It's 2025. What things don't you miss now that used to be commonplace?

[Mudd]

Even when the bank doesn't seem to be all that busy, it can take a long time to get things done just due to how slow everything is on any given day. I once waited over an hour before walking out without doing anything.

It was never much better than that. The only time most banks seemed to have nearly adequate teller staff was during a few peak times - say, for a few weeks before Christmas, or on Friday afternoons - and then they were overwhelmed anyway.

Now I just need to transfer money directly from one account to another. I do it in ten minutes while having my morning coffee at the corner shop - where I deal with actual people talking about things more interesting than, "Would you like that all in tens and twenties?"

 

[Owain Taggart]

On top of the constant use of online applications, something new popped up in 2024 that never popped up before when applying to jobs -- the scourge known as Paradox AI. Any company using Paradox AI, not only doesn't have paper application alternatives, but there isn't even an online application. You go to the site, hit the application button, a chat box opens up. You think you made a mistake or it's an annoying pop up trying to help you, so you close it and try again. Goddamn chatbox opens back up.

Years ago when I was submitting applications, I was disappointed to not hear back from any of the places I'd submitted to. I thought that they would at least give everyone a courtesy reply even if it was to let them know they hadn't been accepted. Instead I waited and waited only to never hear anything back, which I felt wasn't great as it leaves people hanging without closure.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Once place had the courtesy to tell me they will only contact the person they will hire, so if I didn't hear back, I didn't get the job.

 

[Captain Marsh]

Years ago when I was submitting applications, I was disappointed to not hear back from any of the places I'd submitted to. I thought that they would at least give everyone a courtesy reply even if it was to let them know they hadn't been accepted. Instead I waited and waited only to never hear anything back, which I felt wasn't great as it leaves people hanging without closure.

And it can be worse if you are like me in that you are completely blind to social cues because something like that can leave you wondering/not knowing what you did wrong during the application/interview.

But I remember talking to my dad, who worked in a team lead/supervisory position at the time, some years back. He told me that job applications and interviews nowadays are set up to screen out people with disabilities. Sad but true.

 

[SithHappens]

The job application process is a two way thing. If a company can't be bothered to respond after your application or interview they aren't worth working for.

2 years down the line they may be advertising again but the candidate may choose not to apply because of past experience. That candidate might be the ideal person 2 years on. Big loss to the business because they were to lazy to respond

 

[Owain Taggart]

And it can be worse if you are like me in that you are completely blind to social cues because something like that can leave you wondering/not knowing what you did wrong during the application/interview.

I'm sorry to hear about your troubles, and that's also part of the issue. I'm not sure when they stopped giving replies, but you're right that it leaves you wondering if you did something wrong. It ends up making it feel like the company is giving you the cold shoulder when a simple reply/rejection would go a long way to making you feel like it didn't fall on deaf ears.

But I remember talking to my dad, who worked in a team lead/supervisory position at the time, some years back. He told me that job applications and interviews nowadays are set up to screen out people with disabilities. Sad but true.

In Canada, I think that would be considered illegal as it would fall under discrimination, and while there are possibly limits due to efficiency depending on the different types of workplaces, workplaces have DEI rules covered under the Employment Equity Act that state that among others, people with disabilities have to be given workforce representation. A workplace that would screen out people with disabilities would be grounds for investigation, with the company being charged if found to be at fault.

There's a guy with a physical disability who works at my local Costco and has for many years. He has one arm that is physically shorter than the other, but they've found him a job that he's happy to be doing.

 

[tharpdevenport]

The job application process is a two way thing. If a company can't be bothered to respond after your application or interview they aren't worth working for.

2 years down the line they may be advertising again but the candidate may choose not to apply because of past experience. That candidate might be the ideal person 2 years on. Big loss to the business because they were to lazy to respond

The county over here, posts their jobs on GovernmentJobs.com

BUT, there is a problem ... if you don't get the job, you can't re-apply for the same job for something like tow or three years -- the website will tell you that if you re-apply when the job is posted again, SO ... if the person you hire doesn't work out, then all the qualified candidates can't re-apply, and they are in a dwindling pool of candidates unless HR is allowed to keep people they interviews, on file.

 

[Captain Marsh]

I'm sorry to hear about your troubles, and that's also part of the issue. I'm not sure when they stopped giving replies, but you're right that it leaves you wondering if you did something wrong. It ends up making it feel like the company is giving you the cold shoulder when a simple reply/rejection would go a long way to making you feel like it didn't fall on deaf ears.



