akhmatova

I didn't read it that way.

But the far bigger point is that Musk was even more uncivil and obnoxious in his response to that situation.

That was no less than an outright personal attack. As an attempt to wiggle out of a perfectly valid line of questioning (aside from the "fucking mike" part) that he apparently has no intelligent answer for. Unfortunately the clip cuts conspicuously short after that point, so we can't know for sure. But that does seem to be the long and short of this exchange.

It's what these companies pretend to believe, at least.

Whether they actually, in reality, act in a way that make their employees happy -- or in a manner that is even fair or rational, by any detached observation -- is an entirely different matter.

The one and only time I stayed in such a place - an intruder was caught entering my room and diddling with a phone I left there - and he only got caught because I happened to double back to get something, and just happened to do so while he was in there.

Never again. And the best part about staffed hotels? "I never have to use my phone, if I don't want to."

Except that it isn't - and you yourself have slipped into a classic fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

The ability to distinguish between the cost-value ratios of the two categories -- and to understand that yes, even for a large, successful company, unnecessary expenses of this sort do add up -- is precisely the sensibility that GitLab[*] is looking for.

[*] Again, a hypothetical GitLab - the Ritz-Carlton example comes from the blogpost author, and not from GitLab.

Because you missed the crucial qualifying phrase, "every night".

The point of the policy wasn't that one should never, ever go out treat oneself to nice things. But that at some point, it get to be objectively (and grossly) inefficient and, to put it bluntly, reckless.

In fact, most people I know who in fact can afford to stay at the Ritz-Carlton every night (when traveling) don't, just as a matter of principle.

And yeah, they seem to also expect you to have a sense for what's called sound judgement, or shall we say business sense. That is, to know (at least approximately) where to draw the line, without an explicit policy for every last expense category.

And if you don't agree with this philosophy (or it isn't basically obvious to you) - then it would seem you probably aren't a good fit for GitLab.

(In the OP author's point of view, that is. The Ritz-Carlton analogy comes from them, not GitLab).

The whole premise of this article is flawed (at least as applies to the example the chose as an illustration). At the end of the day, it isn't Angel who is "doing" all this stuff to Leila; it's really her boss, Gemma. If Gemma was doing his/her job, this would have been over before it started.

A lot of corporate drama works this way - you just have to learn to read between the lines.

As the post acknowledges right about where you stopped skimming.

And you almost always have/need a nested structure, no?

No.

Can you explain the value of these models, please?

This is a serious question. My eyes just see one horrendously ugly (and dystopian) eyesore after another.

Rather than jump on the same horse that everyone is jumping on, maybe one should start looking at where language models fail -- and from the very nature of how they are conceived and what they are made of -- will most likely never be good at.

For West Coast employers, you become an early riser: 6a-8a local = 3p-5p Pacific.

That should be a decent compromise that many employers would be willing to make for a highly skilled developer with a solid track record.

Nobody there "likes war" or wants to be in this fight as a matter of patriotic belief or some other abstract principle. They're doing what they have to do so they don't end up getting killed or permanently enslaved, period. It's really extremely straightforward and simple for them.

So yes, they greatly appreciate whatever help they can get - and will continue to do so long after the dust settles.

Is that even a question? By all indications, the percentage is extremely high (outside of the Crimea, and some parts of the Donbass).

Loyalty programs? So this is where we finally get to see the blockchain unleash its revolutionary, transformative potential?

The minority who are willing to look past your age (who will also be the better ones to work for) will pick up on your persistence and see it as a positive trait and hire signal.

As to the resume - there's lots of advice out there on resume advice for older workers. Truncating / condensing lists of older gigs is one of the standard techniques.

The rest of what you do is a variation of the same advice as applies to younger candidates - just that in your case it will have even more protective benefit,

For example - even though it may bore you a bit, be sure to both read (or carefully skim) as many modern books as you can that are relative to your field, as well as to stay up on the "shiny" stuff (cloud, containers, CI/CD) even though your gut instinct will (rightly) tell you they may be overhyped or less important than knowing the core principles.

That is - at least know what they are, what problems they attempt to solve and what they are basically made of. This will make is substantially less easy to dismiss you as a dinosaur (inflexible / crusty / less nimble than younger candidates).

Finally: wear your age with pride. You've lived through times, and have seen things these people can only read about (for those who even read these days). You have a rare perspective to offer, and the better folks out there will see that and dig that aspect of you. And will be proud to have you in their corner and on their team.

Maybe they have ways of evaluating your potential without subjecting you to an endless barrage of gratuitously difficult (or simply tedious) questioning.

No - it just means the decision has been made, and you won't be hired.

Which is different from "you failed". It could just as easily be their failure to evaluate you properly.

The main point is that if landlords want to go this route -- they must provide means of egress, without any additional costs imposed upon the tenant (unless agreed to otherwise in the lease).

This idea that they can just decide to require that you go out and buy smartphone (or to run their app on your phone) in order to gain entry to your apartment -- again, unless you've agreed to a lease that says otherwise -- is (despite what both the lawyer and the columnist in the original article) just nonsense, in any jurisdiction (such as NYC) with a reasonably healthy suite of tenant protect law on the books.

Meaning - if that "means" is a smartphone - then (unless the lease you signed says otherwise), the landlord is obligated to provide you with a smartphone (along with a fully paid contract).

Otherwise it's a lockout, which under NYC tenant law constitutes over harassment. Period, end of story.

Right, but when it happens it's usually because these words get used differently in different domains.

What's happening here is that they're carelessly (in my view) mangling a well-established concept in a field (speaking of the SQL and database world) where folks are (notoriously) careful about word choice and about what things actually, in fact, mean.

It just feels weird, and on a certain gut level - koolaid-y.