Belarus to create a regulatory environment for circulation of cryptocurrencies - <AUTHOR> https://media.dev.by/decree_media_kit_en.pdf <comment><USER2> The blockchain hype seems to have some parallels to the Second Life[1] one. The technology isn't quite there, the valuations are immense, and it all seems like a real life implementation of a Neal Stephenson novel. Second Life doesn't seem to have gone anywhere but it doesn't mean cryptocurrencies won't as well. From the outside they do look just as niche and generally lacking in use cases.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life)

<comment><USER3> Second Life is a virtual world where virtual stuff can be traded.

Blockchain technology is real world technology. It can help to solve really challenging problems and make real world systems more efficient / productive / cost effective / autonomous.

The two are in no way comparable... if you're looking for a comparison to Second Life which happens to use blockchain technology, check out Decentraland: [https://decentraland.org/](https://decentraland.org/)

<comment><USER4> You're making the virtual/real world dichotomy with the hindsight of knowing that Second Life didn't go anywhere. People back then also called it a technology: it's a technology that allows e.g. in-person meetings without the need for displacement. It's a technology that disrupts physical space, the ultimate disruption!

No, sorry, such dichotomy is irrelevant. What's relevant is that Second Life didn't get traction.

How's Bitcoin doing as a technology? Lots of traction! Now it remains to be seen where it can keep it. What applications does it have? I'm not sure, as right now there's some 250k backlogged transactions because currently the blockchain can't seem to handle even a trivial number of transactions.

<comment><USER5> Blockchains reached a valuation of $0.5 trillion and attracted all the biggest financial institutions (Goldman Sachs yesterday). Second Life traction never got even a fraction of that. Also Blockchain growth has been going for 9 years now, Second Life growth lasted 3 years ([http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/11/why_...](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/11/why_second_life_failed_how_the_milkshake_test_helps_predict_which_ultra_hyped_technology_will_succeed_and_which_won_t_.html)).

<comment><USER4> > Blockchains reached a valuation of $0.5 trillion and attracted all the > biggest financial institutions (Goldman Sachs yesterday)

You know how bubbles work, right? What I mean is that what you've described is compatible with the "bubble" hypothesis just as it is compatible with the "disruption" hypothesis. I need to see the thing solving problems to believe the thing.

This is just me though, I'm not trying to convince you. The point I meant to make in my previous post was not a case for/against Bitcoin, but against the idea that "Bitcoin is nothing like Second life". It is in some important sense: there is a reasonable case for both and it's still too early (now for Bitcoin as at the time for SL) whether they can deliver on their promises of disruption.

EDIT: But if you want to talk about the credibility of Bitcoin, I notice you didn't respond to my observation. I don't care if it's $0.5tr or $500tr: there's still a backlog of 250k transactions. The thing is unusable right now. Now, this might be solved, yes. But right now it's a serious concern. Do you not agree?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just FYI Belarus is not a democracy and the laws change at the whim of the rulers. Read the journal of this blogger who got arrested there [https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/blogs- trending-38804499](https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/blogs-trending-38804499), the people(the foreign nationals) who were in jail with him...

<comment><USER7> Just FYI, Belarusians often refer to Donald Trump as the american Lukashenka. They share quite a few traits.

<comment><USER8> I imagine all leaders share some traits no matter how good, evil, or truly monstrous they are. The reality is, however, that Americans can vote their leader out of office in a couple of years while in Belarus they just cannot.

<comment><USER9> Of course they can. They just chose to re-elect him. Belarus is a democratic republic with proper election system.

<comment><USER10> It's not hard to choose when there's only 1 real candidate. USSR had elections too.

<comment><USER9> There were 4 candidates on the last elections. More than in US, AFAIK.

<comment><USER11> Every election in Belarus in the last couple of decades is a circus. Lukashenko rules for 23 years now having complete control over elections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> No taxes (until 2023) on mining, selling/buying tokens. Here are details:

• The rights of physical and legal entities in terms of token circulation are defined. Legal entities are entitled to possess tokens, create and list their own tokens through HTP residents; buy, exchange tokens and perform other operations using tokens only through the cryptocurrency exchanges and cryptocurrency exchange operators. • Individuals are entitled to possess tokens; perform mining; exchange tokens, buy and sell them for Belarusian rubles, foreign currency, e-money, as well as present and bequeath tokens. The mining activity of individuals, tokens purchasing and sale shall not be considered entrepreneurial activity. • Tokens and revenues from operations with them shall not be subject to declaration by the individuals. • Turnovers, profits (income, proceeds) from various operations with tokens are not recognised as taxable items until January 2023.

<comment><USER12> So we're all setting up shop in Belarus to get our Crypto profits tax-free?

<comment><USER7> Belarus is finishing its first nuclear power station and wants to use the surplus capacity. Initially, they planned to sell it to Baltic countries, but these are in the EU, so it is not yet sure they will cut a deal. EU has a huge anti-nuclear, pro-carbon lobby.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, Lithuania making big deal out of this nuclear station. They aren't happy that it's based close to the border and they trying to say that it's not safe, blah-blah-blah, nobody will buy electricity and so on. Other countries don't have issues with this station though, EU checked it and found everything within norms. But every time something happens at the construction, like they pour concrete at the wrong spot, Lithuania blows the whistle. Lukashenka said that it will be build no matter what, and neighbors will have to deal with it.

<comment><USER14> Lithuania had its own Nuclear Power plant (Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant) which it closed in order to join the EU. At first, it was promising to its people that the EU will help it to build another one ("safer"), but of course nothing happened. And with the new Belorussian Nuclear Power Plant, there is no good business case for it anymore.

<comment><USER15> Further to this, one of the main concerns for Lithuania (and other Baltic states) is energy independence from Russia. Ignalina made them a net-exporter of electricity, but now almost 70% of electricity is imported, mostly from Sweden. Gas and oil mostly comes from Russia, and all national gas companies in the Baltic states are largely owned by Russian companies.

As you say there is no reason for another plant to be built in the area now, but it'll also mean the Baltic states most likely end up purchasing electricity from Belarus. As they have strong political ties with Russia, that doesn't really help their case in becoming more independent.

<comment><USER13> The same case is for Belarus. Building this station is part of becoming energy independent from buying Russian gas. Lukashenko will build it even if it's non-profitable and Lithuania won't buy energy from it. He's stubborn SOB when it comes to independence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> JFYI, in Belarus we are not "White Russians", but we historical Lithuania. Please not blame us with moscowitians. We are not so wild. [http://history- belarus.by/images/img-events/blood_potop/hmel...](http://history- belarus.by/images/img-events/blood_potop/hmelnicky_1648-54.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER17> Many of the bold claims in this document are completely unsubstantiated.

Question 7: How does the Law regulate Blockchain and cryptocurrencies? It can't. The principle argument that deals will be safe because the HTP residents are 'trusted and respectable companies' is naive and invalidates the fundamentally trustless model of blockchains.

Question 8: How is the mining activity of individuals regulated? Won't they launder funds through Belarus? Money laundering happens every day with fiat currency, and with cryptocurrencies this is even easier. Exchanging currencies across both blockchains and boarders introduces innumerable difficulties for detection of money laundering.

<comment><USER18> The more blockchain regulation I see, the more I have to question the technical competence of regulators _or_ the _actual_ policy and implementation goals they have in mind.

Do they have technologists telling them, "yes we can track this." Or do they not actually care about what they claim to, eg: money laundering...?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's some interesting chances here for governments.

In the 80's, Luxembourg introduced some progressive tax-incentives for space companies. The inflow of business related to space (mainly satellite parts and software suppliers) has had and enormous impact on the economy of Luxembourg.

I think there's chances in the Crypto/blockchain space for small economies as well.

<comment><USER19> Certainly! Estonia has taken a very progressive stance on cryptocurrency and tech development as a whole and it's great to see other countries do the same! I was at a blockchain conference last weekend in Minsk and nearly every speaker ended their presentation with an open call for developers to apply for their projects.

Politics and underlying motivations aside, it gives a lot of people work opportunities as the field continues to grow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "I am the last dictator in Europe" Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko

<comment><USER21> "No you're not." Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

<comment><USER7> Geographically, Turkey is not Europe, right?

<comment><USER22> Mostly not:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Thrace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Thrace)

Then again, what is Europe, geographically? If I count continents, I count something often call "eurasia" as one continent, not two. I think cutting it in two over some mountain rig is a bit, well, arbitrary.

<comment><USER21> In 2015, the "European" Games were held in Baku, Azerbaijan. Another dodgy president (Ilham Aliyev), if you count Azerbaijan as Europe.

