There are entire cultures which function this way. Even in the Anglosphere, the far majority of people won't talk about most their issues until designated times and prompted by bosses.
You're overestimating the proactivity of most people, and how important that proactivity is beyond making an impression one is proactive at a job interview (read: faking it). And the willingness of others to endure what a large crowd of truly proactive people would do when constrained by a huge management overhead: complain a lot until they are fired or finally given the power to solve their own problems.
> There are entire cultures which function this way. Even in the Anglosphere, the far majority of people won't talk about most their issues until designated times and prompted by bosses.
Yeah, for example the military and factory work. But not team work environment, it does not function this way.
Upper thread already gave you the ESL example. You're taking things out of context and arguing a strawman.
Most people aren't proactive. End of. To think otherwise is to dismiss what modern schooling does to individuals and to forget the downside of proactivity: increased friction when people can't agree on what they want. If we agree communication is important, surely you're not going to dismiss the obvious that most people suck at trying to come to an agreement when everyone is trying to play proactively.
There's a reason management methodologies are so tight on synced up moments of conversation and prodding people to talk even when they themselves like there's nothing to be said. It's all to push people into talking. You can do that with reactive people. It's not optimal, but it works and is a lot more feasible than trying to create a culture with mostly proactive, total strangers who somehow agree enough not to devolve into death by committee.
You're the one who's using the straw man here to argue about why team work itself sucks and bring up that some people can't speak english.
The assumption is that you have a proactive team work environment, for example scrum, which is how the vast majority of all programmer jobs are, and that the people involved can all speak fluently in a common language.
>why team work itself sucks and bring up that some people can't speak english
The ESL argument is pulled in not because of language, but because some cultures prefer reserved people over proactive people. Not sure how you missed this.
"Why team work itself sucks" is a huge leap in logic from "reserved, reactive people can function in a team". Taking your own example, a military with bad team work would leave its country ripe for takeover.
There's nothing about software development in particular which makes reactivity dysfunctional. What is true is proactivity is preferred when applied in a certain way. Turns out many proactive people are proactive for reasons which make them butt heads whenever they disagree. Your "proactive but also collaborative" people are unicorns, because the very things which make them proactive either cause friction, or aren't rewarded appropriately.
>for example scrum
If anything, SCRUM shows exactly how we really think about proactivity. Scheduled rituals which prod people to respond, trying to get some semblance of that "proactive but collaborative" gold, only for most people to still feel suffocated by management when it turns out that proactivity includes futile efforts in telling management to change what is preventing the team from working more efficiently. You can call this dysfunctional SCRUM, misapplied or whatever you wish, but the far majority of these places still turn profits and create products despite of this.
I'm so skeptical of these "experts" especially if they write a blog post where they hate their bank.
I've been with Wells for over a decade. They have never called me. Never.
I have had "fraud" alerts hundreds of times. They always happen at certain POS, and it's always a text alert.
Some of the stories I read make me viscerally react with "what in the world are you doing with something as simple as a bank account?"
Also a fundamental default is "no action". If you are even slightly suspicious, do nothing. It isn't somehow so important that you stop thinking and just act or react. Just stop.
My wife used Well's Fargo, I've heard about how they don't like to bother customers, in fact they hate it so much they didn't even bother notifying customers when opening new accounts for them, or performing actions on their behalf to generate fees.
The point is not that banks don't suck - it's that a professional will not inject that sentiment into a post on another topic. And if a professional does mention it, they will do so in a way that doesn't sound like blanket griping, but will instead focus on specific facts about that bank that cause them to recommend against them. And finally - it would be a former bank, not a current one.
The author does seem to bang on about his "reasonable assumptions" for how much Wells and Apple Pay suck, so he should continue the call! Like he's just too clever to follow the advice he'd give everyone else to hang up and call back.
I didn't read it as explaining why she should continue the call, just why she did continue the call. She's explaining why those things didn't immediately trigger the scam alarm. Nowhere did I see her claim to be too clever to do anything.
I found it an interesting read which details an experience which is far removed from how you expect a scam call to occur. It's interesting to read the signs which should have been alarm bells, but which were dismissed because nobody is perfect all the time.
The author very kindly addresses my comment in a PS:
I also, admittedly, allowed my cynicism toward my own industry and Wells Fargo to cloud my judgment; I didn't know the first thing about Apple Pay or Google Pay prior to this incident, but I don't have particularly positive experiences or feelings toward either company, and it's extremely common for the process of fixing someone else's mistake on large tech platforms to be nightmarishly convoluted.
Ultimately she did realise & fix her mistake - at some pace - lost nothing, and got an up-close view of a scam in progress.
I'm honestly surprised he even wrote this if he claims to be an expert.
He literally ignored half of what the rep was saying because he was busy fiddling with the computer, then willingly gave up all his personal information because of the distraction.
You would think an expert would know how to properly use 2 factor auth too. Giving someone the code is exactly how you defeat it.
Once, I got a call about attempted activity on a debit card. The person gave the wrong last four digits of the card number, then the call dropped due to poor cell reception.
This was on Christmas Eve or something. I called the number on the back of the card, but they were an outsourced call center for card replacements. Fraud alerts had been outsourced to a different company, so they had no idea if the call was legit.
I went into the physical branch the next week, and spoke to a manager. They said it could be legitimate or not. I think we ordered replacement cards at that point, and watched the next few statements more closely than normal.
Honestly, the behavior of the scammer sounds more legitimate than the actual non-scam behavior of the last half dozen banks I've dealt with.
I think it was important of the author to put that out there, expert or not. It made me take a mental inventory, and bolster my first-responder thoughts.
While these 3 things are quite old, the blending of these technologies -- to create censorship resistant, trustless, eternal, decentralized peer to peer ledger that cannot be altered is actually quite new and interesting. It shifts the entire power model from authorities to the users. Revolutionary!
If you really believe it is not interesting, that is fine too! The technology is opt-in and voluntary. You can throw as many rocks all you like.
