Пока вы собираетесь продолжу мысли
Ведь есть разница куда вкатится?
Продавать дилдаки с алиэкспресса и выйти на 30к+
ИЛИ
Работая фултайм инженером за 30к+
Вместе с дилдаками продавать смазку и выйти на 30к+4к
ИЛИ
Учить новые спек, вон в экселе каждый год вкатывают нечто новое новое и получать ну условные 30к + 5-10к
Вот что быстрее то?
>вкатывают нечто новое и новое - получать, ну, условные 30к + 5-10к
фиксанусь
Ну есть статистика, по которой большая часть бизнесом закрывается в первые три года.
Попробовать можно ради разнообразия, если надоест - всегда можно вернуться в рабство.
Я чет без охоты верю в неё. Помню еще в травоядные годы, каждый десятый на дно шел и закрывался.
Да и речь не про это. Речь про вероятности. Что реальнее - найти работу или запилить своё?
И опять таки вынесем за скобки - продавать говно с алишки или быть кодером за 30к.
ОП, 27 лвл кун в треде.
Умеешь что-то делать заменяя нескольких спецов?
Владеешь разговорным английским?
Самое годное - фриланс за $$$ или если умеешь в линукс - пройди всякие курсы по сетям и устраивайся дежурным инженером в ЦОД, будет тебе 80 тр и сутки / трое график, куча свободного времени.
За 30к работают слесари со средним специальным и алкоголизмом.
Молодец, однако тред не про это, можешь идти лесом
А про что тред?
За 30 к ты можешь устроиться сантехником или в пятерочку.
Насчет бизнеса - открой аналог аптеки "вента".
Она уже давно в гугле висит, суть проста - люди покупают рецептурные преппараты, после предоплаты на левую карту сразу нахуй шлют.
Глянь сюда
>Речь про вероятности
думаю что действительно легче начать что-то свое и проебаться, чем устроиться на работу.
С начать свое очень много головняка связано, особенно если решишь торговать каким то лицензируемым видом товара.
С начать свое очень много головняка связано, особенно если решишь торговать каким то лицензируемым видом товара.
> быть кодером за 30к.
Нет таких зарплат в ДС, если ты в другой части РФ за эти деньги кодером работаешь вали нахуй оттуда скорее.
Каждую смену по литру самогона уходит у сантехников в ДС за 35 к/мес.
ТЕБЯ ПРОСТО НАЁБЫВАЮТ )))
Надо начать что-то своё я считаю. Причём необязательно бизнес. Это может быть и ютуб и что угодно. Надо везде себя пробовать короче.
Эти вакансии не связаны с разработкой ПО.
Какой это город?
Вижу, что москва. Не удивительно.
Вот первая мысль. Спасибо
Вот и с работой проебаться тот же шанс. К сожалению, тут нужны цифры. Допустим есть в город 1000 рабочих мест связанных с айти - кодеры, аналитики, тестировщики и т.д.
Давай пройдем по айти того же ДС2. Иду на ХэХэ
Тестировщик - 265 вакансий
Резюме - 2214
То есть на одну вакансию ~+/- 10 кандидатов.
Бизнес аналитик
297 вакансий
800 резюме
То есть на одну вакансию ~+/- 3-4 кандидата.
IT Project Manageк
303 вакансии
8000 резюме
То есть на одну вакансию ~+/- 26 кандидата.
А это самый жирная область в РФ.
То есть надо потратить время, читать кучу гайдов, выучить несколько языков - для того что бы стать одним из тех 26 человек на койко-место
На чуть повыше
>ДС
>40к
Тут согласен. но если тебе лет эдак 18-20. Сейчас просто нет времени на пробу нового.
> быть кодером за 30к.
>Нет таких зарплат в ДС,
Так мы этот сабж обсуждаем, если 10к это весомая разница для дс то извините.
>То есть надо потратить время, читать кучу гайдов, выучить несколько языков - для того что бы стать одним из тех 26 человек на койко-место
Ах да, мысль ушла
Продублирую мысль из травоядных времен, когда ИП не платили в пенсионные.
КАЖДЫЙ ДЕСЯТЫЙ ВЫЖИВАЛ
То есть шанс 1 к 10.
То есть, шанс стать бизнес-куном, в 2.5 раза выше чем стать IT project manager
Все просто. Оп у тебя есть сбережения на целый год? То есть целый год оплачивать 2-3 сотрудникам зп и себе(прожиточные расходы).
Если нет, то не морочь голову и пиздуй работать.
Тестировщик - 265 вакансий
Резюме - 27 636
То есть на одну вакансию ~+/- 10 кандидатов.
Бизнес аналитик
297 вакансий
3 514 резюме
То есть на одну вакансию ~+/- 12 кандидатов.
