I told my boss I'd reply to his email once the weekend was over. What followed was a text blow-up I NEVER saw coming...
A heated exchange between a boss and his employee over weekend work expectations has ignited a firestorm online, with many condemning the manager's outdated views on work-life balance.
The controversy began when the boss sent a message to his employee: 'Hey, did you see my email?'
The employee responded, 'Hi, I noticed the email notification, but it's the weekend. I'll get to it first thing Monday morning.'
Unimpressed, the boss replied, 'I wouldn't send an email at the weekend that wasn't important. I do expect a quick response to things like this, regardless of the day.'
The employee, seeking to maintain personal boundaries, explained, 'Oh ok, sorry. It's been a long week, and I could really do with keeping my weekend separate if that's ok. I am out at the moment, is there any way I can look at it on Monday?'
The boss's response was scathing: 'Honestly, I am so bored of hearing lines like this from your generation. Like seriously? What happened to just putting in a bit of effort and taking their career seriously?
'It's just take, take, take with you lot. I am fed up. Men used to work every hour of the day, seven days a week. I need a response today on that email.'
The employee, attempting to de-escalate, replied, 'It's not about taking, I am just exhausted from the week. I am out at the moment, but I will try and look at it later on this evening if I have a chance.'
The boss concluded, 'This is beyond disappointing. We are talking about one small email response, it isn't like I am asking for the world. We'll talk on Monday.'
Workplace expert Ben Askins shared the exchange on TikTok, criticising the boss' approach.
He questioned, 'Are you paying them for seven days of work? Because you actually get to control the time that you're paying them.
'And the time that they're not being paid, that's actually nothing to do with you.'
Askins highlighted the unrealistic expectations some employers have.
'This misunderstanding of 'I pay you for five days a week, therefore I should get seven days of 24 hours of your time' is such a weird concept people have that we have got to cut out.'
He also pointed out the potential consequences of such management styles, noting, 'The reason he's so burnt out is because he's not enjoying his job and he's not having a very good work environment.'
Addressing the broader issue, Askins emphasised, 'The reason is you have to work for 30, 40, 50 years of your life, right?
'So if you burn yourself out in three to four years and cause yourself to completely fall apart, you're not going to make it. It's a marathon, not a sprint.'
The exchange has sparked widespread discussion about generational differences in work culture and the importance of respecting employees' personal time.
Askins concluded, 'The amount of red flags in this one tiny message is mind-blowing. The generation the boss is from had it the easiest out of everyone.'
Hundreds weighed in on the discussion.
'But realistically older generations didn't have email or mobiles, so couldn't be harassed in this way. It's not a decent comparison,' one said.
'The initial text should have been ignored until Monday morning too,' another added.
A worker shared, 'My boss messages me out of hours all the time. I leave him on unread until 10am on a Monday. My level of pettiness grows weekly with every message he sends from Friday night onwards.'
On the other side of the argument, a woman said: 'Am I the only one that would just read the email and reply? It might of been something so minor or a basic answer that makes everything easier or closes a sale or solves a huge problem. Give and take.'
