zlacker

[parent] [thread] 13 comments
1. hilux+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-12-28 01:58:05
The dress code calls for "smart business attire."

The title sponsor is Google, a well-known tech company.

Here's Google CEO Sundar Pichai in GQ: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/lifestyle/article/sundar-picha...

replies(2): >>robotr+b2 >>ensign+e5
2. robotr+b2[view] [source] 2024-12-28 02:24:00
>>hilux+(OP)
And here he is arriving at an event with a dress code.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/05/04/multimedia/04even...

Another event, another dress code.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfQwah...

Edit: removed extraneous arguments. Point here is that Pichai observes event-specific dress codes rather than assuming that Google’s code applies.

replies(1): >>hilux+T2
◧◩
3. hilux+T2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 02:32:35
>>robotr+b2
What's your point? I'm not suggesting that Sundar ALWAYS wears jeans and NEVER wears suits.

I'm saying that it is ACCEPTABLE to wear jeans, even in a professional setting. Jeans are "smart business attire." (If the dress code were "formal," that would be something else. But it isn't.)

replies(3): >>kevinv+b3 >>robotr+d3 >>searea+v3
◧◩◪
4. kevinv+b3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 02:36:33
>>hilux+T2
I work at Google. I would not describe Google’s dress code as “smart business attire”.
◧◩◪
5. robotr+d3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 02:36:41
>>hilux+T2
Jeans are not smart business attire. Google’s code is casual, not smart business.
◧◩◪
6. searea+v3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 02:39:35
>>hilux+T2
What's your point? If you find a photo of Larry Page in pajamas then you should be able to wear that to any Google event?
replies(3): >>hilux+Q3 >>robotr+v4 >>dullcr+F4
◧◩◪◨
7. hilux+Q3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 02:42:34
>>searea+v3
Does Larry Page regularly do business events in pajamas?
◧◩◪◨
8. robotr+v4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 02:50:51
>>searea+v3
The point is that Pichai observes the dress code requested by the event host.

Did I make it so obscurely?

replies(2): >>ensign+z5 >>searea+A5
◧◩◪◨
9. dullcr+F4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 02:53:53
>>searea+v3
Yes, obviously.
10. ensign+e5[view] [source] 2024-12-28 03:04:31
>>hilux+(OP)
Had a friend who sold boats for a living. One day he was at a business meeting where the attire was listed as "business attire". When one of his buddies, another salesman, showed up wearing shorts, a t-shirt and sunglasses, my friend made a snarky remark about him not getting the memo about the attire. His buddy responds, "I don't know what business you're in, but I am in the boat business."
◧◩◪◨⬒
11. ensign+z5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 03:08:00
>>robotr+v4
To counter, the dress code was vague and imprecise. See my other comment here- >>42528218

EDIT: Actually, the poster above was not accurate. The dress code is found here- https://www.fide.com/docs/regulations/wrbc_regulations_2024_...

And it was much more precise than "smart business attire.".

replies(1): >>searea+D5
◧◩◪◨⬒
12. searea+A5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 03:08:24
>>robotr+v4
I was not responding to you.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
13. searea+D5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 03:08:46
>>ensign+z5
Nope. It explicitly disallowed jeans.
replies(1): >>ensign+z6
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
14. ensign+z6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-12-28 03:22:18
>>searea+D5
You are correct, I have edited my comment.
[go to top]