You can do whatever you want, I'm just sharing if my manager says "we won't know how to fix a bug in the xyz service if you were hit and killed by the bus", my response will be "I don't really give a f what happens at this stupid company after I die".
Take it like this to understand that mine was aimed to be constructive criticism:
Stop reminding the people who work at your stupid company, doing all your stupid scrum bs ceremonies that if they died and left the wife and children behind, you would be really worried about Tom needing two days to fix a bug in the iOS watch application, whereas it would take you only two hours. Again, you are free to do whatever you want, but if you keep reminding me that none of this bs what I'm doing here really matters to me, don't be surprised that I quit as soon as possible.
but the manager is obviously (unless they are very, very bad) using a metaphor (that you don't like). By responding literally, what you're really saying is "I don't really give a f what happens at this stupid company after I LEAVE MY CURRENT RESPONSIBILITIES" regardless of why. It sounds like you have extreme trust issues with your manager if they can't make a (pretty benign) verbal mis-step with you, without this sort of response, and your follow up suggests you're in a really bad space. I can't believe it's not visible and leaking into other aspects of your work and interactions.
I did have a previous workplace, though, where they couldn't stop yapping about the bus factor and I disliked that phrase because it kept reminding me that one day I die and am wasting one more hour of my living days in a pointless retrospective that will have no positive effect on anything.
> You can do whatever you want, I'm just sharing if my manager says "we won't know how to fix a bug in the xyz service if you were hit and killed by the bus", my response will be "I don't really give a f what happens at this stupid company after I die".
So? The company isn't going to let all their employees starve to death out of compassion for the one that did die.
They know you don't give a fuck about what happens after you're dead, but they're still alive, and they have to keep things running so that they can continue eating.
Telling people that you don't care what effect your death has on them is a pretty good way to indicate how selfish you are.
I agree with you. But if you hate the poduct, and you hate scrumlords, and you hate your job, and you think the world would be better off if everyone at your company went on to spend their life working on something else.
It may not be selfish to feel an emotion giving you a background hint about reality. There are hungry children in the world, Im not selfish just because I dont want to eat fermented soybeans.
So you would be OK if I used "abducted and gang raped for so long that you come out seemingly alive and physically intact but your mind has broke and you enter a catatonic state and can't do a handover" as an example? Because if you are not one of those "sensitive people" you should be able to focus on the "can't do a handover" part of the scenario and not get caught up in the gruesome part?
And before you ask, yes I enjoy being overly graphic like this on the pseudonumoyous internet to exaggerate my points but I wouldn't do this irl. That is hypocritical of me.
Yeah I realize that "abducted" could suggest aliens, I was thinking more along the lines of Mexican drug cartel style abduction where your raping and being left alive is a wake up call to your partner in the police force that has turned the wrong stones. And the dudes doing the raping is not pretty. But the point is you are not able to do a proper handover, remember?
The fact that you only respond like this anonymously should answer your original question/not-a-question.
from a more practical perspective: No, because you're replacing a well-understood metaphor with something that is unknown, juvenile and stupid, removing the value we get from shared language constructs.
By exaggerating the example and moving out of shared constructs I was trying to get wegfaw... to see how it is to be "annoyingly sensitive". That even though "hit by a bus" is "well-understood", it could still invoke very graphic memories if for example someone actually has lost someone in a bus accident. Sometimes words are not just words.
But i could imagine someone who states that it's his "right" to be as irreverent as he likes to whomever he wants to is not open to the concept of other people's perspective.
And just to be clear, I wasn't saying that you should use my example instead. :D
To be honest if you said that in a meeting I would laugh and immediatly want to make friends with you.
For me this sort of signaling isn't a sign of aggressive anticooperation, but a sign to me you see through bullshit, will point out wrongdoings, and will be candid. It doesn't evoke disgust or discomfort. It feels honest and friendly.
In the opposite case, bussiness casual english feels cold and disingenuous to me. Like reading apologies by GPT. I feel it as annoying insincerity. (I give a pass to anyone over 40, and usually find in private they are actually human after all.)
Well, before everybody got sensitive I'd be OK with that too. It's not even very different from real world teasing talk and examples that were used by actual dev teams before the cult of HR grew.
And of course it's a strawman exaggerated version of the common "hit by a bus" idiom.
Life and death metaphors are my right to enjoy and share irreverently as the mortal being I am.