The incident serves as a reminder of the evolving expectations in the modern workplace and the need for employers to adapt to foster a healthy work environment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Geeky Gadgets
20 minutes ago
- Geeky Gadgets
How to Connect a GoDaddy Domain to GitHub Pages in 2025
Have you ever clicked on a website link, only to find a generic URL that screams 'unfinished project'? It's a common pitfall for creators and businesses alike: building a stunning website on GitHub Pages but leaving it tied to a default subdomain. The result? A professional-looking site undermined by an unpolished web address. But here's the good news: connecting a custom domain from GoDaddy to your GitHub Pages site isn't just possible—it's surprisingly simple. With the right guidance, you can transform your site's first impression from amateur to authoritative in no time. And in this step-by-step how-to, crafted by Tutorials by Manizha & Ryan, we'll show you exactly how to make it happen. By the end of this guide created by Manizha & Ryan, you'll know how to seamlessly link your GoDaddy domain to your GitHub Pages site, making sure your online presence is both polished and secure. From purchasing the perfect domain to configuring DNS settings and allowing HTTPS for added trustworthiness, this tutorial covers all the essentials. Whether you're launching a personal portfolio, a small business site, or a project showcase, this setup offers a cost-effective way to stand out online. Curious about how to navigate the technical steps or avoid common pitfalls? Let's explore how you can take control of your website's identity and make it truly your own. After all, your domain name is more than just a URL—it's your digital handshake with the world. Connect GoDaddy to GitHub Step 1: Purchase a Domain on GoDaddy The first step is to acquire a domain name that aligns with your website's purpose or branding. Visit GoDaddy and use their domain search tool to find an available name that suits your needs. Once you've selected a domain, log in to your GoDaddy account or create one if you're new to the platform. Complete the purchase process, and consider adding optional features such as: Domain privacy protection: This feature helps protect your personal information from being publicly accessible in WHOIS records. This feature helps protect your personal information from being publicly accessible in WHOIS records. Email hosting: Provides a professional email address associated with your domain, enhancing your brand's credibility. After completing the purchase, your domain will be ready for further configuration. Step 2: Set Up a GitHub Repository Next, prepare a GitHub repository to host your website files. If you don't already have a GitHub account, sign up and log in. Follow these steps to create and configure your repository: Click the 'New Repository' button on your GitHub dashboard. Provide a name for your repository and set it to public, as GitHub Pages requires public repositories for hosting. Upload your website files, making sure you include an ` file, which serves as the entry point for your site. If you don't have a pre-designed website, you can explore free HTML templates from platforms like or to get started quickly. 2025 Guide to Connecting GoDaddy Domain To GitHub Pages Watch this video on YouTube. Enhance your knowledge on Connect GoDaddy domain to GitHub Pages by exploring a selection of articles and guides on the subject. Step 3: Configure GitHub Pages Once your repository is ready, you need to enable GitHub Pages to deploy your website. Follow these steps to configure it: Navigate to the repository's settings page. Scroll down to the 'Pages' section. Select the branch where your website files are stored (typically the `main` branch) and the folder (usually the `/root` directory). branch) and the folder (usually the directory). Save your changes to enable GitHub Pages and deploy your site. After deployment, GitHub will provide a default URL for your website. Use this URL to verify that your site is live and functioning as expected. Step 4: Link Your Custom Domain To connect your GoDaddy domain to your GitHub Pages site, you'll need to configure the DNS settings in your GoDaddy account. Follow these steps to link your domain: Log in to your GoDaddy account and navigate to the DNS settings for your domain. Add the following 'A' records to point your domain to GitHub's IP addresses: 185.199.108.153 185.199.109.153 185.199.110.153 185.199.111.153 Optionally, create a 'CNAME' record that points to your GitHub Pages URL (e.g., ` Save the changes and allow up to 48 hours for DNS propagation. During this period, your domain will begin redirecting to your GitHub Pages-hosted website. Step 5: Finalize and Test After the DNS propagation process is complete, test your custom domain by entering it into a web browser. Ensure that it resolves correctly to your GitHub Pages site. For enhanced security, enable HTTPS in your GitHub Pages settings by following these steps: Go to your repository's settings page. In the 'Pages' section, check the option to enforce HTTPS. Allowing HTTPS ensures encrypted communication between your website and its visitors, improving both security and trustworthiness. Benefits of Connecting a GoDaddy Domain to GitHub Pages By linking a GoDaddy domain to GitHub Pages, you combine the advantages of free static site hosting with the professionalism of a custom domain. This setup is ideal for various purposes, including: Personal portfolios: Showcase your skills and projects with a polished online presence. Showcase your skills and projects with a polished online presence. Small business websites: Create a cost-effective platform to promote your services or products. Create a cost-effective platform to promote your services or products. Project showcases: Share your work with a wider audience in a professional format. With minimal cost and effort, this approach allows you to establish a secure and customized online presence tailored to your specific needs. Media Credit: Tutorials by Manizha & Ryan Filed Under: Guides Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Meta wins AI copyright lawsuit as US judge rules against authors
