🔥 Popular | Latest

Bodies , Children, and Climbing: Drowning in real life looks nothing like in the movies, and in fact many parents actually watch their children drown, having no idea that it's happening Ultrafacts.tumblr.com faikitty: mermaibee: ultrafacts: According to the CDC, in 10 percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch the child do it, having no idea it is happening. Drowning does not look like drowning—Dr. Pia, in an article in the Coast Guard’s On Scene magazine, described the Instinctive Drowning Response like this: “Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled before speech occurs. Drowning people’s mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people’s mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water. Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe. Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment. From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people’s bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.” This doesn’t mean that a person that is yelling for help and thrashing isn’t in real trouble—they are experiencing aquatic distress. Not always present before the Instinctive Drowning Response, aquatic distress doesn’t last long—but unlike true drowning, these victims can still assist in their own rescue. They can grab lifelines, throw rings, etc. Look for these other signs of drowning when persons are in the water: Head low in the water, mouth at water level Head tilted back with mouth open Eyes glassy and empty, unable to focus Eyes closed Hair over forehead or eyes Not using legs—vertical Hyperventilating or gasping Trying to swim in a particular direction but not making headway Trying to roll over on the back Appear to be climbing an invisible ladder So if a crew member falls overboard and everything looks OK—don’t be too sure. Sometimes the most common indication that someone is drowning is that they don’t look like they’re drowning. They may just look like they are treading water and looking up at the deck. One way to be sure? Ask them, “Are you all right?” If they can answer at all—they probably are. If they return a blank stare, you may have less than 30 seconds to get to them. And parents—children playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why. Source/article: [x] Follow Ultrafacts for more facts! BOOST FOR THE SUMMER. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Can I just say thank you to OP for putting such a detailed description on this? I’ve been a lifeguard for 6 years now and of all the saves I’ve done, maybe two or three had people drowning in the stereotypical thrashing style. And even those, like the save I made last weekend, it was exactly like OP describes where the person’s head is going in and out of the water but it isn’t long enough to get any air. Mostly you recognize drowning by the look on someone’s face. If someone looks wide eyed and terrified or confused, chances are they’re drowning. That look of “oh shit” is pretty easily recognizable. And even if you can’t tell for sure: GO AFTER THEM ANYWAY. I’ve done “saves” where a kid was pretending to drown and I mistook it for real drowning, but that’s preferable to a kid ACTUALLY drowning. Also please remember that even strong swimmers can drown if they have a medical emergency, get cramps, or get too tired. If your friend knows how to swim but they’re acting funny get them to land. And even if someone can respond when you ask them if they need help, if they say they do need help? GO HELP THEM. However . If the victim is a stranger, I can’t recommend trying to get them. Lifeguards literally train to escape “attacks,” because people who are drowning can freak the fuck out and grab you and make YOU drown as well. If you do go in after someone, take hold of them from the back and talk to them the whole time. IF YOU ARE GRABBED: duck down into the water as low as you can get. The person is panicking and won’t want to go under water and should release you. Shove up at their hands and push them away from you as you duck under. Don’t die trying to save someone else. Please guys, read and memorize this post. Not all places have lifeguards. Being able to recognize drowning is such an important skill to have and you can save someone’s life.
