celticmusic

or pull in the people necessary to resolve it.

I don't really understand why people believe the only way communication happens is by standing up every day to talk about their feelings.

I guess I'm weird because I'm able to have a conversation with someone without standing up in a circle playing whatever games the specific manager wants to play.

I once convinced a team to try going without standups, but instead put it in slack for a week. At the end I was the only one who thought it was a success. I had one guy tell me he didn't like it because he didn't read it if it was in slack.

My jaw kind of hit the floor. That was my point all along about standups, the information being conveyed isn't actually needed for your job.

JET database are what MS Access used underneath, and attempting multiple concurrent usage on JET databases is a good way to corrupt them.

I have a friend who teaches in China and according to him everyone is extremely worried. People aren't going out, wearing masks when they do, and so forth.

is it really a startup if it's been around 10 years?

people would just game it, you can't solve this with technology.

probably a silly complaint, but it would've been really nice to put the asterisk on the left side of the numbers so that one could immediately see by scanning which are the refined 9.

atleast she had a good humor about it.

right, but this leads back to what I said before. Why not just lay down and die? It's like the ultimate form of analysis paralysis. What if there are better people to hang out with? What if I'm not meeting those better people because I'm wasting time enjoying the friends I met in college?

At some point you need to either accept it or change it, both of which you can do. My issue with the previous posts is the claim that you must necessarily become victim to this form of analysis paralysis because you can never truly choose to hang out with ANYONE. That 5 year old in the congo who died of malaria will always be a stranger to you.

It's just such a bad point.

please stop moving the goalpost. I stated that people like us value different things, and that remains true whether or not you want to argue that people who don't display the typical social status behavior do display behaviors of some sort (of course, but it's not interesting).

maybe that's what it was. Used to quotes meant "look for this exact sequence of letters", and at some point that started to maybe work sometimes, and maybe not othertimes.

It sounds like what you're saying is that it acts more like a typical full-text index now? I suppose it's better than nothing, but still not what I would like to see happen.

> Or maybe some people just don't do well in an interview setting that is inherently completely unlike a real day at any office?

I once had an interview where I sent in a solution to a small program they asked me to write (had to do with golfing).

During the interview they sat me down in front of a computer and asked me to re-implement a part of it, which I did so gladly.

I realized later that my re-implementation wasn't the same as my original implementation, but they both worked. It was more 6 of one, half dozen of the other, sort of thing.

But the thing is, during the rest of the interview I seriously got the impression they thought I was lying to them. I've often wondered if that difference in implementation was why.

But I'm of the opinion that technical people shouldn't really be too involved in the yes/no decision of the interview process. I've seen too many instances of people coming to conclusions that just didn't make sense. I once had feedback that they felt I would be anti-social because when asked about an open floor plan I told them as long as I had headphones it wouldn't be too much of an issue.

I remember one guy was convinced I was devops because I described a system I built and implemented that got deployed across datacenters around the world, and I explained how we did it. When it was done, he started asking me about unit tests, and I remember going to the whiteboard, pointing at a few of the circles and telling him "we had unit tests around this, and this, and this".

At the end I reiterated that I had a degree in CS & Math and had worked as a software developer for coming on 20 years. I did this because he kept making comments about devops. And yet, when it was done, the feedback is that they weren't looking for devops.

The worst part to me is that what I described was the system architecture and how we were able to do this successfully. I'm not even sure I spoke about deployment much at all.

I've had several wtf moments like this in my career, and it's caused me to be a lot more bullish on interviewers. Everyone who interviews seems to think they have some secret sauce that allows them some mythical insight into a person over an hour interview. And they're all wrong.

Business people are actually easier to deal with in my experience because they're willing to accept when there's a misunderstanding and you attempt to explain yourself more fully. Most technical people seem to judge you for it and ignore any attempt to follow up.

Anyway, this is long winded, but my point is that I agree with you 100%. I don't think most people who interview quite realize just how bad they are at it, nor how overly judgemental they are. I'm glad it worked out for the author of this article, but the indications he claimed to see (the lack of a linked in profile, for example) are not actually indications of anything. They got lucky, but they're going to take their sample of 1 and be overly judgemental with everyone in the future.