Mark Zuckerberg's Meta has won the backing of a judge in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of authors, in the second legal victory for the US artificial intelligence industry this week. The writers, who included Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, had argued that the Facebook owner had breached copyright law by using their books without permission to train its AI system. The ruling follows a decision on Monday that Anthropic, another major player in the AI field, had not infringed authors' copyright. The US district judge Vince Chhabria, in San Francisco, said in his decision on the Meta case that the authors had not presented enough evidence that the technology company's AI would dilute the market for their work to show that its conduct was illegal under US copyright law. However, the ruling offered some hope for American creative professionals who argue that training AI models on their work without permission is illegal. Chhabria also said that using copyrighted work without permission to train AI would be unlawful in 'many circumstances', splitting with another federal judge in San Francisco who found on Monday in a separate lawsuit that Anthropic's AI training made 'fair use' of copyrighted materials. The doctrine of fair use allows the use of copyrighted works without the copyright owner's permission in some circumstances and is a key defence for the tech companies. 'This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful,' Chhabria said. 'It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one.' Anthropic also faces a further trial this year after the judge in its case ruled that its copying and storage of more than 7m pirated books in a central library infringed the authors' copyrights and was not fair use. A spokesperson for the Meta case authors' law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, said that it disagreed with the judge's decision to rule for Meta despite the 'undisputed record' of the company's 'historically unprecedented pirating of copyrighted works'. A Meta spokesperson said the company appreciated the decision and called fair use a 'vital legal framework' for building 'transformative' AI technology. The authors sued Meta in 2023, arguing the company misused pirated versions of their books to train its AI system Llama without permission or compensation. The copyright issue has pitted AI companies against publishers and the creative industries on both sides of the Atlantic because generative AI models – the term for technology that underpins powerful tools such as the ChatGPT chatbot – have to be trained on a vast amount of publicly available data in order to generate their responses. Much of that data has included copyright-protected works. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion The lawsuit is one of several copyright cases brought by writers, news outlets and other copyright owners against companies including OpenAI, Microsoft and Anthropic over their AI training. AI companies argue their systems make fair use of copyrighted material by studying it to learn to create new, transformative content, and that being forced to pay copyright holders for their work could hamstring the growing AI industry. Copyright owners say AI companies unlawfully copy their work to generate competing content that threatens their livelihoods. Chhabria expressed sympathy for that argument during a hearing in May, which he reiterated on Wednesday. The judge said generative AI had the potential to flood the market with endless images, songs, articles and books using a tiny fraction of the time and creativity that would otherwise be required to create them. 'So by training generative AI models with copyrighted works, companies are creating something that often will dramatically undermine the market for those works, and thus dramatically undermine the incentive for human beings to create things the old-fashioned way,' Chhabria said.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The biggest Club World Cup question is still unanswered – does anyone care?
There is the £1bn broadcasting deal, the £97m prize for the winners, the guarantee of a minimum of over £30m in revenue for the Premier League participants. There is the possibility of the kind of windfall that could bring domestic dominance for a club from outside Europe. There is the potential reward of cracking America, as everyone looks to build their brand. In a sense, though, the Club World Cup depends upon a different kind of investment. Whatever the big financial figures, it needs buy-in: not from Fifa 's partners but from the part of the footballing family who are rarely consulted, the fans. The Club World Cup is in a battle for hearts and minds and eyeballs. It is a matter if – and it is too early to draw definitive conclusions – people buy into it; if they invest their time, their hopes and their emotions. It is perhaps easiest to assess the match-going public. The empty seats suggest Fifa misjudged the equation of supply and demand, selecting some venues that were too big and making tickets too expensive. It is partly about the American fans, partly an issue of how many clubs have brought a sizeable travelling support, and the evidence is mixed. But there is a broader test, conducted not in Atlanta or Seattle but in armchairs and sofas. How many are tuning in and how often? Because there are audiences Fifa will be chasing, hoping the interest they display in established competitions is transferred to a new – or expanded, or reinvented – one. There is the summer tournament audience, those who, if they can, would try to watch every game of a World Cup or European Championship; will they assume the same approach with a Club World Cup? There are those who, in the group stages and last 