Save
Children, Feminism, and Fire: There's a researcher in Canada who was looking at the injury rates between boys and girls _boys, by toddlerhood, are two to four times more likely to be injured than girls are, and their injuries tend to be more serious, and she was trying to uncover what was behind that. She was actually on maternity leave with her oldest son and spent a lot of time on playgrounds, and what she saw was this really striking difference in how boys and girls are encouraged, or not encouraged, to deal with risk. So she did a series of studies with little boys and girls on a playground, and she had parents teach their kids to slide down a pole like you'd see at a firehouse. And what she found is that boys were much more likely to be encouraged to be independent, while girls were much more likely to be cautioned about safety, about danger. Even though boys and girls had the same skill level _- both boys and girls were equally adept at actually using the equipment - the way parents treated them was very different, to the point where even when boys actually asked for help, parents said no. A couple of boys tumbled to the ground off this fire-station pole because they couldn't do it without assistance, and they were left on their own So while this kind of parenting may help protect girls physicallv, the research suggests that it also contributes to this feeling of vulnerability, that the world is a dangerous place. Because the message that sends to girls - encouraging them to be very cautious and alwavs highlighting safety and danger is that the world is a dangerous place, and that they can't cope on their own. And that feeling of vulnerability of course is a core belief of anxiety as well Another] study had young children who were told to make a world out of these sand toys with their parents. And what they found is, parents were much more likely to praise their sons when they were being assertive or independent, when they were telling their parents where to put a toy or directing the play. But when girls did that, parents were much more likely to talk over their children, ignore them, or dissuade what they were saying. So the message that sends is that you don't have control over your experience, oVer your world annaknitsspock: paulatheprokaryote: lenyberry: yayfeminism: Why does being a woman put you at greater risk of having anxiety?Part biology, part what we teach our kids about their place in the world. So we’re teaching girls to be anxious wrecks and boys to disregard the possibility of consequences for incautious behavior. This explains a lot of things. Like… why women are anxious wrecks and men are frequently surprised when it turns out their actions do in fact have consequences.And why men don’t bother asking for help even when they really need it, and thus more frequently die from treatable health conditions (including depression), while women end up getting a broad stereotype of being hypochondriacs (and then having a hard time getting treatment for legitimate health concerns). https://www.ted.com/talks/caroline_paul_to_raise_brave_girls_encourage_adventure/transcript Great example of how feminism serves not just women but people of all genders, including men.

annaknitsspock: paulatheprokaryote: lenyberry: yayfeminism: Why does being a woman put you at greater risk of having anxiety?Part biology...

Save
Bad, Head, and Life: JO @Jadenosteen retweet to save a life 3 4 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 p-artsypants: buttalicious602: emotionalempowerer: Please, reblog! IIt’s called self defense. Apart from having here, in the US, one of the highest cases of homicide and rape in the world and high rate of GBV, think about how this could help your mother or sister Yes indeed#💯💯💯💯💯 Hey guys, as a blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do, I just want to say a few things: 1) Self defense is an amazing skill to learn, and this image set has some pretty good ideas.  2) PLEASE don’t use your head unless absolutely necessary! You can hurt yourself worse than the attacker, and get in some really big trouble. The elbows and knees are super powerful weapons instead. 3) If you are trapped with your back against a body, and don’t have use of your arms, thrust your hips backwards as hard as you can into the groin. It’ll give you a chance to break away to use your elbow. Stomping on the foot can also help. 4) Don’t try to defeat the attacker. The second you’re free, RUN. Once you’re safe, call the police. You might want to feel like a superhero, but you could be overpowered again. Don’t take that risk.  5) I also agree with the person who mentioned a closed fist punch against a jaw is a bad idea. You can break your knuckles. Instead, use your palm.  6) Good luck with that knee move, because you might not be able to pick up his leg. 7) Groin shots are illegal in sports, but not in life! A swift kick to the balls in a easy way to incapacitate a man. 

p-artsypants: buttalicious602: emotionalempowerer: Please, reblog! IIt’s called self defense. Apart from having here, in the US, one of the...

Save
Children, Feminism, and Fire: There's a researcher in Canada who was looking at the injury rates between boys and girls _boys, by toddlerhood, are two to four times more likely to be injured than girls are, and their injuries tend to be more serious, and she was trying to uncover what was behind that. She was actually on maternity leave with her oldest son and spent a lot of time on playgrounds, and what she saw was this really striking difference in how boys and girls are encouraged, or not encouraged, to deal with risk. So she did a series of studies with little boys and girls on a playground, and she had parents teach their kids to slide down a pole like you'd see at a firehouse. And what she found is that boys were much more likely to be encouraged to be independent, while girls were much more likely to be cautioned about safety, about danger. Even though boys and girls had the same skill level _- both boys and girls were equally adept at actually using the equipment - the way parents treated them was very different, to the point where even when boys actually asked for help, parents said no. A couple of boys tumbled to the ground off this fire-station pole because they couldn't do it without assistance, and they were left on their own So while this kind of parenting may help protect girls physicallv, the research suggests that it also contributes to this feeling of vulnerability, that the world is a dangerous place. Because the message that sends to girls - encouraging them to be very cautious and alwavs highlighting safety and danger is that the world is a dangerous place, and that they can't cope on their own. And that feeling of vulnerability of course is a core belief of anxiety as well Another] study had young children who were told to make a world out of these sand toys with their parents. And what they found is, parents were much more likely to praise their sons when they were being assertive or independent, when they were telling their parents where to put a toy or directing the play. But when girls did that, parents were much more likely to talk over their children, ignore them, or dissuade what they were saying. So the message that sends is that you don't have control over your experience, oVer your world annaknitsspock: paulatheprokaryote: lenyberry: yayfeminism: Why does being a woman put you at greater risk of having anxiety?Part biology, part what we teach our kids about their place in the world. So we’re teaching girls to be anxious wrecks and boys to disregard the possibility of consequences for incautious behavior. This explains a lot of things. Like… why women are anxious wrecks and men are frequently surprised when it turns out their actions do in fact have consequences.And why men don’t bother asking for help even when they really need it, and thus more frequently die from treatable health conditions (including depression), while women end up getting a broad stereotype of being hypochondriacs (and then having a hard time getting treatment for legitimate health concerns). https://www.ted.com/talks/caroline_paul_to_raise_brave_girls_encourage_adventure/transcript Great example of how feminism serves not just women but people of all genders, including men.