<comment><USER22> As stated I do not see a "geographical europe" on the map. I see eurasia. And being "european" definitely has nothing to do with having clean politicians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Cool country. Is the 11 year old president son still wearing a general uniform?

Come on. This regulation movement is made only to have bigger control over the people. Nothing more.

<comment><USER24> Ding, ding ding. We have a winner!

I think people in the West who do not have to experience having one guy as "president" for 20+ years are either naive or ignorant of how these autocrats or kleptocrats operate.

\---

Fun fact: Belarus still has the KGB and a lot of Soviet era imagery on emblems and such.

<comment><USER13> It's sad fact :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So Belarus becomes tax heaven for crypto-currencies, but is it safe heaven? One can transfer money out of Belarus but then one's country tax collector will knock the door. And what if one day Mr Alexander decides to nationalize these companies including foreign currency assets?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing is safe. A fact, that validity period of HTP's special legal status will be extended until Jan 2049, give us some level of confidence. It won't be that easy to turn around.

<comment><USER25> But it would be better the government be driven by long-term and wider improvements like overall business law stabilization. This case is narrow short-term opportunity. Anyway I wish you guys good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree, but they're making quite good steps now. This document also declares: `Investment according to English Law will be allowed.` The process takes time but Belarus slowly removes borders and getting better. From 2017, residents of 80+ countries (including entire EU and US) were allowed to enter Belarus without a visa for 5 days (subject to be extended even further)

<comment><USER26> No investor in their mind would believe this. Belarus needs structural reforms first.

<comment><USER13> Actually, there will be risk takers on top of existing ones.

Belarus is the source of great engineers that created Viber, Juno, MSQRD, WoT to name a few. PVT revenues will reach $1 bln. in 2017. This decree just added more perks to already existing tax privileges.

The system is stable and growing, why kill the cash-cow? IT enterprise is not and oil factory that you can nationalize. Engineers will take the laptop and fly away same day and your seized company will turn into empty building with zero profit. Even dictators understand it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> In the last pages, it seems he wants to upset his Russian and Ukrainian neighbors. Even there are a graph how the US investments fell.

</comment><comment><USER28> If you need help in Belarus or have questions – ping me in telegram/facebook:<USER28>
</comment><comment><USER29> Viva Dictator!</comment>


Japanese Porn Indicates 3D Television Success - <AUTHOR> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.199280-Japanese-Porn-Indicates-3D-Television-Success

<comment><USER2> Porn represents 30% of Japan's Home Video market . . . has anyone told them there's free porn on the internet, or does that sentence not exist in Japanese?

<comment><USER3> "Has anyone told these Westerners that not all porn is the same, and that paying a premium for things you'll really enjoy is what drives most of the world's economy?"

<comment><USER4> Please don't tell me what the Japanese are willing to pay for.

I'm going there for vacation this year -- and I'm nervous enough as it is, wondering what kind of country invents tentacle porn... :-)

Edit: I mean, I'm a fan of HP Lovecraft and all, but...

<comment><USER5> >wondering what kind of country invents tentacle porn..

An island nation for which octopus and squid are a dietary staple and where sex has historically not been taboo?

I get where you're coming from, though. :D

<comment><USER6> I believe it also partly came about from a censorship of genitalia. Since they could not draw phalluses, tentacles became a stand in.

Oh god, why do I know that? Damn internet...

<comment><USER5> Rofl. If it makes you feel any better, now we all know it too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I work with 3D displays and my company has had a number of porn studios approach us to partner to do 3D porn. Personally I'm not against the idea, but I guess because of some of our other partners we don't want to be seen associating with porn.

Seeing it in 3D is an interesting experience though; I think it'll be popular with the voyeur-style porn. If done well, it really gives the sensation of being right there.

<comment><USER8> That's when you refer them to your wholly-owned subsidiary, Jim_Dot After Dark.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Porn helped make the VCR a success, same for broadband. I suppose it could fund 3D TV, although I'm with the other commenters in wondering what's so great to pay for.

<comment><USER10> don't forget CD-ROM.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> _33 year old Satoshi Miyazaki, who spends about $21 a month on porn, says: "I want to try it out. I need something dramatic to justify replacing my TV. This could be the motivation."_

The guy gives his name, his age, tells the world how much he spends on porn and that he's thinking of getting a new TV just so he can watch more porn? There's things about Japan I'll never understand.

</comment><comment><USER12> imagine, you have 50 inch tv, watching hd porn. you can see any * bigger than your head. and with 3d, you can see gigantic * hopping, what a world...

They need to rely on porn, targetting younger single man, otherwise they may fail i suppose. Do you and all your family wanna wear Matrix-like glasses just to watch reality show, in living room?

</comment><comment><USER13> I can just imagine the 3D titles: Avatart, Up (Yours), Boy Toy Story ...</comment>


Play Framework 1.1 RC1 Released - <AUTHOR> http://www.playframework.org/documentation/1.1RC1/releasenotes-1.1

<comment><AUTHOR> This is hands down the best full stack Java web framework out there. We've built a couple of apps on it and it completely rocks. Fast, stable, simple, stateless and with a great development community.

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't just say best Java web framework, because i think it's even better than many in other languages.

Also Scala is now officially supported.

Glad to hear that you're successful with using it in production.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I stop myself being toxic? - <AUTHOR> At my last performance review I was told that I engage in toxic discussion too much and I should halt.
The problem is, I don't know what constitutes toxic behaviour and how to prevent it. I do have a lot of issues (very bureaucratic and slow central organisation whom I am forced to deal with) and I do bring them to light as the reason for things taking too long- If I'm blocked by the central IT body then I have no qualms telling people I'm blocked. I also take passion in my job, so I might seem complainy.
But, How can I make sure I don't engage in toxic discussions? Are there any people here who have overcome toxic behaviours? <comment><USER2> First, to be blunt: you should have asked for a definition of toxicity when you were presented with this criticism. Barring that, you should ask for one now. You should ask the person delivering the criticism if they have suggestions for how to improve. Take their suggestions to heart, and amplify them with your own. Don't nitpick the suggestions. Don't try to show that they are impossible, or inconsistent, or hypocritical. Interpret them in a light that makes them make sense, to you, then act upon them to the best of your ability.

The pattern "in my review I was called X, but I don't know what X means" suggests an adversarial relationship with your manager. The pattern of appealing to others outside of your conflict, rather than trying to understand the perspective of the people you are in confict with by talking to them (and listening) might be "toxic".

As highly generic starting points, I would suggest: 1\. Focus on speaking more precisely, using factual rather than evaluative language. Evaluative language ("stupid", "cool", "boring", etc.) rarely serves a constructive function. 2\. When faced with a problem, fix it, delegate it, or backlog it. Don't complain about it. 3\. If you are blocked by other parties, establish a clear timeline with those parties for getting unblocked. If you don't have the seniority to do that, establish a clear timeline with someone who does for getting you unblocked.

These are things that have helped me, anyway. I still think I'm too much of an asshole, though.

Good luck!

<comment><USER3> Good idea, I've had good luck in the past with asking management "what does it look like if I improve?" then you implement suggestions that they give you. Management types love this :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lean on others around you for feedback - ask a trusted co-worker to be brutally honest with you when he/she gets the impression you are being toxic. Tell them to approach you afterwards and make you aware of it.

Apart from this, here are a few things to watch yourself for:

      * sarcasm & cynicism
      * passive aggressive behavior
      * insults
      * loving proving others wrong and making them look bad
      * loudness / brashness

<comment><AUTHOR> hm, I am quite loud and direct. I'll ask a colleague to give me a nudge when I'm being too much.

Others have mentioned a book, I'll make sure I read it and I hope it helps people's impressions of me. I just want to do the best I can and I love my work- I just get very frustrated by people who don't want to do their jobs.

It's like driving a Ferrari in LA traffic.

Thanks for the feedback. :)

<comment><USER5> Hey, some hopefully constructive feedback here:

This sentence "It's like driving a Ferrari in LA traffic" is kind of a red flag. Think about how the people around you would feel about this comparison. It's pretty insulting, right? If you carry around the attitude that you're put upon dealing with other people's incompetence, they're going to notice and take it badly.

Younger me would see my comment and say "so what? they're incompetent!" This is the wrong emotional reaction. It doesn't matter if they're incompetent. Telling them they're incompetent will harm your relationship with them, and worsen your LA traffic gridlock.

There's almost always a way to be direct, correct and also kind. If you can't figure one out, then talk to someone. "Hey, I'm a little irritated about xyz situation, but I don't want to handle it badly. Do you have any suggestions for how I can constructively engage, or do you think I should just let it go?" Many people can't help, but some people have great emotional intelligence and can help crack those things open. I'm not particularly good at it, but man, the difference between trying and not trying is night and day.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the feedback! :) I understand what you mean.

