'We’re conducting in-person interviews for the Summer 2024 batch for current undergraduate or graduate students at universities in the northeastern US.'
Why are recent BA/BS, MS, and PhD graduates excluded?
Why are recent BA/BS, MS, and PhD graduates excluded?
Where is the outreach to those outside of elite academic and professional circles?
At what point does preservation of this hallucinated wealth game become forced conservation of history and get in the way of the “freedom” part?
Why are we socially trained to accept “people say Musk is rich so it must be true?”
It’s all a socialized hallucination backed by government force. It’s kind of a huge joke.
Let’s just get drunk and shoot pistols at the workers feet. At least it’s honest.
We're not socially trained for this. People don't think it's true because people say it. They think it's true because he owns a large stake in a lot of extremely valuable companies.
We learn what it means as far as ground truth from socialization
Not killing people is a socialised concept. I don't think this banale-fact-dressed-up-as-criticism of "is a social construct" is worth much. And if it is, it's also a social construct, as are the words used to communicate it. So should we then ignore it?
If it’s so banal it would have no influence but you seem to accept the underlying; “banal” facts have power and social concepts are mutable. So you push back with empty rhetoric, over generalizing others to avoid the powerful fact socialized society is hallucination.
I never criticized “social concepts” either. I criticized our current social concept. Others can be propagated. Your banal attempt to generalize specifics is a lame rhetorical approach where you both accept socialized society as a concept but refuse to debate its specifics (that would require actual effort not just miming money/assets changed hands via paperwork).
May as well browse r/conservative as all HN is ever shipping is fealty to who we say is smart and rich but never requires them to prove it, but requires us to kneel and kiss the rings regardless, as if spoken tradition and written records are real evidence of skill and accomplishment when billions are spent reminding us these things are true.
You've just described capitalism, and our current situation.
I'm in Boston.
Middle aged college students usually attend extension schools part of the university, but not part of the undergraduate college.
In any case there’s no strict limitation on being an undergraduate at say 60 (I believe Harvard Colleges oldest graduate was in their 80s), but it’s so exceptionally rare it’s ageism.
There’s no reason why one would need to be an undergraduate.
Example: statistically the odds of someone graduating from college being over 30 are low. Therefore if I claim that I hire college graduates I get to also filter implicitly by age.
Then the question is: assuming an inherent bias of sample, is it desirable or undesirable to introduce a "function" that attempts some mitigation? I see the "functions" that attempt to mitigate sexism, racism but not ageism.
It feels like companies or organizations are just fine with slapping a paragraph at the end of an announcement that parrots "we are inclusive trust us" without any real adjustment and call it a day.
The best startups run lean anyway. I'd argue this is the proper way to run one, as opposed to taking mountains of VC money and burning up in a year