annaknitsspock: paulatheprokaryote: lenyberry: yayfeminism: Why does being a woman put you at greater risk of having anxiety?Part biolog...

Save
Anna, Brains, and Church: SKILL HARD WORK TO ACHIEVE A LEVEL OF SKILL IN ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO STAND ON A PILLAR OF HARD WORK. OH, I JUST STARTED HERE TALENT & I HARD WORK TALENTHARD WORK owLTURD.com violent-darts: charlesoberonn: jelloapocalypse: These bother me sometimes. We all start as literal useless babies. No one gets a magic ticket that makes them better at anything. If someone says they “never practice” it’s probably because they like doing the skill and see it as a fun use of their time instead of “practice”. I will qualify this a small but I think important amount, because what it is is actually complicated:  Some people’s brains and nervous systems are wired for better hand-eye coordination. Some people’s brains and nervous systems are wired for better pattern recognition. Or translations of audio input. Or whatever.  What this does is combine with @jelloapocalypse‘s EXTREMELY WELL-OBSERVED COMMENT (If someone says they “never practice” it’s probably because they like doing the skill and see it as a fun use of their time instead of “practice”.) in a way that can be both invisible and give this kind of person a massive leg up while being really discouraging to someone who doesn’t have that wiring.  It doesn’t get to the actual original comic’s level of “oh I just started here”. But let’s take two people called Riley and Kennedy, and we’ll do singing, since that’s what I teach.  Riley and Kennedy have exactly the same kind of background: parents who listen to the radio sometimes, the usual social stuff around popular music of whatever genre, etc, but no formal training. Neither of them sings in a church choir, neither of them falls into a formal disability category, whatever.  The first time Riley shows up in my studio and we sing a really simple song I use as a diagnostic, she gets it mostly right. She can follow the tune; she can hear pitch, and it takes very little work for her to chivvy her voice into matching that pitch as long as there’s not something pulling her off. (In other words: as long as I’m singing the same notes as her and playing them on the piano, and as long a she can hear both herself and those notes).  For Riley the lesson is really fun and validating and she goes home and sings along to her own music for a while and comes back next week with six songs she wants to try learning. And most of her lessons are like that: pretty easy positive feedback. That means Riley “practices” a lot in exactly the way @jelloapocalypse describes, even if she doesn’t think she’s actually practicing (that is, sitting down to sing the songs we’re working on together in a systematic way) at all.  In contrast, the first time Kennedy comes to my studio, she struggles. It’s harder for her to hear the difference between notes, and it’s much harder for her to make her voice actually match the pitch she wants to sing at. When we pull out the diagnostic tune, she mostly manages to drone a few clusters of semi-tones, and while she can hear that she’s Off, it’s actually very hard for her to tell HOW she’s off, or what she should do to correct it.  In most cases, for Kennedy, lessons - and in fact the overall experience of singing - is not fun. It’s not validating. It’s a whole process of Not Being Good, of Doing Things Wrong, and given the way humans are often in casual situations being laughed at. When Kennedy goes home she doesn’t sing along with any music she plays: she keeps her lips pressed together and at best enjoys other people singing (and maybe feels envious and demeaned because she can’t do it).  Now the thing is, the practical “skill” difference for Riley and Kennedy here at the beginning is minimal. But the Rileys will tend (if they like what they’re doing) to ROCKET UP THE SKILL LEVEL, because of the “practice is fun so it’s just the thing I do” - because there is always a bunch of validation and positive reinforcement in the act of doing whatever it is, be it doodling or singing or math.  