May I ask though, how can I convey my frustration to anyone? and how to I avoid becoming jaded and apathetic to my goals?

<comment><USER6> > May I ask though, how can I convey my frustration to anyone? and how to I > avoid becoming jaded and apathetic to my goals?

Spend time cultivating empathy and patience.

<comment><USER7> A million times this answer. We're in need of a good dose of that in engineering organizations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Simply put, it's time to leave. Either your attitude towards the organization is bad, or the organization itself cannot take criticism. If it's the organization, then there is nothing that can be done and you should immediately find new employment. This is generally a sign of bad things to come.

If it's you, then you are not happy and you are not as effective as you could be. You are no longer a good fit for the position. This sounds negative towards you, but it's not. It just means that you need to find a place that you like more.

This happened to me a couple of years ago. I worked with a group of people for almost 15 years at different organizations. Towards the end, I was negative all the time about the company we currently worked at. I wanted to stay, because they were all my friends, and we had been through so many struggles together that I couldn't imagine working with them (layoffs, bankruptcies, buyouts, etc.) I had no idea how unhappy I was until I finally quit and found another job. I miss the people there quite often, but now I know I would never go back to that place. I would never have accomplished what I have if I stayed there.

<comment><USER9> >Either your attitude towards the organization is bad

This is very likely the problem, not the latter. The OP will probably will run into this problem again and again in the future, leaving his current employer is not going to solve that. If anything, staying would be better, since they're willing to work with him on fixing it.

<comment><USER10> tbh we don't really know OP. Although It could be that the words OP uses might be offending.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _" The problem is, I don't know what constitutes toxic behaviour and how to prevent it."_

"Toxic discussion" seems like an imprecise term that can mean many different things (e.g., insulting people, not letting people finish their sentences, etc.). Maybe you should ask your manager for specific examples of situations that you could have handled better. Of course, you should be careful to ask in a non-confrontational way, making it clear that your aim is to address the problem, not to argue with the allegations.

<comment><USER12> I think he definitely needs to get a number of particulars from management, because if you ask me, characterizing an employee's behavior as "toxic" is passive-aggressive. It certainly isn't constructive. Without particulars, it simply means "we don't like you."

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> How to Win Friends & Influence People

This is a classic book that you can finish in one night. If you don't like reading there's an audiobook version as well. It's also recommended by pg and yc

[http://www.audible.com/pd/Business/How-to-Win-Friends- Influe...](http://www.audible.com/pd/Business/How-to-Win-Friends-Influence- People-Audiobook/B002V5BV96)

[https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence- People/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence- People/dp/0671027034)

<comment><USER14> I highly recommend this reading this book. If you read it 5 years ago, I highly recommend re-reading it--the insights you have when you get reminded of things will surprise you.

I also recommend the book Difficult Conversations by the same folks who wrote Getting to Yes. It lays out a good model for better predicting what impact the things you say might have on other people.

<comment><USER15> I like "re-reading" the audiobook occasionally while doing other things (cooking, driving). I find my interactions improve right after a re-reading.

Well worth the time and cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It might be worth following up with your manager on what behavior they're seeing, specifically. Depending on how your organization works and how your relationship with your manager work, of course. That said, politely approaching them with a short list of very specific questions may allow you to clarify what they're seeing. If asking for clarification is an option, it's definitely better than guessing what the issue is. The thing is, they're concluding your behavior is "toxic" based on a set of specific actions (assuming the review process is functional, etc.), so you'll want to find out what those actions are and then make a plan on what to do differently, execute that plan, then ask for feedback again later.

</comment><comment><USER17> First of all, I want to offer some hope. It is definitely possible to overcome the habit of toxic discussion. I think more than one comment so far has mentioned something like, "I used to be toxic, too..."

What I found to be helpful was just working on not immediately saying everything I was thinking. I think it's hard for me stop _thinking_ things like, "That idea is dumb," or "That process is ridiculous." But I found it useful to simply work on adding a delay between the time I had a negative thought and the time I expressed it.

This has a several advantages. Other people feel better if they get to speak their whole piece first without interruption; someone other than you may criticize the idea, too - this lets you off the hook, and they may be able to express the criticism better; and if you wait, you may be able to express yourself more calmly.

Many times I have been in a meeting and felt like loudly objecting to something that has just been said; when that happens, I jot down "K.M.S." on my notepad; it stands for "Keep Mouth Shut." This reminds me to wait my turn and try to speak in a more temperate fashion.

<comment><AUTHOR> These tips sound very actionable. I will certainly commit to trying them out for at least 6 months. Thank you.

My specific problem is probably one of communication (long distance) and tilted priorities. My priority is the functioning of the product. Their priority is many products as cheaply as possible. Any advice on how I can resolve this conflict?

<comment><USER17> There are always disagreements over priorities, but I think it's important to identify which _kind_ of disagreement you have going.

At one extreme, you have the engineer wanting to add features just because they are fun to build, even if no customers would ever use them, and they would cost a lot of time and money to develop. In this case, the engineer is asking for too much, and should realize that business requirements have to rule in the end.

At the other extreme, you have management asking for shortcuts that could lead to the death of customers that trust in the product. In this case, there may be an ethical obligation to blow the whistle and refuse to participate.

Most disagreements are somewhere in between. There is a sliding-scale here, and you should figure out where you are on this scale for each potential disagreement. Some things are closer to engineering's turf and some are closer to marketing's turf. I have never had a job where everything went 100% my way. If I can hit 70%, that's really pretty good. If it drops below 40%, I start looking for a new job.

One thing that may help is to realize that you can be completely correct technically, while still having to accept decisions made on the business side. You can count it as a "win" if you can explain the technical issues well enough so that others understand your point - even if the others still have to choose something else in the end due to non-technical reasons.

<comment><USER18> There's definitely a need to pick battles: if you battle every decision it's easier for people to just think you are stubborn and they might not listen to your concerns.

In addition to that is the skill in knowing how to bring concerns up in the first place. At least for me, in some of my experience, it has been much easier for me to focus on trying to pick my battles in the first place than getting better at how I fight the battles. There's lots of little things in the way that you might word things: instead of "We should do x", trying to get the habits down of things more like "What if we did x instead?", or "Do you think x might be a better approach?", or "Is it possible to do x here?"

There's that saying that the best leaders are the ones that make you think that the best ideas were your ideas, in the Inception meaning of trying to plant the idea seed in someone's head and hoping it takes hold and grows into the best idea. That applies here to, even as an "underling" to management: everyone feels like they are on the same team when they are all fighting the battle together and the easiest way to get them on your side is to make them think they had the idea in the first place. It's not easy to do, and you aren't going to succeed every time, but a goal to work towards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Technique is what you probably missing. Try reading a classic like [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4865.How_to_Win_Friends_...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4865.How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People)

Bottom line: You can criticize as long as you wrap it up the 'right' way

<comment><USER20> Or study the British, they're the world masters at Cadbury-chocolate-covered offensive discussion.

PS: This might read as way too broad a statement or as an attack on British people, rest assured that it's not. I genuinely find the British art of social decorum absolutely fascinating and I think it can have tremendous value. Speaking as a Frenchman, I too often witness the cost of being too hot-blooded and blunt in the social rapport.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am British working in Sweden. xD

<comment><USER21> Maybe you've been away for too long? :-)

Are your colleagues mostly Swedish or English/other? Do you speak in English or Swedish to them?

I can imagine if you speak English better than your colleagues then you might imperceptibly/unintentionally treat them like people less intelligent than they are due to having an accent. As a British person working in Europe I've seen it happen, non-UK colleagues I know to be very intelligent are treated ... differently... when talking to someone who speaks english natively. Maybe not "toxic", but in a way I wouldn't appreciate.

<comment><AUTHOR> I speak English at work, but I couldn't possibly have a superiority complex, they all speak English better than I do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> a) Stop caring about being right

b) [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/21/how_to_get_paid_more...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/21/how_to_get_paid_more/) \-- read this

c) It's fine to say no, or it's wrong, or whatever, but always have a positive and enthusiastic solution for whatever's wrong. Being blocked by a bureaucratic organization? Have a work-around that you offer straight away!

<comment><USER23> It took me a long time to figure out that you don't get paid to do work, you get paid to do work AND get on with people.

I found my life became far easier when I took five minutes to talk to people about their kids, pets, work, spouses etc. Make a cup of coffee for the team, get one for your boss before a meeting. Bring in some cookies and doughnuts. Hell, turn up to work 30 minutes late with cookies everyone is pleased to see you.