Фиксану
Тред не про это.
Тред про вероятности и шансы
БТВ ушел из магаза предков который вместе с ними и поднимал и был там техдолбебом (это который сам все порит а потом нанимает аутсорс чтобы все сделали нормально) потому что
а)пятерка душит
б) за последнее время было мало времени без ввода новых требований к ккассовым аппаратам, учету алкоголя, продукции животного происхождения, табачных изделий
в) мне скучно было сидеть и не заниматься чем то одним получая экспертные знания в этой сфере
Пытаюсь вкатиться в айти, попытки хуевые, думаю в велдеры податься за 3 месяца на курсах, и потом пытаться уехать в каканаду.
а)пятерка душит
б) за последнее время было мало времени без ввода новых требований к ккассовым аппаратам, учету алкоголя, продукции животного происхождения, табачных изделий
в) мне скучно было сидеть и не заниматься чем то одним получая экспертные знания в этой сфере
Пытаюсь вкатиться в айти, попытки хуевые, думаю в велдеры податься за 3 месяца на курсах, и потом пытаться уехать в каканаду.
кстати там тред в ньюсаче >>8060418
Доля предпринимательских доходов в структуре всех денежных доходов населения России во втором квартале 2020 года снизилась до 3,5%, следует из данных Росстата. Это самое низкое квартальное значение показателя минимум с 2000 года. Еще в первом квартале текущего года на них приходилось 5,9% доходов россиян.
Доля предпринимательских доходов в структуре всех денежных доходов населения России во втором квартале 2020 года снизилась до 3,5%, следует из данных Росстата. Это самое низкое квартальное значение показателя минимум с 2000 года. Еще в первом квартале текущего года на них приходилось 5,9% доходов россиян.
ответ вот тут дан -
Слишком много мозгоебли
Нет никаких проблем с поиском работы.
34 лвл
>
>Я знаю что куча анонов сейчас ищет работу, - ну, парни, что вы думаете то?
Ну я уже отвечал, что перестанут айтишники выебываться - можно опять заниматься этим. Если нет - то пускай и сами занимаються своим ебаным айти, каким они его и сделали, своей жадностью и гордостью.
Это тем, кто выебываеться, мнит себя вторым Цукербергом, просто из за них стало то, что стало.
Так и есть, бро!
11 лет стажа, кандидат наук. Начинал с разраба, сначала плюсы потом php. Стал прожектом, есть неплохой опыт во всяких аджайлах, OKR и прочей хуйни для смузи-детей. Вел рекламные компании, делал медиапланы на бюджеты 10кк/мес.
Потом вкатился в продуктовую аналитику, бизнес-аналитику. Стал директором по развитию бизнеса, в конторе которая доросла при мне с 20 рыл до 250. Все обвешал метриками, описали бизнес-процессы, автоматизация.
Задумался, посмотрел вакансии, повесил резюме - одна хуйня. Все как ты говоришь, то ебанавты с неадекватным руководством, то стартапы которые насквозь пахнут скамом.
В норм контору на позицию аналитика берут на 70к, что почти в три раза ниже текущего дохода.
Вот сижу и не выебываюсь теперь. На счет открыть свое дело - ты не прав. Бизнес в России это сложно и рискованно. Я не про хуйню которую проповедуют на БМ или прочие долбоебы, у которых все сводится в "упаковка-лендинг-реклама", а про настоящий бизнес.
По факту никакой другой работы, не связанной с айти, то больше нет. Логист? Какой логист без знания 1С и sql? ну и з.п. в 25к нормально, говна вот поешь
Инженер? Ну инженер обязан знать R или Python. ну потому что в автокаде/маткаде реализовано это дело - ну возьми планку в 40к, ок. Чуть меньше начальника будешь получать))
Маркетолог? Ну тут сам бог велел - pbi, sql, spss, R. ну тут проще - 35к на выходе
Тут, анон, тебе самому мутировать надо. Меняться, ага.
Про инвесторов слышал, манюнь?
Основной посыл - требования растут, а зп нет
прикинь что через 10 лет будет? Что нужно будет уметь за 25к зп?
В России не существует бизнеса.
Есть только синергия двух наебизнесов: наёб государства, чтобы нологи не платить, и наёб клиента. И вот на этих двух наёбах ты балансируешь на обоюдоостром хуе, как цырковой карлик ёбанный.
Всё правильно, миллионы вкатывальщиков засрали сферу. Теперь все поняли, что ОйТи — это хуита даунская.
Теперь нужно вкатываться в реальный сектор экономики.
>могу в автокады, дизайны, даже sql и управление линкусом
Навыки разрозненные, в одну специальность, где ты будешь экспертом не складываются. В этом и проблема. Эникейщику сложнее найти ХОРОШУЮ работу, чем узкопрофильному специалисту.
