naiwenwt
[0] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
Citing a settlement date range with language like "may be a class member if you connected a financial account to an app" doesn't really refute my point.
I think interviewers tend to overestimate their ability to catch people who have seen the question before and miss on tons of candidates who are good at answering seen questions.
It's hard to tell the difference between "stop the bleeding" title/pay inflation and "aggressively competing for talent" inflation.
Usually any discussion about induction stoves seems to wholly revolve around European-centric cuisines, which is why I'm surprised to see this article quote a positive experience from a self-described "Kind of Chinese" restaurant. I genuinely wonder how they manage it and what I'm missing.
Some companies do seem to be offering something similar to this, see CodeSignal's general coding assessment or back when TripleByte was big a few years ago. I think the problem is that even within the specialized topic of LC style interviews, many companies don't agree on a similar strategy when it comes to types of questions and difficulty. There isn't one standard that every company agrees on, so most have their own flavor of it.
I'm not sure it would be untenable. People generally intuit the social cost/risk that comes with making a statement in an unrelated venue. That is a natural force acting against people randomly bringing up strongly held opinions on unrelated platforms. Explicitly drawing and enforcing a line just doesn't seem necessary.
> I suppose it's not totally unreasonable to draw that line by saying, "all content must be related to the topic at hand"
I think this would have the effect of either completely sterilizing platform discussion or being impossible to enforce reasonably. For instance, what would happen if a competitor just mentioned something totally innocuous that would incense nobody but was off-topic? Should that be punished?
You can argue that Blizzard was well within their rights in punishing Blitzchung, but then Blizzard's audience is well within their rights to be upset with said punishment.
Mind giving an example? I'm just curious because to me the high point of reddit is learning way more about interests I already love. For example I don't think I would've gotten nearly as into mechanical keyboards without /r/mechanicalkeyboards around.
I don't have a source for this but in Serbia it's well-known that Vucic and Xi Jinping have a closer-than-expected partnership.
I'd pay for it in a heartbeat, just wish that they released even more episodes in this format.