I read "how to make friends and influence people".... it didn't change my life, but it's good to remember what my mum would call 'good manners' trumps 100% productivity.

<comment><USER24> > It took me a long time to figure out that you don't get paid to do work, you > get paid to do work AND get on with people.

In many places work is defined as "what the boss wants, even if that's really stupid".

Life is easier if you can accept doing dumb stuff is part of the job, or if you just leave and get another job.

<comment><USER23> And when layoffs come knocking with almost equal skilled workers and half the team have to go? The boss is going to keep his friends or people he likes.

I've seen so many ass-lickers who treat the boss to a round of golf get the promotion because 'they are keen'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> When faced with criticism from an organization that doesn't know how to internalize criticism directed against itself, put on the most earnest expression you can muster and ask firmly but politely for concrete examples of "toxic behavior" that you've supposedly committed. Performance reviews, especially at large organizations, are not set up to help you improve. They're either a political device or a component of stack ranking that can be used as part of "documenting" a dismissal. Especially suspect are broad accusations that can mean practically anything but sound serious on the surface.

Definitely get more information before you go accepting blame for something that might well be a smoke screen.

<comment><USER26> But sometimes there may not be a single concrete example. Some people just have that unfriendly vibe. Getting an example of "this one time Chad didn't want to talk to you because you were scowling the whole standup" probably won't mean much to you, but if it's a persistent theme, it's still a vaguely toxic behaviour that may warrant dismissal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Although I've never been labeled as "toxic", I've been a development manager that had to help coach "toxic" individuals and have worked with numerous toxic team members throughout my career. Here are some things to keep in mind:

1) It is really hard to go from toxic to non-toxic within the same organization. Once your peers and management have formed that impression of you, it is difficult to get rid of it.

2) Engineers typically undervalue the importance of communication skills and interpersonal relations. You need to cultivate these skills probably more than you realize and they will become even more important as you advance in your career. The way to cut through road blocks and bureaucracy in the real world is through relationships. Ever notice how some people can just make a few calls to resolve issues?

3) The "golden rule" is just as important as it was in elementary school. Keep the tone professional at all times – especially over the phone or when emailing or texting. If you have problems with this, try to talking to your coworkers in person.

4) You probably need to better understand the business side better. Your employer wants to get the best return on their investment. Sometimes that means that it is better for you to develop the Pinto instead of a Cadillac. Developers have a really hard time with this because we always want to do things the "right way".

5) Instead of complaining about the incompetence of your management, try explaining the limitations of their decisions and offer some alternatives. Once a decision is made, however, drop it and just do your job.

Good luck. I recently saw this: [https://hbr.org/2015/12/its-better-to-avoid- a-toxic-employee...](https://hbr.org/2015/12/its-better-to-avoid-a-toxic- employee-than-hire-a-superstar). Getting labeled toxic is definitely something that you want to avoid.

<comment><USER28> The paper in the HBR seems to define "toxic" quite differently though:

..."otherwise skilled employees who ended up doing real damage — employees who had been fired for egregious company policy violations, such as sexual harassment, workplace violence, or fraud"...

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I like this question. I'm going to be somewhat prescriptive here, and make some assumptions about what management means by "toxic".

Is the first time you're getting this feedback is at the performance review? If so, then one thing you could do going forward is ask your manager to give more timely feedback. It's perfectly reasonable to tell them that you want to improve (clearly you do, since you're posting here!) and to give you feedback right when they observe "toxic behavior" rather than waiting for the annual review.

Things that I have observed that I myself would call toxic:

1\. Snark. All the time. In your case, snark about the slow-moving bureaucracy. The question to ask is, when engaging in a conversation, what do you really expect the outcome to be? If you're complaining about the slow- moving IT department, is there really a purpose rather than venting?

2\. Truth be told, when I work with people who are snarky/negative/critical all the time (which, again, is my assumption of what management means by "toxic"), it really does bring the rest of the team down. People spend time gossiping and being more negative themselves. It breeds a team who continually complains, rather than people who identify problems and actively try to come up with solutions to make things better. Be honest - which camp do you see yourself in?

3\. Is there a better venue to bring up issues than with co-workers? Bringing up complaints in a 1-1 with a manager will reflect better on you than venting to co-workers.

Everybody _knows_ that the team is less productive because of bureaucracy, so complaining doesn't help. Consider asking "why is this central IT body here in the first place?" and seeing if you can help come up with solutions which fit.

And, at the end of the day, the business has made a decision that they are "okay" with development moving - and people being blocked - with their current policies. In a sense, that is perfectly valid decision for them to make, and if they want to pay you to wait around for them then that is the company's burden.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is good feedback, thank you.

Others have mentioned a book I will read it, and I will ask a colleague to keep an eye on me for negative behaviour.

Timely feedback is also important. But yes, I am quite critical and I make snarky jokes to lighten the mood- often it is at the expense of the central IT body. They're not located in my region so it's very "us vs them" and we get downtrodden a lot and I try to lighten the mood. I should probably do this another way.

<comment><USER30> Maybe aim more for the "eh, what are you going to do" verbiage. Ie you have done everything you can do for project X and it is now in someon else's ball park. Since you're not management the rest is not your problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Just make sure you don't hurt anyone's self-esteem and that's all you need to take care of.

When giving feedback, criticism is inevitable so first increase their self- esteem by appreciating the things about their work you like. Then the criticism and then throw in another compliment if you can. Criticism sandwich.

Make sure you care about what other people feel. If what you (intentionally or not) make them feel bad, that'll reflect on your image in their head. If you make them feel good, they'll like you.

What you feel isn't always what they feel. If you point out their mistakes, you'll feel good but they won't. If you make a joke about them, others may laugh, you may laugh but that person will not like you.

A classic recommended read is "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie.

If you find it hard to maintain your calm, take up on meditation and make it a habit. It's scientifically proven and has a lot of benefits. Just search about meditation on hn.algolia.com if you are still skeptical.

<comment><USER32> I understand this tactic but an astute person realizes immediately what you're up to, and it can cause the opposite effect. You need to understand the person you're talking to.

<comment><USER5> Interesting. I'm pretty aware when people use this on me and I appreciate the effort. I don't feel like I'm being manipulated, I feel like this person is taking the time to try to preserve the relationship. Agreed that you should take a moment to understand the person you're delivering criticism to, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's hard to answer this as an outsider because it's hard to know what exactly your manager(s) consider toxic. It's cultural. At my company we have very open and frank discussions of what our systemic problems are or what our team problems are, etc. But I've had prior employers where those same discussions would have been considered out of bounds and inappropriate.

As general advice though, I think if you like your job and want to stay there and be in good standing with those around you it's extremely important to learn the culture of that workplace and adapt to it. If you're getting feedback that you are being toxic, and it's not just from one person who doesn't like what you're saying but really is a clash between you and the culture, then you need to listen to that feedback and reign your personality in.

You can vent to friends and family outside of work. And if you really don't like it, you can always find another job that is a better fit for you.

<comment><USER34> Good, balanced answer.

"Very bureaucratic and slow central organisation whom I am forced to deal with." is one perception of the organisation. No way to know if this is really the case, and I would refrain using these words with colleagues. It may well be the case, but others might not experience it that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think it's important in such situations to assess whether the problem is mostly you or the culture. Have you had similar problems in other places? Is it this particular place? Most likely it's a combination of the two, but it's worth considering what amount of effort / potentially active dishonesty it will take to fit in with the culture of the place, whether such a culture is a good thing, and whether there might not be better environments for you elsewhere.

I strongly disagree with the people advising self-help books on helping one interact with people; I tend to think the later is a kind of prescribed culture bordering on forced. It's possible to be a decent human being and co- worker (and apparently has been, if you allow that people are decent) without reading self-help books and fitting in to other people's model of 'polite' and 'pleasant'.

<comment><USER36> I agree with you! I remember that in a previous company I worked for, I had a few colleagues quite old (early employees of a startup which after 10 years got bought) who were toxic/poisonous (it was evident) and they were continuously told to change behavior.

However, they just didn't fit anymore in the new company's culture - which was bad in my opinion, but I can't imagine how fucked up it must have been for those colleagues, considering that they had seen the early great times - a lot of fun, a lot to do, good managers with a good attitude, and so forth.

Sometimes it's really due to "the others", and it's then that you need to realize that the earlier you leave, the better it is for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> From what you wrote, I guess that you get into conflicts with other people or they complain about you.

My general attitude has helped me in dealing with all kinds of people. Try to figure out what kind of person it is you are talking to before you say anything drastic. Some people are open and enjoy heated discussions, others (most of the people) are actually insecure about themselves and cannot be confronted head on.