>В последнее время мне кажется что начать что-то своё, намного быстрее и проще чем устроится на non-говно работу.
Не проще и не быстрее, поверь. Я с 2012 года параллельно с работами по найму пытаюсь чето "свое" делать - вебсайты разного направления (я начинал с seo), мобильные приложения, мелкий бизнес. За 8 лет этими телодвижениями заработал примерно столько же, сколько зарплатой на основной работе. Вот только принесли эти деньги 1 проект из 10. Я это к чему - делать что-то свое это круто и интересно, и может дать выхлоп несравнимый с наемной работой. Но только вероятность такого развития событий - очень маленькая. Заработать денег точно проще и быстрее на хорошей наемной работе.
А что на счет менеджмента? Управление людьми, командами. Карьера обычно идет или по пути развития как специалист (что, судя по твоему набору скиллов, не особо получилось), либо в управление людьми. Руководил ли когда нибудь? Разбираешься ли в какой-то теме достаточно, чтобы руководить парой человек?
29лвл, из гуманитария построил карьеру в айтишке, планирую через год на пенсию выйти
Он тебе все правильно сказал, хуле выебываешься?
Не обязательно пилить своё. Перекупы вон живут и в хуй не дуют. В том же ебай треде глянь какие четырехзначные суммы они получают
Как бывший проджект менеджер и владелец нескольких мелкобизнесов скажу, что стать успешным проджект менеджером НАМНОГО проще, чем успешным бизнесменом (причем под успехом я тут понимаю просто тот факт, что твой бизнес не прогорит в первый год, а будет приносить деньги сопоставимые с зарплатой проджекта).
Я бы сказал при одинаковых трудозатратах шансы на успех 10 к 1. Можно долго объяснять, но первый бизнес никогда не бывает успешным. И второй-третий чаще всего тоже. Может и наемная работа быть неудачной, но ты с нее уйдешь и через месяц найдешь новую. А бизнес отъест минимум год-полтора твоей жизни, потартит несравненно больше денег и сил. Если сейчас нет на руках стартового капитала, то можешь еще и в долгах охуенных остаться.
>Заработать денег точно проще и быстрее на хорошей наемной работе.
Ты думаешь, всю жизнь работать? Или рассчитываешь на пидорашью пенсию?
Я считаю, что у любого нормального человека годам к 50 уже должен быть стабильный пассивный доход.
Не совсем верно, точнее совсем не верно.
Обычно резюме остается висеть после того как тебя взяли на работу, и в твоей выборке 90% мертвых резюме, с которыми ты соревноваться не будешь. Оставшиеся 10% резюме получают офферы из разных контор, и ОНИ с тобой соревноваться не будут. У тебя получается конкурс пол человека на место. У сеньор девов вобще идет 13 мест на одного человека.
мимо 10 лет в IT, провожу тех собесы при приеме на работу
>Не обязательно пилить своё. Перекупы вон живут и в хуй не дуют.
Это тоже называется пилить свое. Не свое - это когда ты пришел в офис, тебе дали стул, комп и сказали что и как делать. А в конце месяца начислили тебе зарплату, даже если ты нихуя полезного не сделал, а месяц разбирался как это все работает.
Заниматься перепродажей на ебее это совсем не тоже самое. Это гораздо ближе к бизнесу (по сути им и является). За все свои ошибки будешь платить сам, если что-то не взлетит, будешь думать сам почему. В этом и интерес конечно, но это же и снижает шансы на успех, т.к. все зависит только от тебя и твоих навыков, опыта, инициативности.
Он же написал - хочет отойти от дел к 30
Знавал я одного такого бизнесмена, дедок уже, ему под 60-70 сейчас. Занимался металлопрокатом. Беседа
>Лучше бы я работал кузнецом простым, меньше мозгоебства ага сука, машину помыть, столько возни было
>а чего не работаете?
>Да ну её на хуй
>29лвл, из гуманитария построил карьеру в айтишке, планирую через год на пенсию выйти
>Ты думаешь, всю жизнь работать? Или рассчитываешь на пидорашью пенсию?
Глаза разуй. У меня есть профессия, с которой я могу быстро найти высокооплачиваемую работу, есть опыт в бизнесе, есть небольшой пассивных доход, есть накопления. До конца жизни этого не хватит конечно, но позволяет сейчас не париться на тему дохода, ибо знаю, что когда деньги кончатся, смогу легко их снова заработать.
>Он же написал - хочет отойти от дел к 30
И чё он будет делать? Хуй сосать, или она за 10 лет макакой заработал на оставшуюся жизнь?
Все верно написал, так и есть.
Еще раз, если тебе тяжело, выделю для тебя
МЫ ОПУСКАЕМ нюансы биза.