In Canada, I think that would be considered illegal as it would fall under discrimination, and while there are possibly limits due to efficiency depending on the different types of workplaces, workplaces have DEI rules covered under the Employment Equity Act that state that among others, people with disabilities have to be given workforce representation. A workplace that would screen out people with disabilities would be grounds for investigation, with the company being charged if found to be at fault.

There's a guy with a physical disability who works at my local Costco and has for many years. He has one arm that is physically shorter than the other, but they've found him a job that he's happy to be doing.

I'm in the US where we have the Americans with Disabilities Act. The problem with the ADA is that the ADA has been stripped and gutted over the years and was nearly scrapped in 2018. Not to mention it's almost impossible to enforce. Also, most states here in the US have "At Will" employment laws which means:

1) Employers can fire you without warning or reason.
2) You can quit your job without warning or reason.

Hell, a lot of employers (including big national chains) lie about why you were fired.

And there is a list of who is exempt from the ADA such as:

• Small employers
  • Title I applies only to businesses with 15 or more employees.
  • Employers with fewer than 15 employees are exempt from ADA’s employment provisions.
• Religious organizations
  • Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious entities are exempt from ADA employment rules.
  • This includes religious schools or institutions directly controlled by religious groups.
• Federal government
  • The ADA does not cover the federal government as an employer. Instead, federal employees are protected under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which has similar provisions.
• Private membership clubs
  • Truly private clubs (not open to the public) are exempt from ADA requirements, including employment.

Not to mention when it comes to hiring processes screening out people with disabilities:

• Online applications
  • Many platforms aren’t fully accessible to screen readers or adaptive tech.
  • Timed assessments or CAPTCHA tests can block applicants with cognitive or motor disabilities.
• Algorithmic screening
  • AI résumé filters often penalize nontraditional work histories, gaps due to disability, or accommodations listed.
  • Automated “personality tests” can flag neurodivergent traits as “poor fit.”
• Interview structures
  • Group interviews, rapid-fire questions, or “culture fit” assessments often disadvantage autistic applicants or those with anxiety.
  • Employers may equate eye contact, body language, or speech patterns with competence, screening out those who communicate differently.
• Physical and sensory barriers
  • In-person interviews may be held in inaccessible spaces.
  • Bright lights, noise, or lack of accommodations can overwhelm candidates with sensory sensitivities.

 

[Kraig]

In the US, we had Cigarette Vending machines. There was one in a restaurant I worked in when I was in High School and my first year of college. It was a Servomation machine. We had boxes of Servomation branded matchbooks behind the counter to give out if someone bought a pack from the machine. I took a box of matchbooks home. I am still using the matches 50 years later to light the fire in my wood burning stove.

 

[Set Harth]

You got one box of matchbooks to last 50 years??

 

[Kraig]

You got one box of matchbooks to last 50 years??

The box contained 50 packs of matchbooks, with 20 matches in each matchbook. 1000 matches total, I have about 25 match books of Servomation matches left. I also use diamond brand wood matches, and I have cases of military surplus MREs (emergency earthquake supplies), each individual meal contains a matchbook. When I do a quality check on an MRE from the case, I keep the matchbook for later use.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I'm in the US where we have the Americans with Disabilities Act. The problem with the ADA is that the ADA has been stripped and gutted over the years and was nearly scrapped in 2018. Not to mention it's almost impossible to enforce. Also, most states here in the US have "At Will" employment laws which means:

Oh yeah, I've been hearing the things the administration has been doing. It's really a shame. Makes me really glad to be in Canada with all of that is still supported. It does show how different the countries are at the moment.

 

[Avro Arrow]

In Canada, I think that would be considered illegal as it would fall under discrimination, and while there are possibly limits due to efficiency depending on the different types of workplaces, workplaces have DEI rules covered under the Employment Equity Act that state that among others, people with disabilities have to be given workforce representation. A workplace that would screen out people with disabilities would be grounds for investigation, with the company being charged if found to be at fault.

I mean, let's not kid ourselves. Even though it may be illegal, it is super easy for companies to get around that if they wanted to. If you have 50 applicants with roughly the same qualifications/experience, and one of them was a person with disabilities, it's really easy to just include that person with the other 48 unsuccessful candidates. It would be really difficult to prove that discrimination was the reason they didn't get the job.

If an employee acquired a disability while working at a company, and then was fired, then that's a lot stronger case. But the hiring process is already designed to weed out large numbers of people, so it's unfortunately quite easy for companies to exclude people they may be prejudiced against.