The Kennedys won’t. In fact if they’re not lucky enough to have a good teacher, and one who can put a lot of this into perspective for them, they will tend to be inhibited. The worst time is when a Riley and a Kennedy are friends and sign up to learn together, and Riley takes off and Kennedy’s left sitting there feeling like she’s somehow Deeply Flawed.   And in fact the whole Doctrine of “It’s Just About How Hard You Work” will in and of itself become part of what inhibits them, because they will watch the Rileys - and even the Annas, Anna in this metaphor being the Totally Normal Student who never really exists - grasp things faster than they do, even if they ARE working hard. And this will HAPPEN. They will watch this reality happen in front of them … and then people say to them “oh, it’s all about how hard you work, dear.” And it’s like being gaslit. (Well, to be fair: it IS being gaslit, just without malice intended on the part of the people doing it.)  And that message is horribly horribly toxic: here Kennedy is, and she IS working hard, but she’s still not progressing as fast as Riley or Anna no matter what she does! But it’s All About Hard Work, right? So that must mean that no matter how hard she THINKS she’s working, she’s actually just lazy, or doesn’t want it enough. It’s clearly a moral flaw in her.  I actually have, personally, really good luck with teaching the Kennedys because I literally have this conversation with them when they come to my studio. I actually outright tell them: firstly, anyone who has working vocal chords can sing. Anyone who has working vocal chords and the ability to distinguish audio pitch can even sing on key in tune! But some people have an easy time learning this and some people have a hard time, and sometimes which it is has some relationship to, say, “early exposure to music” or whatever but sometimes it seems to be utterly fucking random - pure luck of the draw.  You CAN SING. The capability is there. And if you want to we will find out how to make it happen. It might not happen as fast as for some other person, it might take more work, it might take more care, but that’s okay: that’s not your fault, that doesn’t mean you’re NOT working hard, but it does mean that here at the beginning we do things like recalibrate victories, we make your progress about YOU, not about Riley or Anna.  But I’m also not going to gaslight you or make you feel like you’re either delusional or somehow especially So Terrible You Don’t Fit In The Rest Of The World: sure, I’ve got some Riley-types who walk in here, noodle around, and we go on to Art Songs. They exist.  So what? Tall people exist. People with broad shoulders exist. People with dark hair exist. Physical embodiment and neurology hand out luck of the genetic roulette with no interest in outcomes. If you’re born blonde, it’s always going to take more work for you to have brown hair than someone born with brown hair, but much like dyeing your hair to match what you want, we can train the muscles of your voice and the neural pathways for hearing to do what you want.  The differences between Rileys and Kennedys are very small. If Riley didn’t discover she liked singing and Kennedy worked at it for years then no, Riley would not “start out” as good as Kennedy is after those years. And you can be Riley and if you DON’T do the fucking work, the Annas of the world especially will blast past you and leave you in the dust.  But on the other hand the Rileys get this wonderful cycle of positive reinforcement that does often start from a place of their coincidental physical embodiment giving them a slight leg up. And pretending that’s not the case does a big disservice to the Kennedys.  We just absolutely do need to reframe that for what it is (a tiny fundamental difference and then a HELL OF A LOT OF “this is fun so I practice more so I get more validation so I -” and more or less no moral meaning at all), what it doesn’t mean, and how to compensate for it. 