Речь про поиск работы VS биза, по одной статистике. что проще найти - работу хорошую или сделать своё. По моему мнению, выходит найти работу по твоей спец-ти - 1 к 26, это учитывая что я буду полностью соответствовать заявленным требованиям. И вот статистика, всяких Киосак, что 9 из 10 бизов прогарает, то есть 1 к 10 придти к успеху
Вот у меня перед глазами числа
1 к 26
и
1 к 10
На что сам поставишь, куда мать посадишь?
>Глаза разуй. У меня есть профессия, с которой я могу быстро найти высокооплачиваемую работу, есть опыт в бизнесе, есть небольшой пассивных доход, есть накопления. До конца жизни этого не хватит конечно, но позволяет сейчас не париться на тему дохода, ибо знаю, что когда деньги кончатся, смогу легко их снова заработать.
Кому ты нахуй нужен будешь в 50 лет?
Это ты здесь выёбываешься, пока молодой и здоровый. А когда в 40 лет произойдёт отвал пизды — по другому запоёшь.
> в твоей выборке 90% мертвых резюме
Любопытно узнать - а откуда у тебя такая инфа? И вообще, вакансии сегодня, часто пишутся не с целью найти челвоека. а с целью сделать статистику. И вообще хэхэ зарабатывает не на работодателях, а на кликах
Хули тогда платят меньше чем фейсбук индийцам за капчевание двачи?
>ага сука, машину помыть, столько возни было
Поверь, в бизнесе несравненное ни с чем другим количество мозгоебства. Причем со стороны его чаще всего не видно.
Ты такое услышишь от большинства мелких бизнесменов, ибо часто они тратят кучу денег на открытие бизнеса, занимаются всякой хуйней типа ремонта помещения, закупают оборудование, разбираются во всякой хуйне типа налогового и бухгалтерского учета, ищут и нанимают людей, пытаются всякий маркетинг делать, пытаются разобраться в тысяче вещей одновременно. И все для того, чтобы в итоге получать туже зарплату наемного сотрудника. Но в довесок еще кучу головняка. пересказал тебе историю одного моего мелкобизнеса. Открывали с товарищем клининговую службу. Закрыли через 2 года с прибылью аналогичной, если бы мы этот срок проработали сами уборщиками. При этом чуть не проебали кучу денег, чудом удалось отбить
>начать что-то своё, намного быстрее и проще чем устроится на non-говно работу.
Если есть пул связей на начальный заказ - да, намного проще. Кроме разве что производства. Тут придется совмещать.
Работодатель нынче привередливый, а студентота демпингует.
>Ведь есть разница куда вкатится?
Если свое дело - разницы никакой. Кайф получишь от развития любой деятельности.
Быстрее? Быстрее кошки родятся. Ты куда то спешишь? У тебя рак? Не смеши.
>Поверь, я бы лучше кузнецом работал
Вот я об этом точно так же думал- не лезть в производство, может в оказание услуг. знаю мужика, он на авито печки-буржуйки перепродавал. Наперепродавался до владельца небольшой фабрики
>Открывали с товарищем клининговую службу. Закрыли через 2 года с прибылью аналогичной, если бы мы этот срок проработали сами уборщиками. При этом чуть не проебали кучу денег, чудом удалось отбить
Так вы же долбаёбы, ничего удивительного.
Нихуя. Тут тоже нужен мозг. Опять таки вспомнил приятелей- собутыльников из тюмени, они сперва подъезды мыли, а потом залезли на контракт по отмывке жд -цистерн. Давно про них не слышал
Так да, нужен, но у вас на двоих его не оказалось.
Я не тот анон, успокойся
Я тебе уже ответил, на этот вопрос. 90% бизнесов закрываются в первый год. 3% переживают рубеж в 3 года. Если это твой первый бизнес, то шанс на успех близок к 0. По статистике успешный бизнес строится с 3-5 попытки. На это у тебя уйдет 5-10 лет.
А какие риски в поиске работы блять? Причем тут вероятности вообще? Ты сравниваешь вероятности построить бизнес (на что уйдет год) и получить работу на собесе (на что уйдет час).
Твоя математика - полная хуйня оторванная от реальности, тебе это уже несколько раз объясняли в треде. Соотношение резюме к вакансиям почти ничего не говорит о твоем шансе на получение работы. Резюме всегда намного больше, чем вакансий. Просто потому, что резюме у большинства людей (у меня например) висит активно всегда, даже когда у меня есть работа.
Но даже если там конкурс 26 человек на место, тебе никто не мешает сходить на второе собеседование, на пятое, на десятое. Лично у меня выходило в среднем найти работу за 5-7 собеседований. Есть друг который будучи хуевым программистом самоучкой сходил на 25 собеседований за 2 месяца. И в итоге нашел нормальную работу, где дотянул скил и сейчас работает миддлом в другой крупной компании.
