patthebunny
This is entirely consistent. Pretending otherwise is just that, pretending.
A man is dead. He was murdered at embassy, then they chopped him up to make him easier to move.
You aren’t tying for better than the internet default. You don’t want anything approaching open discussion or substantive discussion. You want bland inoffensive tripe. You want to have a bunch of people who can sit around discussing how we work will change the world.
A man is dead. He was murdered by a regime that has no respect for human rights. A regime that has funded terrorism. A regime currently trying to carry out genocide in Yemen. A regime propped up in no small part by American money.
If you don’t see any substantive discussion to be had then maybe you need to break a from tech for a little while so you can get your head out of your ass.
Ah, military contractors are well up to date. Okay, lets toss them a few billion in Saudi weapons contracts.
How did I do?
Like, we could stop supporting their genocide in Yemen. Could stop selling weapons to them period. Could stop buying their oil. Could start putting out sanctions. Could actually demand some accountability for their role in 9/11.
Whole spectrum between what we have now and outright war.
Does it?
Maybe we should just not have anyone worth a billion dollars.
> It seems like anything even remotely threatening the climate change gospel is treated just as the Catholic Church treated heretics centuries ago.
Except one side is based on broad scientific consensus and the other is based on your precious GEOTUS and corporate cronies who would rather see the human race dead than any threat to profits.
Give equal time to both sides, even when one side is blatantly full of shit. It's ridiculous.
Lets base it on reports of a couple of big name species and declare everything is fine. Facts!
if you read zerohedge you have long since decided that facts do not at all matter to you.
Or it's one of those entities that claimed to be greater than the sum of it's parts often enough that people started to believe.
That's where the overestimation comes in. You assume people are miserable and would rather live in a ridiculous house and have to take a car to go do anything.
I guess they have no choice but to just accept it, because of the same dictator.
Can't believe this shitty government is our "ally". Fuck the Saudi Government.
Washington has no income tax.
We do have stupid regressive sales taxes.
and taxes on sugary beverages that don't include milk based beverages because Starbucks.
Considering it's 100% complaining about taxes and has zero analysis, yeah.
It's just about money. You can have an absurdly well paying job in Seattle and it really doesn't matter because you still can't afford a house. You can pay absurd amounts for a small condo. You can have a god awful commute. Or you can move 3 hours south and your money goes further while you still get the appealing parts of living in a city.
This is a narcissistic NIMBY.
I got 21 comments to remove blank lines and none about the code. Thanks. Really useful. This was the team of "experts" on the code base.
Then a principle engineer reviewed some other code and oh look, actual useful comments.
Nitpicking can be worse than useless. Obfuscates or ignore real issues in the code. Seems to usually be a sypmtom of the reviewing not being competent enough to actually review the code properly.
Most people are shit at interviewing. Those that aren't still aren't qualified to psychoanalyze people.
> The problem is that not everyone easily indexes their job-experiences into neat, well-narrated vignettes that can be called up and summarized to an interviewer in real-time. It's hard stuff but it's better than other forms of interviewing.
> Tell me about a time you disagreed with your boss?
We disagreed and then I quit because I felt like there was a pattern of him not listening.
Oops wrong answer.
These questions just get gamed. People tell dressed up versions of cherry picked stories. No one tells the story of why they finally had enough and quit. No one tells the story of a discussion turning heated because both sides got a bit too attached to their opinion. No one tells the story of just giving up and accepting that they won't win.
This narrative is pushed constantly, to the point where it's started to lose believability with me. It's used by large companies to justify their BS hiring practices when the reality is a bad hire won't hurt the company that much. It's used by small companies to justify nonsensical interview practices.
> Human questions. Does this question give the candidate a chance to display a wide enough range of himself, socially, that you are comfortable that he can work well with other people?
I try not to display much of myself socially when I'm at work. I'm there to work. I'll gladly go out for lunch and be friendly with coworkers, but it's not hanging out with friends. It never will be.
It's a lousy hiring indicator.