u/No_Mathematician9287

I need to rant because I can’t say this at work.

My agency only allows approved tools like Copilot (which we have the license). External AI tools like Claude are not supposed to be used for work materials, especially anything internal/confidential. I follow that rule, even though Copilot is honestly… not great😅

I just joined the agency recently and there is this coworker who joined in March 2026, who produced this extremely polished report. At first, I genuinely thought it was objectively impressive! Like, I was reading it and thinking, wow… this is really good. The structure was clean, the headings were sharp, the tone was very executive, and the whole thing looked like an insanely polished strategy memo.

Then my little sister, who knows way more about AI tools than I do, glanced at it while I was reading. I said to her that I cannot be this smart to produce this shit but my sister casually went, “Lol, that’s Claude.”

I was like, what do you mean? Because I never used Claude, hence not familiar with it. She said the phrasing, the section headers, the “data-driven case” style, the “at a glance/what the data reveals/strategic implications” structure, it had the exact same vibe AND format/style. Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it!

My director is very satisfied with her work and repeatedly tells everyone we are lucky to have found her. I used to think she was an inspirational coworker, and I greatly admire her work. On every occasion, my director shows her off like a “prized possession” or “our crown jewel,” even in general meetings with other divisions. Now, once I learned about what possibly contributed to her stellar performance, I’m sitting here thinking: of course her work was fast! They let her use a tool the rest of us are not allowed to use🥲🥲

I’m not anti-AI. I use AI too at work (huhu Copilot), but within the allowed limits. I brainstorm, structure, and polish with it. But there’s a huge difference between using Copilot within policy and possibly using Claude to generate a polished work product from internal material.

And… I can’t say anything because I don’t have hard proof. If I bring it up, I’ll just look jealous or petty. So I’m stuck sitting there watching someone possibly get praised for breaking the same rules the rest of us are expected to follow.

It just feels… unfair. Am I stupid? I know the rational answer is “learn from the format and move on,” and I will. But emotionally? I’m frustrated. I feel bamboozled😭

Just need to let this out of my chest…

I’ve somehow landed two prestigious jobs in a row where the actual work/brand/opportunity is great, but the direct boss situation is terrible.

First job: elite/high-pressure workplace, but my supervisor was genuinely awful and became the main reason I left despite liking the work.

Current job: another prestigious institution, new role, huge opportunity, but again, my direct supervisor is harsh, unclear, not supportive, and seems to form negative judgments very quickly. I’m new, trying to learn a very different operating system, but the environment feels more like criticism than onboarding.

Is this just bad luck? Is this common in prestigious workplaces because they promote high performers who are bad managers? Or is there something I should be doing differently to avoid ending up under difficult bosses?

Genuine question because at this point I’m like am I cooked?

Hi everyone,

I recently joined a UN agency (last week!) after several years in private-sector legal practice. I am at a professional level where I understand I am expected to be operational fairly quickly, so I am not expecting hand-holding. That said, the transition has been more intense than I expected.

The biggest adjustment has not been the workload itself, but the change in working language and operating style. In private practice, the work was very document-heavy, legal-risk-heavy, and structured around analysis, drafting, review, and clear accountability. In my current role, the work is much more programmatic: coordination, stakeholder management, internal approvals, event/program implementation, talking points, timelines, and liaising with technical divisions across time zones.

I am also finding that institutional knowledge is often assumed. People use acronyms, internal shorthand, previous documents, and process references as if they are obvious, but I am still learning what these terms mean, where the correct source documents are, who owns which issue, and what needs HQ clearance.

There are two management dynamics I am trying to understand:

The Director: very senior, very hands-off, results-oriented, and not particularly clear in instructions. The expectation seems to be “figure it out and deliver.” That is fair to some extent, but sometimes instructions feel incomplete or assume context I simply do not have yet.

The more direct senior colleague: more approachable and more involved, but also very busy and can be very sharp when timelines are tight. When I ask clarifying questions, she’s even sharper and came across as if I do not understand the work, even though I am mainly trying to avoid using the wrong source document or misunderstanding the expected output. Again, I just joined last week.