Т.е. подытожив, на то, чтобы построить успешный бизнес, понадобится 5-10 лет попыток. На то, чтобы найти работу понадобится 5-10 собеседований. Что тебе проще - решай сам.
>В последнее время мне кажется что начать что-то своё, намного быстрее и проще чем устроится на non-говно работу.
Тебе кажется.
/тред
Кому ты нахуй нужен будешь в 50 лет?
В 5 наверное никому. В вот в 35-40 еще вполне. Я не до конца жизни хочу уйти, просто пару лет отдохнуть. И могу себе это позволить.
Уж лучше, чем в 50 лет вспомнить, что проебал всю жизни горбатясь каждый день на работе.
>Так вы же долбаёбы
Как определил?
>Т.е. подытожив, на то, чтобы построить успешный бизнес, понадобится 5-10 лет попыток. На то, чтобы найти работу понадобится 5-10 собеседований. Что тебе проще - решай сам.
Ошибка
Опыт, да и не только мой. показывает что люди ищут работу месяцами
>быстрее и проще
Нет. Не быстрее и не проще. Да и без стартового капитала ты будешь хуй сосать.
В Омске пятёрочка это 15-18, например)))
>люди ищут работу месяцами
А я про время ничего и не говорил. Вот только сколько времени в день занимает этот "поиск работы месяцами". Да нисколько. Полчаса полистать вакансии, 2 раза созвониться, раз в неделю съездить на собес. Не идет ни в какое сравнение с бизнесом, который ты будешь делать минимум год, и который прогорит с 95% вероятностью.
Алсо не знаю почему еще не сказал, но если хочешь делать бизнес, но нет денег, то единственный правильный вариант - делать его параллельно с основной работой до тех пор, пока бизнес не начнет приносить больше денег, чем основная работа. Я, как писал выше, с 2012 года пилил всякие мелкобизнесы, и всегда это делал параллельно с основной работой. Когда доход от юизнеса превышал зп - уходил с работы и занимался только бизнеом. За эти годы так увольнялся 3 раза. через год-два опять искал работу
Так хули ты написал, что на пенсию уходишь? Тебе знакомо конвенциональное значение этого выражения?
Пиздос, я в ахуе, какие же макаки альтернативно одарённые.
Подписывайся, что ты другой анон.
Всего лишь на 15к меньше чем у красноглазой макаки, которую в очко ебут по КД.
>Когда доход от юизнеса превышал зп - уходил с работы и занимался только бизнеом. За эти годы так увольнялся 3 раза. через год-два опять искал работу
Что это за такие охуительные бизнесы, которые позволяли получать больше денег, чем на работе, но в итоге ты всё равно шёл сосать хуй дяде?
Может просто ты прирождённый раб?
>А я про время ничего и не говорил. Вот только сколько времени в день занимает этот "поиск работы месяцами". Да нисколько. Полчаса полистать вакансии, 2 раза созвониться, раз в неделю съездить на собес. Не идет ни в какое сравнение с бизнесом, который ты будешь делать минимум год, и который прогорит с 95% вероятностью.
Давай за всех не говори, ок?
Я года три назад искал работу месяцами. Отправлял по 100 резюме в день. Отправлял в регионы, ДСы, писал Жириновскому, лол. Он там болтал что на урале работы завались, людей нет
Да хз, мудак какой то. Работу по полчаса в день ищут, охуеть просто. Мерзавец какой
>Что это за такие охуительные бизнесы
Обычные бизнесы, которые прогорали по тем или иным причинам. От недостатка опыта и знаний, неправильной стратегии, неожиданно изменившегося рынка, хуево сделанного продукта, недобросовестных работников, неправильного позиционирования и еще десятка причин.
Справедливости ради, несколько бизнесов таки стали вполне успешны по меркам двача и окупили все неудавшиеся попытки.
Ну расскажи мне как ты ищешь работу месяцами. Вот встал утром, почистил зубы, дальше что делаешь?
Пример хоть один опиши.
Вот сейчас буду залетному подлецу описывать свой день. Вон, опиши анону свои бизы лучше
Пример бизнеса? Выше описывал - клининговая служба, хотели аналог qlean в своем регионе запустить.
Братишка, да я ж тебе помочь хочу, собственным опытом делюсь. А ты меня подлецом называешь.
А как тебя назвать если ты считаешь что все ищут по 30 минут в день. Дефакто ты меня ленивым назвал
Открываю сайт с вакансиями, тут приходит уведомление о новом видео на ютубе, смотрю его, потом еще парочку новых видео, перехожу на двач и доказываю долбоебам что они не правы, обедаю, сру, снова на двач пока тред не утонул, играю в доту, потом все же смотрю пару вакансий, но из-за маленькой зарплаты даже не воспринимаю всерьез, снова на двач, ужин, дота, душ, спать.