 

[SithHappens]

In Canada, I think that would be considered illegal as it would fall under discrimination, and while there are possibly limits due to efficiency depending on the different types of workplaces, workplaces have DEI rules covered under the Employment Equity Act that state that among others, people with disabilities have to be given workforce representation. A workplace that would screen out people with disabilities would be grounds for investigation, with the company being charged if found to be at fault.

Same applies in the UK too. You don't have to declare disabilities during the job application process and a company can't only revoke a job offer after if they feel the disability is a safety concern.

That said the potential next government here has gone on record to say they want to do away with the equality act and human rights so not sure what would happen then.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I mean, let's not kid ourselves. Even though it may be illegal, it is super easy for companies to get around that if they wanted to. If you have 50 applicants with roughly the same qualifications/experience, and one of them was a person with disabilities, it's really easy to just include that person with the other 48 unsuccessful candidates. It would be really difficult to prove that discrimination was the reason they didn't get the job.

If an employee acquired a disability while working at a company, and then was fired, then that's a lot stronger case. But the hiring process is already designed to weed out large numbers of people, so it's unfortunately quite easy for companies to exclude people they may be prejudiced against.

Well sure, not everything is going to be 100%, but I still much prefer that something like this is in place compared to not having anything at all. Perfect? No, but what is in this world? I've seen many news stories about organizations that have been caught using discriminatory practices and faced fines.

Regarding disabilities acquired at a workplace, that's a whole other can of worms, because then they have to investigate whether the person was at fault or if the workplace itself was negligent with its safety, and in certain cases, might require the company to pay a settlement even while the injured gets put off work due to being unable to work.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I still much prefer that something like this is in place compared to not having anything at all.

Oh, 100% agree. I just always like to mention that just because laws exist, companies still have ways around them, and so there’s always room for improvement.

I've seen many news stories about organizations that have been caught using discriminatory practices and faced fines.

Good to see!

 

[TedShatner10]

I think there is less but do you not think when those slurs are used today it's meant (mostly) differently?

In my opinion through the 80s a lot of the use of those slurs was down to ignorance. And while I don't excuse that, I think today while they may be used less there is more venom and hatred behind them when they are used.

I think we "weaponized" in smallish online social circles increasingly more and more stigmatising words (like they were magic words), and it's the chickens coming home to roost, with bigots and bullies inevitably not giving a fuck either way, more aggressively dropping them like an inverted form of virtue signalling (like that genocidal tycoon villain from The Naked Gun remake blurting out "getting retarded" implying his contempt for the disabled, etc).

I don't think the UK is quite as conservative and ignorant/arrogant as it was back in the 60s, 70s, early 80s but it has somewhat regressed in other areas and put under socio-political strain ever since 2008 Credit Crunch (triggering lost decades with relatively stagnated wages, lack of consistent investment, and a horrific bottleneck with housing, etc). Mass immigration feels like putting a grubby band aid on a gushing wound and it triggers hostility in the UK's hyper competitive but paltry job market, still working with the now outdated Thatcherite or Blairite era playbooks.

I do almost miss the US tech giants from the early 1990s to late 2000s; now they've mostly all gone bullshit fucking insane with their lazy subscription models and reams of AI "content" eye/brain pollution. Greed motivated cheapness corrodes away the foundations and pillars of any empire, no matter how mighty...

 

[Owain Taggart]

Oh, 100% agree. I just always like to mention that just because laws exist, companies still have ways around them, and so there’s always room for improvement.

Well, that's a given. No matter how many laws there are, there are still unscrupulous companies trying to use loopholes to get around them. That will always be the case no matter where we are in the world. We just have to do our best and work with what we have.

 

[DEWLine]

Once place had the courtesy to tell me they will only contact the person they will hire, so if I didn't hear back, I didn't get the job.

Some places still do practice that sort of up-front courtesy.

 

[Avro Arrow]

(like that genocidal tycoon villain from The Naked Gun remake blurting out "getting retarded" implying his contempt for the disabled, etc)

OK, so I dug through the archives to make sure I was clear on the rules before saying anything. But I can now confirm that our policy on slurs is zero-tolerance, including if you are just quoting something from another source.

I get the point you are making, and I know that you are not using nor endorsing the slur yourself. But just its use alone, in any context, is prohibited.

Because of the context here, I'm not not going to issue a formal infraction this time, but please don't do this again. Thank you.