talking about technical people going up the ladder. I’m asking why going up the ladder is valued more than becoming or being an expert on the ground.

I’ve deleted multiple posts for different reasons:

• answers were crap (mostly offtopic, missing the point, simply attacking me instead of the question, etc.)
• mbin doesn’t support muting notifications from topics, so I’d just keep getting them, so it was simpler to delete than wait for people to stop talking
• I got my answers and it wasn’t that important

I don’t give 2 shits about “points”. You could make this the most downvoted comment on the planet and I would leave it up (if I didn’t get notifications)

That entire premise falls apart when you let a person with a different skin color enter the room of children that have never seen that skin color before. There are even videos of it where children scream in horror.

And humans didn’t just evolve from one central location. They evolved in parallel on an entire continent. They then also mixed with different subspecies.

Sure, give it a try

If racism weren’t by nature, then it would only happen in some societies or groups, but it happens in all of them.

Empathy doesn’t preclude evil.

Kids don’t understand the idea of “others” until a certain age. They don’t understand that others are also individuals with their own lives, feelings, pain, etc. They will hurt each other and even kill each other (siblings drowning other siblings, pushing them down the stairs, etc.) if left unsupervised. They have to be guided for a long time before they aren’t dangers to themselves and others.

And it doesn’t stop there. Every class in a public school, everywhere has at least one bully and hanger-ons. And the longer you’re on this planet, the less people you find out you can trust.

Humans are born evil.

It doesn’t mean they can’t improve.

It’s not OK for you, it’s OK for them because they are powerful.

Report it via the local app.

Sorry, let me change the title. I don’t use the big tech stuff, so not sure what to compare it to exactly.

It’s the video part of instagram

Filtering your feed isn’t anybody’s job but yours. If you want to be spoonfed and controlled, that’s what big tech does.

I just hope they don’t all go to “lemmy.world” or some huge instance. Regardless, even the @eucommission is understanding the value of the fediverse and has its own mastodon instance. The German government is also going more opensource, the Dutch government wants to have an alternative to GitHub that might join the fediverse, France has the DINUM which seems to want to aggressively leave US big tech behind.

One big problem I see with the EU finally noticing opensource is that they are new to the game and will take lobbying money. Solutions like BlueSky might easily lead them astray, but I seriously hope they will see “developed by USAians” and go “fuck that, we want Mastodon that’s spearheaded by a German non-profit”.

It’s very imaginable that more duds like BlueSky will pop up to distract from the fediverse and try to grab a piece of the monetary and attention pie the EU has.

We need to convince more of them to sync / mirror their content on peertube.