Empathy is key to making yourself appear friendly even if you are disgusted by the other person. Toxicity is inherently subjective and it doesn't matter so much what you say but how you say it.

I might tell you the work you are doing is crap because reasons. Or I might engage in a brief how-are-you-doing and mention it as a sidenote that I've seen something that looked unfortunate and then ask about YOUR opinion on it and guide the conversation with subtle questions in such a way that you see the problem yourself.

Often in bureaucratic environments, when something got stuck, I did not try to tell them what to do or how to do their job. Rather, I would give them the credit of being the "expert" in their field and ask them for advice for my situation. People are way more willing to help you if the idea came from them and they immediately like you if you show them respect for the work they do (that is especially true for hard working but overlooked people, e.g. secretaries, cleaning personnel, etc.).

Also, in order to not appear toxic, understand your colleagues' characters, admit mistakes in communication and tell them you are sorry if there was a problem, address them with respect and DO NOT push them into a corner. NEVER become overly defensive or aggressive, ALWAYS be prepared to let someone make decisions which you wouldn't do while maintaining your friendliness.

I see it as a kind of diplomacy. As long as you are not the boss, it is not your call to decide who does what. If there's a real problem with a person on your team, your boss should already be aware of it and he should be dealing with it without you having to tell them. If your boss doesn't know the people on his team, then you have an entirely different problem.

</comment><comment><USER38> Is it you that's toxic, or is it the organisation? I wouldn't readily assume you are the problem. If you're in a culture that avoids confrontation and criticism, anyone who is outspoken will be targeted as a troublemaker. Just some food for thought.

</comment><comment><USER39> Well, it can be you simply aren't accustomed to working in very bureaucratic and slow environments. You either go with the flow or switch jobs.

I am toxic myself and I also have problems with it. So I try to constantly "monitor" what I am saying and how I am feeling. Sometimes it just helps to say to yourself "stop, don't overreact" and to force yourself to calm down. Sometimes we make situation out of no situation.

<comment><USER40> Good for you! Working on a weakness is great. I expect I would not find you toxic. The truly toxic individuals really needing help are in total denial. The rest of us know we are not perfect and have to work at it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I always liked this article on toxic employees (in part because I recognise myself in the description).

[http://randsinrepose.com/archives/a-toxic- paradox/](http://randsinrepose.com/archives/a-toxic-paradox/)

However the end advice might not be very comforting.

</comment><comment><USER42> In my experience as a manager, "toxic" means you have an ego problem. Some things to note that may help:

* The goal of a discussion is an agreement everyone is comfortable with, and not proving that you are right - _even if you are right_.

* Really listen to what your colleagues say. If what they say sounds stupid, it may be because you don't understand what they're saying, or that you don't know as much as you think you do about the problem domain

* If a wrong decision was made when you advised against it, don't go back and point it out. People will remember, you saying "I told you so" makes you seem like a dick

* If you do something good, don't boast, just allow people to notice

<comment><USER43> >The goal of a discussion is an agreement everyone is comfortable with, and not proving that you are right - even if you are right.

That's a great way to rack up tech debt by making a lot of sub par decisions.

> If a wrong decision was made when you advised against it, don't go back and > point it out. People will remember, you saying "I told you so" makes you > seem like a dick

Are we supposed to pretend that the right decision was made and just stay the course? This is one of the few joys that makes staying a a crappy company worthwhile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> There are a few things you can do to get over toxic behavior partially, but it is tough to do completely; it's a one-day-at-a-time thing.

I've been through plenty of rough spots, and the best thing to do is to take care of yourself (talk to doc or dentist about sleep apnea, lose weight through exercise, get a checkup, etc.) and change your attitude. The latter is tough, so I'll focus on that:

Many of us got into development or IT because we love technology, and we love technology because it can really help people and it can be done correctly- just humming along in the background enabling everything, or providing extremely cool things that we help create or setup. But then, you throw in people.

People are great. People manipulated silicon, germanium, copper, plastic, etc. People came up with logic, operating systems, applications, and art. People really come up with some great shit. But people also do things that are at odds with the research, development, and running of all of that beautiful tech. It doesn't matter what role they have or how smart they are, at some point, almost every person has screwed something up in the mind of someone else. They might have great motivations, too- really admirable! They might want to save costs to help the companies grow and provide jobs and a bigger paycheck for their families. They might be complete morons, but are probably doing the best they can.

In the end, it is important that we try to work with all of these people. We can't hope to fully understand motivations of people and manipulating them for our own ends is probably not a good idea. We can only do our best to work with each other to accomplish what we hope is great and do it while helping each other and everything around us.

So, what do you do? Realize how lucky you are to be where you are and have what you have. See how you could help others, whether it is in a different place in the world or right there in your workplace. Understand that it's not just about you, or the people you help, but there is something much bigger going on, and we are only a small part of it. We don't have control over everything, but we do have control over ourselves. Just do your best each and every day with the gifts you were given.

</comment><comment><USER45> There is some excellent advice in this thread about how to identify and correct supposedly 'toxic' behavior. What's concerning though, is that if you are unclear on what this means, it indicates that the performance reviewer did not do a good job giving the review. Conventional management training (e.g. in Big 4 organizations where I come from), as a manager one is trained to give specific examples and suggestions for alternate ways to handle situations, when pointing out weaknesses or cause for comments. Either your reviewer is a poor performance reviewer, or they did this intentionally, as a means to vaguely officially document your problems with a pointer to fix, i.e. 'to halt', so there could be official grounds for dismissal. 'Toxic' is also quite a strong word, in comparison to say, 'insensitive' or 'abrasive', to give out to someone in a performance review without giving specific examples.

If you have a mentor, or supervisor, you are close to, and can trust, you can ask their thoughts on how you display toxic behavior.

It seems you care about your responsibilities and product, so would hate to have you blindsided of what could come next. In any case, good luck, but keep your eyes, ears, and most importantly, options open!

</comment><comment><USER46> It may not be entirely _you._

I have spent a lot of my time around the military. It is a very blunt environment. Some people find my directness refreshing. Others think I am rude, crude and socially unacceptable. The exact same behaviors that get lauded by some get decried by others.

I recently wrote a bit about that and you might find it a helpful read: [http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/06/context- cult...](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/06/context-culture- communication-and.html)

<comment><USER47> This was great. I'm an Ask, and my girlfriend is a Guess, and darn it drives me crazy sometimes, but i've never been able to quite pinpoint what it was... this puts it into words nicely. Cheers!

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I think we don't have enough details, but I wonder if you're starting arguments with people? When someone blocks you, do you go to them and tell them they are blocking you? Do you get upset when they tell you that they're already working on it, and they have nothing for you?

Personally, when someone is blocking me and I've got nothing else to work on, I note that I'm waiting for that something in my ticket (not the person! the _thing_ I'm waiting on) and ask my boss for something else to work on. It's then up to them to re-prioritize things and deal with the blockage somehow.

I'm imagining that you're balking and asking why it matters that you don't name the person... And I'm with you there. I think it's silly. But people have fragile egos, and pointing out their failings is called "toxic" because it puts them in a bad mood. You probably experience this, too, and don't really know what's going on. (I'm taking this post as proof of it. If it didn't bother you that they called you Toxic, you wouldn't have posted in the first place.)

In short, more empathy for how others feel is what they're asking for... And that's not a real obvious thing, no matter how much they claim it is.

<comment><USER49> _I 'm imagining that you're balking and asking why it matters that you don't name the person... And I'm with you there. I think it's silly._

And you were doing so well up to this point. :-) I don't think it's silly, because naming the person is unnecessary. If you say "I'm blocked by Joe" but then Janet comes along and implements the piece you need, then you weren't really blocked by Joe, were you? You were blocked by the FooBar component not being implemented. It's a fine distinction, but naming names has only potentially negative outcomes (hurt feelings and the like) with no potential positive outcomes (if we want to lean on someone, everyone knows Joe is responsible for FooBar w/o saying it). In short, you risk hurt feelings without the possibility of a positive outcome that outweighs the hurt.

But if by "silly" you mean trying to preserve fragile egos, I wholeheartedly agree. But fragile egos will always be with us, and if there's an easy way to avoid some of that mess, I'll take it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> It is one thing to be passionate about your work, and another thing trying to rescue the world (or your company, or your product). Your analogy with traffic is actually a perfect example: you want to change the whole traffic (when, where, and how all other people drive) instead of focusing on how well you drive in the given environment. You are not the mayor of the city, and even he can't do much about the traffic.

