Cheezewheel

It is naive to even imply that being a hard worker is going to insulate you from getting culled or laid off.

>Also I am almost never the person to bring this kind of thing up but

I find that hard to believe.

I am not aware of evidence that he conned someone, but as a side quibble:

>Did someone force you to use Binance?

Do you understand what a con is? People are usually 'conned' because they are tricked into trusting someone that they shouldn't, when people are forced we typically refer to it as robbery or similar.

I wouldn't really give OpenAI credit for lasting 3 years. OpenAI lasted until they moment they had a successful commercial product. Principles are cheap when there is no actual consequences to sticking to them.

So... Google is legally required to treat contractors as second class citizens to afford them the privilege of being able to mistreat them and fire them at the drop of a pin.

We understand the """"purpose"""" of having contractors.

There are companies that don't view Development work as the "cost" center for the business, but much more directly as the "Profit" center of the business. This is not necessarily the norm, and certainly not in certain industries like Education or especially Hospitals, or Law where IT are basically seen as second class citizens (however well they may be compensated).

If that is the case then the standard operating procedures of startups is fraud, not that Sam isn't somehow a deliberate scammer and con artist.

Do you not understand the basic principle of law that intention actually does matter? Or do you not understand that it may be difficult to prove that there was intention to commit a bad act even if it is trivial to establish that the bad act was made?

As someone who is ignorant of this matter, why aren't the conversations privileged? Is it because the lawyer's represent the company and not the individual personally?

Nothing that you said addressed what the person above you wrote.

Do you disagree that Users might be entitled to know when a corporation is misusing their private, sensitive information? What is ethical does not begin and end with the corporations best interest, the users whose private information is being mishandled are the victims here, let us not lose perspective.

You are also talking to someone who is on the PR team. This term gets thrown out a lot but in this case it is factually true, you are literally talking to a shill. I mean no disrespect to Danny but you are not going to get an honest and straightforward answer out of him.

If you think I am exaggerating, try to prompt him to see if you can get him to acknowledge that Googles current systems incentivize SEO spam. See if he passes the Turing test.

Having a high reputation shouldn't be a free pass to be an obnoxious jackass, but often that is what ends up happening. There is virtually no consequence to coming into a valid question (or answer) and just close it like a dickhead. No, in fact this behavior is rewarded.

If you are either someone who likes wielding power recklessly or autistic then becoming a power user isn't a problem. But demanding users "prove" they are trustworthy in a system where blatant abuses of authority go unchallenged is farcical.

>All Game Journalists do is act as little more than spokespeople for corporations

>>Actually here Game Journalists also report on X, Y and Z

>Nah that is just people injecting politics and being activists

This is a pretty dumb "No true Scotsman" argument you are smuggling into the conversation here.

Yud on one hand believes that AI is an actual *VERY LITERAL* existential humanity of which it is completely 100% paramount to get the rest of humanity on board with preventing our own destruction.

And yet he doesn't think it is worth the effort to take off his trilby hat in order to come across as marginally more respectable to the average person? When the way he is choosing to present himself is undermining his own message then yes, it is worth bringing up.

>Your premise is based wholly on the belief that you know more about Reddit users than Reddit does. That seems dubious to me.

I know that their UI and native application are absolutely bullshit.

It is naïve to think the layoffs were even meaningfully targeted towards unproductive employees.

>So not an entire miss, but not great either.

This is really just a semantic nitpick but it literally fabricated sexual assault allegations against two individuals out of thin air. I would consider that to be a miss. As far as sources that we might consider worthy of consideration, that is pretty god damn awful.

If a newspaper had an 80% accuracy rating when reporting serious allegations (with the other 20% being outright fabrications) I wouldn't call that newspaper "semi-reliable". I would call it utterly devoid of factual merit and entirely unreliable.

Out of curiosity, what is a specific issue that you have had in the past?

>number of bugs

Bugs are not created equally.

>Yes, but only because they are aggressively making their reading experience terrible. I'd argue that a WordPress site with the default template is less offensive at this point. The typography and layout on Medium is fine, it's the popups, nags, paywall, and the like. For a while there was a lovely extension called "Make Medium Readable Again" but they aggressively broke that too. I'm happy to let Medium fall off the tech community radar.

Honest question, how can you, on one hand, link to the previous discussion surrounding the stigma of being a "medium.com" article, but fail to address the literal top response to both that thread and even the top response to your own comment? Is it one of those "CEO's are not allowed to speak plainly in public" things or do you not parse/agree with the information?

>but some employers will think of them that way

Employers quite clearly already think that way.

No choice? That's just the way it is, it can't be helped? Did God himself come down and decree that Herokai *MUST* only hold data for 30 days? Did the FBI come in an threadten to charge your executives with sedition?

Yea, no. You decided to make the decision for contracts to be that way. The fact that you "fought hard" but that decided on the 30 day retention anyways means that clearly the opinions of engineers don't matter and that the company is completely captured by the lawyers and out of touch executives. It hardly inspires confidence.

It also doesn't at all address the fact that you failed to contact an apparently paying customer that their data was about to be nuked, contract or no.

Apologies are pretty damn cheap. The excuse of being a 'small team' is bizarre. Shouldn't a 'small team', of all places at least have the courtesy of not unceremoniously jettisoning candidates? It seems to be poorly indicative of a culture to both have the callous disregard for candidate experience like a large corporation while also lacking having the resources of one.

> If the scanner can't pick them out, the company will notice in any spot checks that it spits out only garbage

This is giving the companies a huge amount of credit. The problem isn't that the only spit out garbage, just that they are 'unfairly' rejecting strong resumes.

>I might only have one position, but I'll interview as many people as I need to until I find one that is a great fit.

Yea. That is called a zero sum situation.

That is awfully close to just discriminating against candidates who have families or especially single parents. This level of gatekeeping that a programmer who decides to have a full life outside of work is inherently an inferior programmer is a really superficial way to look at it. Equation passion with "Is this person willing and able to spend 60 hours a week coding" is a disgusting attitude that should just completely end in this industry.

In my entire career the single most talented Programmer I ever knew was a single mother who logged off the computer every day after 8 hours period, and choose to spent her life with her kids.

See, you don't think like salespeople do. It doesn't matter how much this practice harms you, the only externality that matters is how much it benefits them.

>However, just like email spam, stopping spoofed calls is harder in practice than in theory.

Is it really? Couldn't the carriers simply require a certificate to allow you to spoof a phone number?

>No business would do this; non-competes would be de facto banned

That is the point. It is a sincere suggestion, because it would force companies to only seek out a non-compete in the case where the employees knowledge is valuable enough to warrant subsidizing their extended vacation.

And this does happen in the finance industry. Some businesses do in fact do this.