Save
Cartoon Network, College, and Fast Food: Christo Aivalis @christoaivalis Following When people say that minimum wage workers don't deserve better pay because they should train for better work, they're essentially saying while that the work needs to be done, the people who do it deserve poverty 6:50 PM-8 Jan 2018 fattyatomicmutant: brunhiddensmusings: allthecanadianpolitics: When people say that minimum wage jobs are stepping stones to better employment and therefore don’t need to be raised, this is what they’re really saying. ‘its unskilled labor’ they sayit still needs to be fucking done and you sure as hell aint doin itlets assume for a minute that everyone had a college degree, was intelligent and well suited for any job they want and thus could get any job they wanted. it would be nice, although some people would already have an objection somehowbut pizzas still have to be delivered, floors still have to be mopped, store shelves still need to be stocked, assembly lines need to be operated, busses need to be driven, lawns need to be mowed, food needs to be grown and harvested, trucks need to be unloaded, and customers ringed up at the cash register. you do not want to live in a world where those things are not being done, for it is a world that will no longer function. people doing those jobs deserve to be compensated for their efforts enough to live comfortably because they are making the world work just as much as whatever person is making two grand a day sitting in status update meetings, the asshole who decided teen titans go is the only show cartoon network needs, the old guys in suits who have a two hour show talking about sportsball, or the talking poop sculpture that decided to jack up the price of life saving medication by 600%. you know, all the people -really- contributing to society who ‘earned’ their dumptrucks of money the hard way Plus i dont know about you but all these rich fucks that say “its unskilled labour” can’t cook worth a damn so how is fast food cook not a skill? Got to learn to cook right?
Save
Advice, Anaconda, and Being Rich: Ed Latimore @EdLatimore Fuck these lazy kids complaining about the cost of their sociology degrees while working as baristas. Trades are in such high demand that they pay you to learn. The military will pay you to learn as well. Get a skil 12/15/17, 9:49 AM 224 Retweets 942 Likes The problem with these free market types that claim “all you need are useful skills” is: You can’t predict with 100% accuracy what skill the market will need in the future (it’s a fucking chaotic free market so . that’s basically what it means). So even if you can calculate that nursing degrees for example have a higher ROI than sociology degrees today, in theory- If too many people get into nursing it’ll actually decrease the ROI of a nursing degree since there is now an oversupply of nursing graduates entering the job market. Also if the millions and millions of students in the humanities did a trade instead, I am more than confident trade jobs will end up paying less, once again, because there will be an oversupply of trade specialists. Same if everyone went into engineering. You get the picture. Using their own logic, (supply and demand dictating wages and the need to be useful via skills) the system can only allow certain people to make high wages. Only a finite amount can make high wages and if too many people flood any one profession, their wages go down. Notice how he says “trades are in such high demand” this means that there is a (temporary) shortage of tradespeople, which means if you enter X trade your wage will be high. But once again, when the demand goes down (if supply gets too high via too many people pursuing that field) than wages will go down as well. So …. what do we do then when their wages are down? You blame those same kids you told to join trades. The poor ALWAYS get the blame because you can easily blame a poor person after the fact by analyzing their choices of the past and comparing it to the current market and other standards of the present, hindsight bias really is a gem. I even see poor people do it to themselves as an explanatory theory as to their current economic condition. Another thing to note is that S.T.E.M. isn’t some magic ticket into being rich or making money even now. I know many biology majors working at Starbucks. I know some chemistry majors who can only do lab grunt work that doesn’t allow them to pay all their bills. So not only can you not blame them for not going into S.T.E.M, you must now blame them for going into the WRONG S.T.E.M. field.  Also, and this is funny, if eventually no one goes into the humanities- eventually there will be a shortage of English professors (as an example) and English teachers and then it would be the humanities students saying “wow stupid S.T.E.M. kids get a real job” because the humanities people will be paid more since there would be a desperate need for them.  Also imagine if everyone who couldn’t afford college joined the military ….. great fucking advice lol
Save