You will become much happier in your work if you simply report blockages to the responsible persons (usually to your boss, sometimes to others), but don't worry about that anymore. Instead, view it as opportunity to do things you wouldn't have had time for if everybody around reacted instantly. Every motivated person finds ways to improve the product he or she works on which is in their direct reach. Pursue these opportunities when you are blocked. You can even use the time to learn something new that you can apply to your work in the future. The main thing is the perspective switch: blockage might be wasted time for your employer, but for you it is actually a gift that frees you from your regular duties for a while.

Of course, if it becomes impossible to perform useful work because of the surrounding environment, leave and find another job.

</comment><comment><USER51> Heh. I've seen someone in a similar situation in a previous organization I worked for. And the problem there was with a slow system admin team. The sysadm team was large, however the truth was most power and responsibility was given to exactly 3 of them. Yes, the 3 were experts and they did great work. However the sysadm team was shared by like 4 product teams (and sometimes also does some work for customer support dept).

From a manager's perspective, the root of his frustration wasn't that easy to solve. To "scale" the team, it was necessary for the 3 guys to take lesser work and train few/more of other sysadms so that they can delegate their work. However, their work was so pressing, they hardly had time/chance to teach others. (Also individual personalities may be different...some people are great at their work, but not so great at teaching others..some don't want to give up some power..some potential successors may not be willing to take up their responsibility etc..all of this increases the problem).

My guess is that your IT dept is in a similar situation. Explain to your manager(s) that they need to clear the traffic jam/bottleneck. Tell them to find and check the IT dept's backlog so that they are convinced. Tell that this inefficiency is potentially losing the company money. Also if your views are backed by some of your colleagues it will add weight to your words. And be patient (complaining too much back-fires, so save it). If nothing works out and the situation is unbearable..then..we'll try to find a different job?

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm in the exact same boat with you with regards to bureaucratic and slow central organization. I and the other team members complain about this constantly. We've escalated the issues to everyone we can, but progress is non-existing or really, really slow.

My advice to you is to let it go. It is not your problem [1]. Do your best under the circumstances. That's all you can do anyway. No amount of bitching will fix it.

Escalate up the "command chain". Concentrate on constructively outlining what the issues are and how they're affecting your deliverables and how you feel about your work. Don't bitch. Don't point fingers, just document the facts, be factual. Don't speculate on the reasons why things are slow or bureaucratic. If you can phrase things in a way that convincingly point out what the affect of all these issues is to the business (slower pace of innovation, cedeing opportunities to more nimble competitors, product quality issues, increased employee turnover, etc.), the better.

After you've escalated the issues to someone, check back with the person periodically to see if anything's being done to address the issue. If you don't see adequate progress within an acceptable timeframe, make up your own conclusions. I've already more or less made up my mind that I will never work in an environment like this again. The amount of time I'm wasting comes with an extremely high personal opportunity cost, IMHO.

1\. If, however, you are in the position to solve some of these problems, then try and do that. You probably aren't.

</comment><comment><USER53> Often what is perceived as "toxic" is actually invalidating - ignorant or instinctive 180 degrees wrong (twisted) signals to the communication counterpart. Mild invalidation can cause irritation but stronger or persistent can drive a usually balanced person to rage. "Toxic" persons often lack either awareness of the emotional state of the person they address or just tend to do it wrong. It is not easy to change this habit/ingrained behavior but it is generally possible with focus, persistence and proper feedback. (Recommended reading: "The high conflict couple")

"Toxic" persons are often surrounded by conflict. A big part of getting out of this are establishing proper boundaries - knowing which gauntlets not to pick up even when they land at our feet. Learning where and how to stop an escalating conflict. Establishing a solid framework which conflicts to engage or not is a huge energy saver. Saved energy that can be deployed to win where it matters building a track record of success.

Self care and balance are critical. The less stressed we are the more is our brain able to work rationally.

There is a targeted school of cognitive therapy that combines maintaining a level of Zen in spite of real or perceived adversity and becoming more effective in communicating needs. Google Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) which was specifically designed to deal with poster child type toxic behavior. Incidentally a lot of what is there you find in some form in personal effectiveness and management training. You may benefit of studying could be there for you to take or consult a therapist to guide you. This would not be about the couch but about skill building.

</comment><comment><USER54> Toxic is relative. This is like aceton, some material will melt in contact with it and others don't. So when someone say you are toxic, don't take it for some absolute property you have. When someone say that about you, in the context you describe, it means (I guess) that you are expressing negative criticism which can negatively affect the team's morale or mood. The pertinence of the criticism is not directly in question.

Trying to answer your question, the first point should be to verify the objective reality and true importance of the problem. Assuming the problem you reported is real, the second question is what could be done to solve it. There are things that can't be changed and the problem you are dealing with could be such type of problem. In this case keeping complaining about the problem is indeed toxic because it affects the team morale.

So to stop being toxic, you should stop any behaviour that affects morale of your team, and do whatever can raise the morale of the team. One way to do that is to find new ways to make the best of the situation if you can't change it. The key word is adapt. Help your team and yourself to adapt to the situation.

The minimal action is to simple don't talk about the problem anymore. Everybody knows about the problem, so stop pushing with your finger where it hurts. A minimal proactive action could be to make funny jokes (not sarcastic) about the situation. This reliefs the stress and the negative feeling. Finally, the most usefull proactive action is to find news ways and work methods to minimize the burden of the problem.

If you don't stand the burden yourself, considere swithching work instead of making life harder to your colleagues.

</comment><comment><USER55> One of the reasons for toxic behaviour in IT is, in my limited experiences, the 'well, actually' mindset and everything that comes along with it. There is great blog post that I made mandatory read for all new employees joining company.

[http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html](http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html)

</comment><comment><USER56> Think you should identify this label better and once you do, you'll know if there's anything to correct. From a glance at this, I'm reading "toxic discussion" as relating to inter-department communication.

You mentioned that you have no qualms speaking your mind about faults of other departments, but is it possible that this kind of blunt communication is creating political problems for your managers and coworkers?

When you make vocal statements about an another department, you're seen as representing your department and your boss in those statements. That may not be what your boss wants to be publicly associated with.

In technical problem solving, it's easy to make a very easy read of problems and state them clearly, but in an organization they're seen as accusations and criticism. Often, there are strong defensive reactions from being called out and they can start a chain reaction: another department withdraws support or resources, or escalates their complaint which then comes down on your boss.

</comment><comment><USER57> When you feel the need to be "brutally honest" about something, STFU.

If you feel the need to offer unsolicited critique, STFU.

If you feel the need to announce the stupidity of some person/thing, STFU.

Don't gossip.

You need to learn how to live in a bureaucracy and function. If people are telling you to your face that your toxic in a formal setting, the consensus is that you're an Asshole.

</comment><comment><USER58> Do you have friends or trusted co-workers at work?

Reason I ask is because I used to work with a guy that was a _genius_ programmer. He was a sweet guy at heart, but he was often _very_ caustic -- especially when things were moving too slowly for his taste. He was also very, very loud.

(If I had to guess, I'd say this guy had Aspergers, but that's just an armchair diagnosis...)

Over time he and I developed a rapport and became pretty good friends. I'd help him see others' points of view and when he was being too loud, I had a little hand signal I gave him that meant, "You are being louder than you think you are being!"

Not that I was perfect, in fact pretty far from it, but anyway... if you are close enough to your co-workers you could proactively let them know that you're working on these things and would appreciate help, like some subtle (or not to subtle) real-time feedback when you're going over the line.

Good luck! I think you can do it!

</comment><comment><USER59> You ask a good question. The fact that you can ask about this is a positive indication that you can change. Most would be afraid to ask. Toxic communication is related to a tendency to blame instead of appreciate the wants, needs, desires, capabilities, and circumstances of another. One model considers three aspects to communication; the self, the other, and the context of the communication. The 'self' is the set of parameters of your own wants, needs, desires, capabilities, and circumstances. That same set of parameters about the person you're dealing with is the 'other', and 'context' considers where you are at, who you are with, and the nature of your meeting together. When we understand the self and the context, but don't have understanding of the parameters of the other, then we blame. We point our finger at them and accuse. We use hurtful phrases like "that's stupid", "that's worthless", "what a loser" …etc. People, who tend to cope with situations using blame, get labeled as toxic, nasty, or some other pejorative term. That communication style tends to bruise the self-esteem of others and is thus regarding as painful or off-putting. Recognizing the parameters of the 'other' seems like it should be easy to do. But, if you didn't learn to do this as a younger person, then it requires a lot of time and practice. One way to work on this is: 1\. Provide an understanding of your own wants, needs, desires, capabilities, and circumstances to the other. 2\. Ask questions that let you understand the wants, needs, desires, capabilities and circumstances of the other. 3\. Work within the context of the meeting, and strive to increase your understanding. Put a watchdog program into your own personal algorithm, and when you find yourself blaming, then go back to steps 1 &2\. This sounds easy to do, yet it is not. Especially if you have expertise in some area, and feel overwhelmed by trying to bring others up to speed. Go slow at first and in time, like any other habit it can become your nature, and then you will not be labeled as being toxic.

