this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
409 points (97.7% liked)

Showerthoughts

42362 readers
1480 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Not only does this disincentivize HR from running fake vacancies or stringing multiple candidates on just to keep their options open, but it also solves the problem of unemployed people job-searching effectively working full-time for free. The fact that companies would have to pay to hire workers would mean they try to make the selection as short and effective as possible.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net 96 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

There’s no way that would be a viable career.

  1. You’d have to reliably get interviews, which is hard enough as it is.
  2. It’s a lot of work to do sustainably—more work than many jobs imo.
  3. You get none of the other benefits of accepting the job.
  4. Eventually you would run out of companies for which you were qualified, and you’d probably stop getting interviews.

Your argument sounds similar to anti-welfare arguments. Sure, some people may abuse the system, but it wouldn’t pay that well, and the positives to society would greatly outweigh any abuse.

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 36 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Exactly, for every one person who abuses the rule to get 10 hours of labor paid to them in exchange for doing no work, you'll have 999 people that are actually using the system as intended.

Are you really the kind of person that'll fuck over 999 people just to make sure that one person doesn't get ahead in a sneaky way?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 hours ago

Are you really the kind of person that'll fuck over 999 people just to make sure that one person doesn't get ahead in a sneaky way?

Are you sure you want to see people's actual answers to this?

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 16 points 13 hours ago

Not to mention, some companies right now are abusing interview candidates to get free work with "trial project" type assignments, or "How would you fix this problem, if you were hired?" type of free consultations. If some candidates abused the companies in return, I'd call that fair play.

[–] ttyybb@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours ago

But think of the shareholders. Who's helping them out?

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago

I agree with all of that actually. I'm just used to trying to find the failure mode of anything that sounds good lately.

Yeah if it could be enforced I think it might be viable.