16, would not go that far, but would tune in for the main game of the day. Are they carving out a couple of hours every night for the Club World Cup? Then there is the Champions League precedent. With multiple matches on at the same time, no one sees everything. But there are plenty who will watch something on every match night, and then, when the fixtures are fewer, will not miss anything at the business end of the tournament. The Club World Cup contains some of the same sides, the possibility of the same match-ups. Would those who, with no allegiance to any of the sides, automatically watch a Champions League semi-final between, say, Juventus and Bayern Munich or Real Madrid and Paris Saint-Germain, adopt the same attitude? Or, to use a parallel from 2022, will the neutrals who came to cheer on Morocco in their surprise surge to the semi-finals of the World Cup do likewise if Botafogo or Palmeiras, Flamengo or Fluminense charge into the last four now? Or will they simply sit this one out? It is a question of if the Club World Cup becomes appointment viewing; if millions, across the footballing world and separately, resolve to make a date in their diaries. And if the answers will be different, with the early indications that South America has bought into the Club World Cup more than Europe, there are a host of factors. They include time and weather: for the European audience, the late kick-offs are off-putting; for everyone, the risk of 100-degree heat can diminish the spectacle of the earlier ones. They can relate specifically to the United States, but there are wider issues. There is the crisis of legitimacy with the Infantino algorithm for qualification, whereby Lionel Messi's Inter Miami were crowbarred into the tournament, and, seemingly, there were attempts to find Cristiano Ronaldo a club for a month. Separately, there is the Ceferin criteria that means that, somehow, Red Bull Salzburg are in a tournament that does not feature the reigning champions of England, Italy or Spain, or two of the Champions League semi-finalists. There is the ennui and exhaustion felt by players and public alike; many footballers' comments last year were hints they knew their workload was unsustainable, but presumably they have been silenced by executives who want the profits from the competition. Yet the sense of overkill has been apparent among many a football fan. While there were legitimate reasons to want a Club World Cup, this competition has been imposed on everyone without consultation or consideration, and that can alienate some potential viewers. Fifa's hype and hyperbole, pronouncing everything they do a glorious success, is propaganda rather than analysis – perhaps some are voting with their remote controls by turning off. There is the football itself. Some games have been like pre-season friendlies, with heavily rotated teams that bear no resemblance to the clubs' strongest sides, with managers taking the understandable view that their season has almost 12 months left to run. Which, in itself, is an admission that it ends with the Champions League final and the World Cup. A danger for this Club World Cup is that European fans can zone out of summer games in the United States, unless they are in an actual World Cup, anyway. There are annual matches, some in tournaments with grandiose names – the International Champions Cup or the World Football Challenge – that carry absolutely no prestige. If the Club World Cup can redress a global imbalance – the dominance of the five major European leagues – it probably can't do so without sufficient engagement from this side of the Atlantic, and not merely because some of the most lucrative television markets are here. It is too easy, too simplistic, to dismiss all the scepticism as Anglocentric, a 21st-century version of the Little Englander syndrome that led this country to skip the first three World Cups, when the Champions League can feel the ultimate in the club game on the mainland as well. It is scarcely conclusive proof, but in five days in a continental European city last week, there seemed no evidence of bars or restaurants showing the Club World Cup, or that it was even on. It is hard to imagine a similar indifference to football in the summer of 2024 or 2026. There is ample proof that European football fans are prepared to commit to a summer tournament every two years, whether the World Cup or the European Championship, but not lesser tournaments. There are plenty of competing attractions in the summer sporting schedule – football does not always succeed when it attempts to park its tanks on their lawn. And, in this case, Fifa is also trying to overshadow the rest of the same sport, whether it's the women's European Championship, the men's Under-21 tournament or the Gold Cup. The game's governing body does not always capture the imagination with its competitions. Undoubtedly, some people cared about the Confederations Cup. Just not enough for Fifa and not enough to dominate the popular consciousness. Does the Club World Cup? It may be too soon to tell. Organic growth – as opposed to imposing a tournament and expecting it to be an instant hit – can take time. Anything new has not yet become a habit for many. But each of us among the intended audience faces a decision: how much value we attach to the Club World Cup. It has had shock scorelines, the unexpectedly early eliminations of Atletico Madrid and Porto, and the spirited progress of the Brazilian clubs. But plotlines are more enthralling, characters more compelling and the narrative only addictive if you are sufficiently invested in it. Some, undeniably, are. Others are not. For them, the Club World Cup has been the breaking point, something they are deliberately switching off. Some will be picking and choosing their games, or vaguely paying attention. Different people will provide different answers. But for the Club World Cup to genuinely prosper, it needs a critical mass who want it, want to watch it, and want to watch almost all of it.