This is kind of like the idea that the poor person who gave their last $10 is doing more than the rich person giving $10k/month sustainably.

it's ethics vs being _effective_ in the practical reality we live in.

OTOH, email is vastly easier to automate and swamp your resources than phone calls, and so forth.

I also don't find the argument that people can't find a phone to call, but can email to hold much water. My bank is allowed to refuse to take $1k in pennies, there are often good reasons for limitations due to abuse.

I was under the impression that google ignores quotes, atleast that was my experience starting years ago before I switched to DDG.

Maybe they changed that stance at some point?

absolutely not. You do not need to display security to have it, that's a large part of what I meant when I said people like us value different things.

https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-Amer...

nah, people like us just value different things.

I can tell you I grew up extremely poor, to the point of homelessness, and if you think for a second I give a shit what bob thinks of me, you're wrong. Those sorts of experiences give you a different perspective. It's one of the major reasons why I've situated my life in such a way that these same people's disapproval isn't going to affect me. In fact, I had a company inadvertently learn that lesson late last year, and it hurt them way more than it hurt me. They made the mistake of evaluating my worth by how I play that game.

This is what I find hilarious about the sorts of comments you're replying to. It doesn't make sense unless you refuse to think about it and apply a modicum of consistent logic to it.

> The issue at hand is how you define "subject to US law."

I would say it's more about whether you're willing to apply it consistently or not.

I don't know that I'd say it's exactly equal, but the idea that any typical individual really has much say over the Federal Governments decisions is laughable.

Even if it were your local town, city, or county government managing it, do you think they're going to fight the federal government if they ask for access to it? Over you, a nobody, when the Federal Government is going to threaten to withhold money for whatever if they don't?

If what you're saying is true, then my pointing out that they're responding to the wrong person should be an indication that they need to take a closer look at the conversation.

Besides which, I don't think expecting a moderator to look at the context is unreasonable.

The only one that needs to be told not to enter threads looking for ideological arguments is the person who reacted to a username with the word 'celtic' in it.

What you're trying to argue is that poor people can't move to other countries, and that's just not reality.

I don't think it's too much at all, the persons argument boils down to "because you can't meet everyone, you don't really have free will to change who you interact with", and if they REALLY believe that, the world is hopeless and they may as well just stop trying.

you're responding to the wrong person in this conversation.

> and my point was that not only is this freedom curtailed by capital and circumstance, deploying capital to modify circumstance requires a shitload of it. Far beyond what is implied when people bandy about the slogan of "i'm free to associate with whomever i want."

I'm just going to quote myself.

_But it doesn't change the point that you still can choose to move to nigeria_

This is like the people who argue that you shouldn't put in a solution that only makes the problem 20% better, that we should wait until it's a 100% solution.

You should probably just curl up in your basement and wait to die since you apparently can't interact with everyone in the world.

What's your point?

That your one true love may be in nigeria, but you'll never meet them because you're in NY?

I don't really understand why people make these kinds of posts as if it's some sort of wisdom. Everyone else innately understands that you can only interact with the people available for interactions to you, and that tends to be limited by locale. In fact, everyone understands it so well that most don't feel it needs to be said.

But it doesn't change the point that you still can choose to move to nigeria if you want to interact with more nigerians, and that you can refuse to interact with that 1 asshole down the street even if you haven't met every person who ever existed during your lifetime.

I think a good way to put it would be if you're in a spot where a single person or entity could seriously damage you, you haven't protected yourself sufficiently well and they have control over you.

Instead, rely on many people, that way any single person's damage is fairly well mitigated.

In fact, I had a company find this out about me the hard way late last year. They were harmed much more than I was, in fact.

In case you or anyone else is not aware, there's the FEA (Female Entrepreneur Association).

https://femaleentrepreneurassociation.com/

> The rules here are that you respond to the strongest interpretation of what somebody said, not the weakest.

Doctor, heal thyself.