>учитывая специфику спкецухи- могу в автокады, дизайны, даже sql и управление линкусом
Что это за спецуха такая? Какой-то винегрет несвязанных технологий
>что-то своё, намного быстрее и проще чем устроится на non-говно работу
Что своё то? Какой у тебя опыт? Что ты можешь предложить?
Что ты несешь, полудурок?
Специалист с опытом в 27-28 работу не ищет - его ищут работодатели и предлагают пройти интервью или даже сразу дают офер. Судя по шизофазии в ОП-посте ты какой-то околоэникей с амбициями арабского шейха и одной извилиной в голове. Самый надежный вариант для тебя устроиться сейчас кладовщиком на склад или менеджером в супермаркет, возможно лет через 10 дорастешь до начальника склада/магазина и будешь получать свои заветные 70-80к.
Ну, уже лучше, чем дрочить код по 5 часов, а потом принимать хуй от начальства.
Возможно ты клинический дебил. Попробуй оформить инвалидность.
80к в ДС не видел. 40к в серую было. И ещё, с возрастом к 30 все сложнее днем и ночью сидеть и не охуевать.
Я могу судить по своему опыту и по тому сколько фактически действий можно совершить в поиске работы. Да, если ты проходишь какие-то курсы и получаешь новые навыки для поиска работы, это может занять у тебя весь день. Но поиск вакансий и отправка резюме просто не может занимать по 8 часов в день на протяжение месяцев. Если оно занимает столько времени, то возможно стоит сменить профессию.
Хочу сказать только, что бизнес потребует НАМНОГО больше сил и времени. Он потребует НАМНОГО больше сил и времени, чем фултайм работа, не говоря уже о поиске работы.
Делай бизнес только если ты явно чувствуешь, что хочешь заниматься бизнесом, и что без этого тебе никак. Если ты ищешь более простой способ заработать денег - почти всегда это не сбудется.
Исключения бывают, у меня были случаи заработка ооочень легких денег, намного легче, больше и приятнее, чем любой мыслимый наемный труд. Однако на 1 такой случай успеха было 20 безуспешных попыток. И хорошо, когда у тебя есть основная работа, которая будет тебя кормить, пока ты делаешь эти безуспешные попытки.
Алсо если хочешь открыть свой биз - устройся сначала поработать в аналогичный бизнес к конкурентам, посмотри как он устроен изнутри. Найди проблемы, придумай как их решить и построй лучший, чем у них, бизнес.
>Что это за спецуха такая
геология и геодезия
>Какой-то винегрет несвязанных технологий
Расширяй кругозор, чо
Дальше твой школолопост комментировать не стану. Охотятся за ним хрюши, лол
Вот нахуя ты лезешь? По делу есть что сказать?
Думаю работу проще, за денёк написал себе резюме и за пару следующих откликнулся на все вакансии. Потом просто по собесам ходишь.
Все равно попробуй.
Правда для околоайтишных позиций. Поправлю тебя
Причем тут кругозор, клоун?
Есть специальность и ключевые технологии - это то что относится к твоей профессиональной деятельности, а есть хобби. В свои годы ты ничего глубоко не освоил, по верхам попробовав несколько разных областей. Это как на все руки мастер - вроде много чего умеет, а никакую конкретную работу такому кадру ты не доверишь.
Ты неудачник и дурачек. Идеальный кадр для МММ или кешбери. Твой потолок это охранник на стройке в мухосранком ЧОПе.
Скорее всего да. Хотя проработал в любой специальности 8 лет, ты уже обрастешь и кругом знакомых в сфере, и опытом, и пониманием того, что нужно соискателям.
)
Ну так не все же вокруг вас танцует
двачну, хорошо быть 300к сеньором
>elteam-group
А вот ты, как макак, какими словами можешь описать пидораса, который им сайт делал?
>elteam-group
Забавно, что на странице "О нас" макак разместили в самом низу, даже ниже херки и "арт-директора", лол.
Сайт - шаблонное вордпрессное говно со стоковыми фотками рук в пиджаках. Еще местами текст картинками вставлен, за такое конечно в 2020 пиздить надо.
>HR Manager
>)
Ну вот смотри, как у них на двух макаках получается зарабатывать, и иметь ЧЕТЫРЕ нахуй менеджера? Что это за бизнес такой?
Наталья, Вы позиционируете себя как профессионала и делового человека. Разумеется в своей практике работаете с людьми в зарплате которых шестизначные числа. И вот со всей этой серьезностью Вы считаете, что смайлики в виде скобочек уместны при первом знакомстве в сообщении в социальной сети , уточню: деловых контактов. Я правильно понимаю? Нюдсы о ГТФО
Ну у них какая-то интересная модель судя по всему. Возможно разработку они на ком-то другом оставляют.