Alive, Anaconda, and Clothes: Sweater curse From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The "sweater curse" or "curse of the love sweater" is a term used by knitters to describe the belief that if a knitter gives a hand-knit sweater to a significant other, it will lead to the recipient breaking up with the knitter [11 In an alternative formulation, the relationship will end before the sweater is even completed.2 The belief is widely discussed in knitting publications, and some knitters claim to have experienced it.[31415] In a 2005 poll, 15% of active knitters said that they had experienced the sweater curse firsthand, and 41% considered it a possibility that should be taken seriously I6 Despite its name, the "sweater curse" is treated in knitting literature not as a superstition governed by paranormal forces, but rather as a real- world pitfall of knitting that has rational explanations. 3I7 Several plausible mechanisms for the sweater curse have been proposed, but it has not been studied systematically. 5 eartheld: elodieunderglass: alittlemothboy: that is some next level knot magic.  it isn’t though!!! it’s because most relationships aren’t worth the effort. The “sweater curse” is actually most commonly called the “BOYFRIEND sweater curse.” Which=heteronormative, but the curse most often falls on a woman knitting a sweater for a boyfriend. Before she finishes the sweater, they break up - pop culture would have you believe it’s because the boyfriend freaks out do to the weirdness/clinginess of having a sweater made for you, but I think knitters are wiser than that. It’s because after spending serious £££ on materials, and then HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF LABOR on the creation of the item, with every stitch a prayer of totally focused intent, creating a large display of technical skill - it is then gifted to a non-knitter who does NOT APPRECIATE the work/effort/skill/cost/TIME it took to make it, and in fact thinks you’re a bit weird and making a big deal out of a piece of clothing, and after they go “oh thanks” and shove your creation in the cupboard next to a sweater they got for £15 at an MS sale, then they never wear your sweater because it’s too tight because when you asked them how their favorite sweaters usually fit they said “I ‘unno” and when you measured them for the fifth time and asked, rather tersely, if they had enough room in the chest, they said “I guess,” and then if pressed they say they don’t really like the sweater design, but then you point out that they were supposed to participate in helping you design it and they say they don’t really care about how things look, and when you say that you tried to match it to their other clothes so how can they hate it, then they say that honestly their mother still buys all their clothes because they hate going shopping, and that they hate all their other clothes too, well. That’s when a sensible knitter goes “Fuck this shit. And you know what? Fuck this man.” This is what happens when someone posts in a knitting forum “Attack of the sweater curse!” - this is the usual story. It has a rigid plot. It is as old as myth. That’s when you look at the time you spent and realize, “I could LITERALLY have written the first draft of a novel instead of doing this.” That’s when you go “I could have taken that £200 and bought myself a new wardrobe.” That’s when you go “I could have taken all that intent, all that willpower, all that creative force, and laid down some fucking witchcraft, all right?” That’s when you go “I basically spent 100 hours straight thinking about this bastard while making something amazing for him, and I have no evidence that he ever spent 10 hours of his life thinking about me.” And “I could spend this time and energy and money in making myself an enormous, intricate heirloom silk shawl with just a touch of cashmere, in elvish twists and leafy lace in all the colors of the night, shot through with subtly glittering stars, warm in winter and cool and summer and light as a lover’s kiss on the shoulders, suitable for draping over my arms at weddings or wrapping myself in to watch the sea, a lace-knotted promise to myself that I will keep for my entire life and gift to my favorite granddaughter when I die, and she will wear it to keep alive my memory - but instead I have this sweater, and this fuckboy.” The sweater curse is a lesson that the universe gives to a knitter at an important point in their life. It is a gift. Knitting a sweater for a husband or wife generally doesn’t call down the curse, because the relationship is meant to be stronger than 4-ply. (Although I say this, but I’ve taken over 5 years to finish a pair of mittens for my husband, because he casually asked me to do something customized with the cables, and I still can’t get the math to work on the right hand.) this post is so much better with that commentary
Save
Ass, Fucking, and Google: unpicasso probably my favorite thing abt being a millennial is that i can lie on my resume abt shit like being proficient in excel bc i have the common sense to just google anything i dont know how to do which gives me a giant fucking edge over gen x in the job market bc somehow that strategy never occurs to employers and my underqualified ass looks like steve jobs every time i use a youtube tutorial to make a spreadsheet jadelyn Everyone in my office sings my praises for what I can do with excel for this exact reason, even though I joke with them that "I have no idea how to do that - but give me half an hour and an internet connection and I'll figure something out for you." I even once specifically said in response to my grandboss commenting on my excel skills, "You do realize that I just like.. .google stuff when you ask me to do something with excel that I don't know how to do, right? But his praise didn't change at all. There was no "Wait, that's all it is? Instead, he said "Yes, but the fact that you think to do that and that you know exactly how to phrase your searches and how to sift through the results to get the right answer, and you then integrate what you've learned and use it going forward is still so much more than any of the rest of us [the other 5 ppl on my team are all mid-40s and up] can do. To you, it's just googling stuff," but it's still a unique and valuable skill you bring, so don't shrug off the compliments so cavalierly, okay? And this was coming from an executive with an MBA. Don't undervalue your googling skills, kids. It's not lying if you know you can figure it out Googling
Save
Quite, Her, and Think: I didnt think thats what you meant when you said your tongue is quite skillful - her, probably

I didnt think thats what you meant when you said your tongue is quite skillful - her, probably

Save