jakkyboi

Thanks for writing this out. My only comment is this: it's a touchy subject because while you are describing one end of the spectrum, the opposite end is almost always applied for those struggling with ADHD - "Just work harder! You'll get over it"

There's definitely a healthy balance of smart lifestyle choices, coupled with medication for those who truly struggle and need to just get from zero to 1.

I mean I don't think that was the idea back in 2003, maybe I'm naive.

I think that's just the nature of government. If a large enough force acts, it's very easy to tear down such an abstract system.

Free speech is a complicated issue. Ideally I would like to see groups like this banned, but I can see how that can lead to issues with who says what content is ok and what isn't.

It's 100% okay to not be completely informed on an issue! If anyone is accosting you for that, then that's not okay or constructive. I'm not asking any more than that you be understanding that when our freedoms are under attack, ie currently, you are willing to make a choice and not complain because a lot is at stake.

I tire of centrists, among chaos, claiming everything is being politicized.

I'm sorry - once in a while bad things happen and a choice must be made.

Same with the empty array

They absolutely did not turn out to be false

You have 12 kids?

You sound reasonable from your comment :) hahaha

I think it's great to challenge people, and honestly a candidates reaction to a hard question is probably one of the best indicators.

Who's being forced to do anything by people not patronizing a business?

it sadly is not, these are genuine takes

Imma have to disagree with you hard on the first paragraph haha. Rock became oversaturated and stagnated as a genre, I'm not sure the clothes had much to do with it.

Because coffee

James is so cute

Basically yeah

"Hey there, I saw your company was hiring and I wanted to reach out about X role. Feel free to reach back out if you feel there might be a good fit or if you have time to talk more about roles at Y."

Yeah ofc

I'll give my limited perspective.

Software engineering is a field that is both requires breadth and depth at a very high bar for acceptance. From the interviewing side and the many interviews I've been through, it often feels impossible to overcome. The breadth that the field requires leaves gaps in knowledge, where anecdotally I've been asked what's a language I'm an expert in, or to detail the deep particulars of react app development, or to solve X problem with the greatest efficiency with ease and have lots of input on your thought process. I don't mean to paint a picture where you're not allowed to test anyone on anything, but as an average dev, it feels like stabs in the dark compounded with not having a clear path to improving, because everyone's interviews are different. You can improve on the fundamentals, but that only helps so much.

To me, communication and problem solving skills are the biggest factors of what makes a good SWE. I find that most technical interviews don't look for talent that's acceptable, but what's exceptional; not for who's capable, but for who's accomplished.

My firm belief is that many devs who struggle getting a job now, could have walked into any company pre 2010 and gotten a job with the skills they have now.

This is all with the caveat of the knowledge that high salary commands high talent, but my opinion is that the bar is set ridiculously high without regard for how arduous the process is.

I have had a few very fair, but challenging interviews, and I do think that's a step in the right direction.

Pretty accurate, only thing I would say is that I feel reaching out to a recruiter or a dev solely for a reccomendation is fine if you're polite and not overly blunt about it.

Another boring take that loves to claim social change and strong opinions as limiting to free speech

I went back to the clip and while you are right, that was the question - im almost certain Manson heard "the kids at Columbine" and took it to mean Harris and Klebold and answered that question, not the one that was asked.

Going through a mandatory guide

> set the social fabric on fire

That's an interesting way of framing necessary change.

I'm not interested in diminishing the capacity of people to celebrate their beliefs, but yes indeed, we separate church and state because it's in the best interest of society in general. I guess that's very western of me to say, but I'm more than glad to defend it in the context of many past examples of religious institutions abusing public goods in order to discriminate.

I might have to revisit my perspective, thanks for this!

Respectfully, this is the hugest flaw with small c conservative thought, it's hyperfocused on the individual and ignores any larger social context or wellbeing to the detriment of a nation, state, etc

They aren't re-anything as far as I can read. They concede this to say that sex does not mean gender or sexual orientation, to make the point that then by extension, those two categories are protected from discrimination based on preconceived notions of sex. In the case of someone being gay and fired for this reason, the discrimination lies in the fact that if a gay man was a woman, the employer would not have fired this person based on them being attracted to men. It's an extension, not reinterpretation.

Textualism != Originalism

Gorsuch, in the majority, asserts that textually, the words written would and do indeed cover discrimination of gender identity and sexual orientation by extension of sex. Textually meaning regardless of whatever the original intent was, ie it doesn't really matter if they were considering transgender people in that list

No you're completely right, the argument they make is quite correct: the discrimination is based on preconceived notions of who a certain sex is allowed to present as or be attracted to.

The correct term would be the majority, or assenters maybe

Thank you, I haven't been able to articulate this line of thought recently

This is such an ignorant take, it's astonishing.

The "general narrative" is about rampant police brutality that first and foremost disproportionately affects people of color. It's a problem that's existed since the inception of a police force in the US and that's what this movement is about. No one is trying to play a silly number game of which race kills more of what other race.