Блять, вот из этой ситуации у меня родилась идея охуительного бизнеса. На зарубежной бирже регаюсь как молодая перспективная TEAM, описываю наш охуительный кододроч. А на пидорашьей бирже нахожу макак, которым аутсоршу всю работу, всю прибыль забираю себе, естественно.
Как думаешь, взлетит?
А, тогда понятно, макаки у них только их мудацкий сайт пилят.
Ты описал классическую аутсорс галеру. Взлетит, если сделаешь все правильно. Главная сложность - поиск заказчиков. Зарабатываешь из-за завышения рейта, часов и количества работающих людей. палю фишку: нанимаешь разменных проджект менеджеров, которых после фейла проекта увольняешь, чтобы успокоить клиента.
Спасибо.
Вот это двачую. Я не ваш маня програмист. Обычный инженер металлург. От универа поехал работать в Канаду, после вернулся на родину, поработал на местном заводике, и решил сьебаться в Чехию. Так мне даже на мой чешский номер звонят, не говоря уже о почте. С предложениями работать у них, какого там говна только нет, и какие-то африканские страны, и даже индия. Если ты действительно имеешь опыт, а не хуй за плечами. И действительно где-то поработал и проявил себя. Тебе будут сами писать и звонить, и они сами найдут твои контакты. А оп хуй.
Ого, я тоже инженер металлургии. И нас от универа в Руанду послали. В Африке вполне себе норм. Хотя я тоже перебрался в Чехию, хотелось более европейского общества. Ты в каком городе если не секрет? Я вот под Брно в лабе местной литейки работаю. Ну а сам в Брно живу.
Агентов на апворке- куча. Не взлетит, тебя раньше забанят
Мой тред засрали с историями успехов начальников отдела, в пнд, в самый разгар рабочего дня.
Короче идите на хуй, тред не про это
Короче идите на хуй, тред не про это
>тред не про это
а про что?
Каких нахуй агентов? Я буду не агентом, а тимой.
Прости :(
>Реально ли сделать так, чтобы рандомный юзлесс хуесос без задач сидел-пердел и получал за это бабло.
Нет. А теперь иди нахуй.
Почему нет?
>Шапка на русском языке написана
>угадал мимо
граждане, видимо, другой страны на чай пожаловали
Он все правильно говорит. Такими "тимами", весь апворк и другие биржи забиты. Как я говорил, поиск клиентов будет самой сложной задачей в этом бизе.
>Сижу значится работу себе ищу, не получается найти то
Что это конкретно значит? Тебе не отвечают на вакансии или что?
>В последнее время мне кажется что начать что-то своё, намного быстрее и проще чем устроится на non-говно работу
Если ты не можешь найти наемную работу, то о каком бизнесе может идти речь? Бизнесмен - предприимчивый, активный человек, иначе не бывает. А по твоим словам ты не можешь справиться с тривиальной задачей - заработать себе на хлеб наемным интеллектуальным трудом - это смешно.
Не будет, потому что самого биза не будет. 90% описаний вакансий от апворка просят исключить агенств. Клиенты могут просто написать жалобу, ну и тебя забанят.
Да и вопрос вывода денег уже не совсем понятен. Палки нет, пайнера тоже.
Услышал тебя ;)
Ну похуй, зарегаюсь как индивидуал в чём проблема?
>Да и вопрос вывода денег уже не совсем понятен. Палки нет, пайнера тоже.
Сделать карту пайнера не проблема.
Начать-то может быть и проще. А вот не прогореть - дохуя сложнее.
Нихуя не проще, оп. Появится огромная куча других проблем и будешь думать наоборот что проще найти норм работу чем ебстись со своим делом.
В целом, если ты сам норм и тебя дико тригерит с руководства и т.д. - начинай, вероятность успеха высока при должных личных качествах. Главное оставляй резервы и помни что здесь ты один и помочь просто так некому.
Алсо, с норм работой как правила ситуация похожа на наебизнес - карьерный рост и уважение сотрудников/начальства требуют времени и только после этого начнешь нормально получать и иметь моральное удовлетворение.
Я не знаю специфики поиска клиентов через апворк, но знакомый имел подобный бизнес пару лет. По сути перепродавал 3х разработчиков по цене десятерых. Так он переманил клиента из бывшей галеры одного из разработчиков и работал с ним несколько лет. Насколько я понял, они строили из-за себя большую контору, ездили к заказчикам за бугор, а когда заказчики захотели сюда приехать, то срочно снимали офис на месяц и приглашали друзей "посидеть, в монитор посмотреть, делать вид, что работают". Короче цирк еще тот, но какие-то деньги заработать удалось. Алсо знаю, что заказчикам разработчики продавались по рейту $100+/час, при этом на руки они получали 30-40. По его словам только при таком соотношении сходились расходы с доходами.