</comment><comment><USER60> Toxic to what? You should have asked exactly what they mean by toxic.

I suspect the corporation may be "toxic", and they are trying to knock you down because the system is not working properly and they want you to just shut up and toe the line.

Spotting problems and vocalising them is not something that should be ignored. You are probably complaining to the wrong people however, and probably in an unproductive way.

Anytime you feel like something is hindering your job, I would suggest putting it in an email to your immediate boss and listing why it is a problem. "I just wanted you to know that I am trying to do x, and it has been delayed because of such-and-such a reason. Is there anything we can do about it?" That way the problem is now your managers, not yours.

</comment><comment><USER36> As already suggested by FuNe, there are some books which can help (like the one he proposed, or maybe "Getting to Yes", which I have not yet read, though).

Out of curiosity, how many times do you use these words: no, don't, always, most of the time, 99% of the time, absolutely, they, sigh, boring.

</comment><comment><USER61> It seems like you have good reasons to be toxic ;-) I have felt similarly in some organizations.

In your case "toxic" seems to be that pointing out negative things about the organization too often or too bluntly might lead to colleagues becoming less motivated and less attached. So the "simple" way out would be to reduce your remarks about the flaws of the organization or to state them in a less blunt or confrontational manner.

Of course, what is being considered toxic will differ from one company to the next but also from one country to the other. Germans and Dutch are known for being very honest and direct whereas most other cultures prefer a less confrontational attitude.

</comment><comment><USER62> You've already taken the first and most important step: introspection.

That makes you better than the vast majority of really toxic people out there. We have to celebrate these awakenings and also be kind to ourselves as we keep finding more about ourselves.

Cheers.

</comment><comment><USER63> This is sort of a tangent, but if you feel you have to deal with too many people to do even a small task, you could make a point of volunteering for larger chunks of work to get out in front of these problems. If the technical people are tripping over each other because of the bureaucracy then make sure every time you have to deal with other people that you are getting a bigger win for you and your team. It would have to be extremely dysfunctional if you said you wanted to do bigger projects because you think you can get more done with the realities of the organization and they said no.

</comment><comment><USER64> A lot of the comments here are assuming that the OP is indeed "toxic", and needs to fundamentally change his behavior. There is a good possibility that this is true, but without more details, we don't know for sure either.

Reading through the discussion, OP comes across as someone who is very motivated and driven. And I know from first hand experience that there are a lot of companies/teams out there, where everyone is just coasting, picking up their paychecks, and dislike any "troublemakers" who try to create work for them or move them outside their comfort zones. There's a real possibility that this is the kind of situation that OP is finding himself in.

The real question is: How do you react when something like this happens?

Scenario A: You're trying to get something done, but someone else is blocking you for a week, without offering you any good reasons. After a week of waiting in frustration, you send a polite email to that person, CCing his manager, and ask him when you can expect to get what you need. That person takes it personally, because you just made him "look bad" in front of his manager. His manager takes his side out of loyalty, they both complain to your manager, and you end up with a "toxic" performance review.

Scenario B: You're stuck waiting for someone, and it's been a week. You send that person a sharply worded email, insinuate that they are being incompetent, and verbally abuse them to others as well. Word eventually gets around, and your manager tells you that you're contributing to a toxic work atmosphere.

If Scenario B better describes your behavior, then you're definitely at fault. It's good to be driven and hard-working, and to expect excellence from the organization, but there's no reason why you have to be rude, and make personal attacks, in the process. Describing faults in an objective and dispassionate manner is a lot more effective, than insulting or abusing people.

But if Scenario A better describes what's happening, and I'm sure it has happened to a number of people, then you should absolutely not change, and find an organization that better matches your standards for excellence. There are many great companies that are always looking for passionate employees with high standards for excellence.

</comment><comment><USER65> The amount of complicated 'techniques' being advised should show you one thing: some companies have complicated and toxic environments and it's a rigmarole and a farce or parody of trustful human communication to use those techniques.

Probably the best thing to do to avoid 'engaging in toxic discussions' is to avoid the toxic environment in the first place. Find another job where communication isn't toxic or freelance.

</comment><comment><USER66> The short response I'd say is: mindfulness.

I think every human is capable is discerning positive and negative behavior if the said human is observing the situation as an outsider. Practicing mindfulness allows you to be able to remove yourself from the equation and be more aware of your mind's reactions and behaviors even when you are caught in a difficult situation.

Find the book: Search Inside Yourself on Amazon and start with that. Hopefully that'll help you with your journey.

</comment><comment><USER67> In your post, when met with feedback about your own behavior, you point to outside issues. Be open to the possibility that your behavior is actually an issue.

Consider taking time to reflect after interactions. E.g. after a meeting, how did others (likely) feel? Were there any "off notes"? Think of how you could have improved what you said - how to further your agenda and also have others coming away positively?

</comment><comment><USER68> There are times when toxicity is situational. It could be that you're not toxic in general, but the conditions in your work environment are such that your responses comes across as toxic to those you work with.

There are some changes you can make; perhaps it is possible to voice your frustrations more diplomatically. Your IT department probably isn't blocking you because they enjoy being obstructive jerks. They likely have a very different set of priorities than you, and different goals they're trying to accomplish.

While large organizations do have their share of people who are capricious and arbitrary jerks, a lot of the slowness you're encountering comes from friction between various groups operating with different sets of priorities. In groups that work together, the intersection of their priority sets is usually enough to prevent all-out war, but there's often enough difference to cause slowness and bureaucracy.

As other have mentioned, one option is to just leave and find somewhere that is a better fit. Another option is to try to be passionate about the parts of your job you can control, and dispassionate about the parts you don't have control over.

A third option is to try to become a calm, detached professional. Save your passion for your own projects, because the company is most definitely not passionate about paying you. Do what you're paid to do as professionally as you can. When you find yourself blocked by other groups like IT, document it and estimate how much delay it has caused. Having a record of how much time has been lost due to blockage from other groups will enable your team and your manager(s) to assign a dollar value to the delay, which can give them the leverage they need to get changes enacted.

A final option, which may or may not be possible depending on your organization and your position within it: engage with people in IT and any other groups that you feel are blocking you. Try to understand them, and get a feel for what their goals and concerns are. There might be better ways to work together that help _everyone_ achieve their goal more effectively. If your company is as bureaucratic as it sounds, telling people that you are trying to "synergize to find win-win solutions" might buy you the political cover and time you need to pursue this course of action.

Whatever you decide to do, I wish you success!

</comment><comment><USER69> Many years ago, I read "The no asshole rule" by Robert Sutton and it help me a lot.

[https://www.amazon.com/Asshole-Rule-Civilized-Workplace- Surv...](https://www.amazon.com/Asshole-Rule-Civilized-Workplace-Surviving- ebook/dp/B00FOTRBOK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467231654&sr=1-1&keywords=the+no+asshole+rule#navbar)

</comment><comment><USER70> Actual toxic behavior usually involves playing corporate politics in a way that's detrimental to the work you're supposed to be engaged in. Voicing negative views openly is healthy and should be encouraged, as long as you know what you're talking about. If you whine and complain but do not have a proposed solution, then that is not toxic behavior it's just garden variety laziness.

<comment><USER71> I think there is a caveat. If team X is slowing your workflow, you don't say, "I am unable to do $FOO because team X are a bunch of lazy bastards with a shit process." Instead, you can try, "I can see that team X has a lot on their plate. I do need their support to complete $FOO, and the current process seems to be hindering that. What can we do to improve this situation? I think we could do $BAR, but I want to get some buy-in first."

I feel the difference between toxic and not toxic (at least where I work) is how you approach situations: constructively vs not.

Negative view should be able to be discussed. But it should be done in a way as to seek progress and improve. Not to just shit on other people or teams. I've seen people who don't get this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> It sounds like you're posting here because you want someone to reaffirm that your work place is toxic.

Well, I'm happy to oblige:

Your work place is toxic.

</comment><comment><USER73> Work on your own internal dialogue.

Ask yourself:

\- Does this need to be said?

\- Does this need to be said by me?

\- Does this need to be said by me, now?

Once you get a basic functional filter set up, you can work on tone.

Find a role model to "look up to" in your toxic moments - it can be anyone; Gandhi, Big Bird, Ron Swanson, Bob Ross, anyone.

Have them speak first. If you like what they say, bring it forward yourself.