I am not taking the adjustment personally, but I do want to handle it well. I want to build trust, perform strongly, and learn the system without either overburdening colleagues with questions or making wrong assumptions.

For those who entered the UN system from private sector / law / consulting / government, how did you manage the first few months?

Specifically:

- How do you clarify unclear instructions without looking incompetent?
- How do you learn institutional processes quickly when much of the knowledge is unwritten?
- How do you manage a hands-off senior manager and a busy direct supervisor?
- How do you avoid overworking just to compensate for being new?
- What helped you become trusted in the system during probation or the first year?

Would appreciate practical advice, especially from people who joined laterally rather than through internships/JPO/consultant routes.

Hi all, I’ll be relocating to Singapore for work soon and I’m trying to decide where to rent. I’ll be working around the Science Park / Heng Mui Keng Terrace area. I won’t have a car, so I’ll be fully dependent on public transport, walking, etc.

I’m deciding between two types of options:

1. Pasir Panjang / Haw Par Villa area, e.g. The Verandah Residences

Pros: much closer to office, around 10–15 min by bus, proper 1-bedroom units, bigger bathroom, better layout/home feeling.

Concern: the area seems quieter and the nearby amenities seem a bit limited. I’m worried it may feel isolated, especially as someone new to Singapore.

2. One-North / Buona Vista area, e.g. One-North Residences

Pros: more food, groceries, MRT, Star Vista/Rochester/Holland Village nearby, easier for daily errands and “grab something quickly” lifestyle.
Concern: commute to office may be around 45–50 min by one bus, and the units I’m seeing are more studio/open-plan with smaller bathrooms.

My budget is around S$3.3k–3.6k/month for a private condo/studio/1-bed. I’m single, no kids, no car, and I plan to cook at home but still want easy access to groceries, pharmacy, food, and general daily-life conveniences.

For people familiar with these areas: would you prioritize One-North/Buona Vista for convenience and amenities, or Pasir Panjang for the shorter commute and better apartment layout? Is Pasir Panjang actually inconvenient/quiet for a newcomer, or is it fine once you live there?

Would appreciate honest opinions, especially from people who live car-free around these areas. Thanks!

Hi! I’m trying to decide between the Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder Original in Translucent vs Honey.

I have oily skin and a warm/yellow undertone, probably light-medium. My face and front neck are lighter (fair-olive-ish), but my nape/back neck is noticeably more tan because I often wear my hair up. So sometimes my face/neck situation looks disconnected.

I tested both shades in Sephora:

Translucent: looked fine and didn’t seem grey/ashy once blended.
Honey: also looked fine and honestly looked very similar once blended, but in a heavier swatch it was clearly more yellow/warm.
My previous translucent powder from another brand gave me visible whitecast and made my face look lighter, so I’m a bit traumatized by “translucent” powders.

The shopping dilemma:

Full size is only available in Honey.
Mini size is only available in Translucent.
Full-size Honey is much better value.
I have small travel jars, so I could decant the full size.

Would you choose Translucent mini for safety, or Honey full size because it’s better value and may suit warm undertones better?

I’m not using it as powder foundation, just to set sunscreen/light base and control oil. I’d use a thin layer, not bake heavily.

Thank you!

Hi! I’m trying to decide between the Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder Original in Translucent vs Honey.

I have oily skin and a warm/yellow undertone, probably light-medium. My face and front neck are lighter (fair-olive-ish), but my nape/back neck is noticeably more tan because I often wear my hair up. So sometimes my face/neck situation looks disconnected.

I tested both shades in Sephora:

Translucent: looked fine and didn’t seem grey/ashy once blended.
Honey: also looked fine and honestly looked very similar once blended, but in a heavier swatch it was clearly more yellow/warm.
My previous translucent powder from another brand gave me visible whitecast and made my face look lighter, so I’m a bit traumatized by “translucent” powders.

The shopping dilemma:

Full size is only available in Honey.
Mini size is only available in Translucent.
Full-size Honey is much better value.
I have small travel jars, so I could decant the full size.

Would you choose Translucent mini for safety, or Honey full size because it’s better value and may suit warm undertones better?

I’m not using it as powder foundation, just to set sunscreen/light base and control oil. I’d use a thin layer, not bake heavily.

Thank you!