алсо деньги выводились через юрлицо, платились налоги, все официально
Я то думал, что к тимам наоборот доверия больше.
Поддвачну, если норм работал то будешь иметь знакомства и некоторую известность, тебе сами будут предлагать вполне норм условия, на которых можно подняться и уже дохуя поднимать. Дженерик программистов и тем более всякой обслуги типа эникеев хоть вагонами грузи и степень их важности не так высока, а толковых инженеров уже мало.
Оп, какая у тебя специальность хоть? Чето натащил всякой попсы что на слуху, но с таким винегретом ты ни в одной из областей не можешь иметь норм знаний. Что, например, под управлением линуксом подразумеваешь?
Доверие к тем, у кого портфолио из хороших проектов, положительные отзывы, хорошая репутация, известный бренд и которые не похожи на фейк контору.
Портфолио пиздится у тех же наёмных разрабов, а всё остальное нарабатывается, я же не собираюсь заказчиков наёбывать.
>Портфолио пиздится
>я же не собираюсь заказчиков наёбывать
А кого ты тут наебываешь, лол? У разработчиков не будет никакого портфолио, только места прошлой работы.
А вообще вперед, если сможешь это сделать лучше сотен аналогичных умников и превратить это в реальную успешную компанию - вполне вариант, дерзай.
Устроился аналитиком в ДС-2 сразу после вуза, без опыта, через 4 дня после размещения резюме
парируй
>аналитиком
Это на бирже который?
Ебать чекнул свою категорию и охуел. Я моделирую всякую хуйню для игор и для печати.
177 вакансий «3d artist»
Найдено 3 718 резюме
177 вакансий «3d artist»
Найдено 3 718 резюме
я не и он, но скорее всего он имел ввиду дата аналитика/продуктового аналитика. Это человек умеющий смотреть в данные и делать выборки и предоставлять их в понятном виде.
Чекнул свою:
597 вакансий
4157 резюме
Хотел чекнуть свою, но потом вспомнил что я РНН-господин.
А что это за хуйню сейчас форсят — "продуктовый аналитик", что это за говно, и с чем его едят?
Поясняю положняк в этом ITT треде.
Есть патриции.
Есть стремящиеся.
А есть рабы.
Лучше умереть стремящимся, чем жить рабом.
Так чем же бизнес проще РАБота, спросите вы? А тем, что когда ды делаешь своё дело, то ты понимаешь, что это делаешь для себя, у тебя есть стимул делать лучше, делать больше. А в чём ёбанный смысл РАБотать?
Есть патриции.
Есть стремящиеся.
А есть рабы.
Лучше умереть стремящимся, чем жить рабом.
Так чем же бизнес проще РАБота, спросите вы? А тем, что когда ды делаешь своё дело, то ты понимаешь, что это делаешь для себя, у тебя есть стимул делать лучше, делать больше. А в чём ёбанный смысл РАБотать?
Человек разбирающийся в метриках продукта. Ретеншен, энгейджмент, черн и т.д. Понимающий как отразить в цифрах то, как продуктом пользуются пользователи - как часто, какими функциями, когда перестают пользоваться и т.д. Более углубленно - дающие подсказкки типа "вот такие юзеры покупают премиум чаще, чем другие, давайте на них больше рекламы откручивайте"
n the philosophy of truth and rhetoric
Assertions of fact
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Assertions of fact
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
n the philosophy of truth and rhetoric
Assertions of fact
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Assertions of fact
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
n the philosophy of truth and rhetoric
Assertions of fact
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Assertions of fact
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Четыре раза обосрался
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
"Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Сижу значится работу себе ищу, не получается найти то, ага. Думаю может в скиллах дело, да нет, вроде норм. учитывая специфику спкецухи- могу в автокады, дизайны, даже sql и управление линкусом. Про всякие эксели и другую ерундду- молчу. Специально за пару месяцев подтянул и освежил
Думаю может в знаниях?..
А знаете что? Тред не про это.
В ИТТ призываются аноны 27-28 лвл+, что бы развеяли мои сомнения или поделились с мыслями, там опытом что ли. Студоба прошу идти лесом, нет времени с вами в папку играть
В последнее время мне кажется что начать что-то своё, намного быстрее и проще чем устроится на non-говно работу. Там где есть проф. рост, нет ебанутейшего руководства, скрама и аджайла и т.д.
Реально ли это? Сложность биза уберем за скобки.
Я знаю что куча анонов сейчас ищет работу, - ну, парни, что вы думаете то?