</comment><comment><USER74> You can read a book called "The No Asshole Rule". It can explain better than I can how to deal with a toxic work environment and how to contribute for a better one, starting by explaining the actual cost of toxic behavior.

Personally I am still working in not being a jerk at times.

</comment><comment><USER75> Is there a chance that you are on the autism spectrum? Many people who gravitate toward technology are. Efforts toward inclusion usually don't recognize the special needs of people on the spectrum.

You may have a cause of action. They may legally be required to provide accommodation.

<comment><USER76> Speaking as someone who's on the spectrum, just because one is autistic doesn't automatically make them toxic - nor does being toxic automatically make one autistic. This is a really disingenuous and harmful stereotype of people on the spectrum. Autism affects more than just social functioning, and a great number of us, myself included, have no problems behaving in a positive and supportive fashion.

<comment><USER75> > Speaking as someone who's on the spectrum, just because one is autistic > doesn't automatically make them toxic - nor does being toxic automatically > make one autistic. This is a really disingenuous and harmful stereotype of > people on the spectrum.

You should note that I did not say either of those things, nor do I believe them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> If I were in your shoes, the first thing I would do is take this review as a signal to look for a new job. I would consider seeing a therapist as well.

</comment><comment><USER78> Buddhism has the concept of "Right Speech". There are various takes on it over the millenia, but it might be a good starting point.

</comment><comment><USER79> Does your direct manager code now or does he have an extensive coding background. If the answer is no, then the problem is not completely yours.

</comment><comment><USER80> _At my last performance review I was told that I engage in toxic discussion too much and I should halt._

What did they say when you asked them to clarify?

</comment><comment><USER81> Read and apply "nonviolent communication" by Marshall Rosenberg. Precisely on this topic.

</comment><comment><USER82> _I have no qualms_

Obtain and nurture some qualms.

</comment><comment><USER83> IMHO you are not really toxic. Toxic people have not enough empathy to ask themselves about that.

</comment><comment><USER84> Probably just leave your current job. The problem might be with them, not with you.

</comment><comment><USER85> I assume you live in the United States. This means you should move out.

</comment><comment><USER85> You live in the United States I assume. You should move out.

</comment><comment><USER26> I can tell just from reading your replies in this thread that you're "that guy" \-- the guy who always complains, who thinks he's better than every one else he works with, whose life motto is "the skill of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who do not possess it. "

I know, because I was (am?) that guy also.

Every company has a culture, and bad or good, they'll fight to maintain it. Each organization within a company has a culture, and they'll fight to maintain it. Managers will fire perfectly good people because they won't go along with the culture. Even if that culture is toxic.

How do you fix yourself? I'll offer a few things I've tried/done/been told to do:

* Don't make personal attacks. Just say that you're blocked. Don't say "that lazy ass IT department was just playing pingpong all day long, and not fixing my ticket. So I can't do a damn thing today" Just say that your ticket still isn't resolved. Let your manager/pm/whatever escalate. Let the chain of command happen. If you're the one who is supposed to escalate, still don't play that game. Just say you're still blocked, and work on it in private.

* Don't be passive aggressive. That is, if you ever feel like "they think they know what they want and they deserve to get it good and hard" is applicable, step away and grab some coffee.... decaf.

* Don't assume you know better than other people. I struggle with this a lot, because I genuinely do believe that I know more than most other people in my role. I've been told this directly by my managers and peers. If you feel like this is true, use your knowledge to teach instead of demean/humiliate/punch-down your coworkers. If you're the friendly guy who is always willing to chat about design patterns or architecture decisions, and you can help people do their work better, you're going to be everyone's best friend.

* Praise in public, punish in private. If you have an issue with someone or some group, bring it up in a 1-on-1 meeting with someone -- even just a hallway conversation. If you have praise, do it publicly. Make sure everyone hears it. This goes for everyone. If you wanted to shit all over the IT department for not getting you your server, then someone else is like, "the IT department totally handled our server farm blackout, and got production back online in less than an hour. props to them" \-- you might rethink your "lazy" assessment.

* Realize that most people have little-to-zero passion for their job. They're just there to collect a paycheck. While you can piss and moan all you want about these people, they will invariably make up a majority of any company you go to. I go between hyper-passionate and aggressively indifferent, depending on the project, the client, the phase of a project, or even how much sleep I got last night.

Lastly, I've seen engage in toxic discussion too much" before. I've given that advice. It was to a person who was actually very good at what they do, and a great person to work with. The problem is, they were buddy-buddy with the absolute worst person in the office. The guy everyone else goes out of their way to avoid. The guy who tries to make himself the gatekeeper of everything or anything. It's often an IT guy, but sometimes just a middle manager. And if you're hanging out with them, bitching about anyone and anything all day long, you're going to be seen as a lost cause at some point, even if your work is good. As to why they won't just fire that actual toxic person? Companies fight to maintain their status quo over taking risks.

<comment><USER86> > * Don't assume you know better than other people. I struggle with this a > lot, because I genuinely do believe that I know more than most other people > in my role.

And if you still feel like you know better than other people, realize that you need to get them to buy into your knowledge. So you need to teach the organization, but teaching people is really tricky, you can't just explain that something is wrong, you need to create a progression of adaptation with buyin.</comment></comment>


Marc Newson to Join Apple's Design Team - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/09/marc-newson-apple-jony-ive <comment><USER2> It's really difficult for me to see Newson's work as anything but very, very anachronistic. His formal language seems to me to be hopelessly trapped in the 90s.

That being said, his range is impressive. He's capable of working in many different scales and materials. Beside the fact that he's a friend of Ive's, this seems like the best argument for him being a good fit at Apple.

<comment><USER3> > His formal language seems to me to be hopelessly trapped in the 90s.

Can you elaborate on this?

<comment><USER2> Sure, a bit.

Excessive rounded edges, bright pop-colors and lots of plastic seem to me a staple of the 90s. CAM techniques were just starting to hit their stride, so the work from the period often feels like it's just a direct product of the software. Newson's work looks to me like it popped out of a rendering on a Silicon Graphics machine. Karim Rashid, Greg Lyn are easy references. There are many others I can't think of.

It's not just that his work fits the style, but that even his recent work still employs the same techniques.

<comment><USER4> Concur, but 90s/00s aesthetics is rebounding back in the fashion cycle. The new design taste can be palpable to the prime demo, teens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Slideshow of some of Newson's designs:

[http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/09/marc-newson- design...](http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/09/marc-newson-designs- pentax)

Newson's timepiece designs, from his own website:

[http://www.marc- newson.com/ProjectCategorys.aspx?GroupSelect...](http://www.marc- newson.com/ProjectCategorys.aspx?GroupSelected=0&Category=Timepieces)

</comment><comment><USER6> I guess this is a sign of Apple moving more into fashion.

<comment><USER7> This along with signing the CEO of Burberry and Yves Saint Laurent. Clearly, they're not trying to win the battle for best tech gadget which Samsung and others have flung themselves into in an attempt to beat Apple products.

I'm guessing things like the iWatch, phones, and tables will be fashionable, high margin products built to

1) be easy to use 2) look very good and stylish

rather than have the most features...

<comment><USER8> Apple products:

1) are very pretty/trendy/fashionable

2) have a very high build quality(no cheap plastic, lots of aluminum)

3) "just work"

Honestly 2 and 3 are why I stick with them. After owning a mbp and iphone I can't go back to the crappy plastic that every piece of tech seems to be made out of these days, and I never have to worry about something not working on my phone or laptop like I had to with my countless android devices.

When I need to get work done I'll open up my vm or boot into ubuntu/fedora/etc. but other than that I don't need/care about endless customizability that android/linux offer me. I want something works and is easy to use.

<comment><USER9> I agree with your 3 points but I would add one more that isn't positive:

4) designed to the limits of failure, low design quality/resilience

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If I were running Apple, I'd be more worried about becoming great at online services (cloud, auth, security, identity) rather than doubling down on their expertise in fashion and user interface.

This is probably just some poorly timed high-profile acquisitions (Beats) and hires (Dre, Iovine, Ahrendts, Newson), though. I'm sure this occurs to them as well...

<comment><USER11> Design is much more than "fashion" and "user interface." Then again people who don't appreciate design tend to be down on Apple more generally...

<comment><USER8> I'd have to agree sadly. "Use android you can do way more stuff with it and install custom ROMS". Too bad they all look like shit, especially the vendor specific UIs.

Google really needs to start working on the Android UI and forcing vendors to use it, windows phone/iOS blow android out of the water when it comes to design.

<comment><USER12> Also, Android should really start restricting their users to a certain screen size. Preferably very very small. This is a basic design principle that they really should have done their homework on.</comment></comment></comment></comment>