So basically the planet is starting to treat us as a kind of a ... weed, in return.
7,631 karma · joined September 24, 2015
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341567
That's a choice you've chosen to make. Not everyone else would be comfortable with that choice, for a whole lot of (hopefully obvious) reasons.
The sky hasn't fallen.
Just because something doesn't, literally, bring the whole sky crashing down doesn't mean it's a... good idea. Or even not a pretty bad idea.
Absolutely. And casts doubt on the quality of the research behind it, as well.
I think we can very safely just drop the term "conspiracy theorist", from now on. There can be very little doubt that "jobs" of this nature are not just approved, but very carefully considered and approved at the highest levels. The questions to be investigated are which organizations were responsible, which individuals were involved and how they operate, exactly.
Well, yeah, that's the thing - the answer is (or should be) so self-evident that one wonders if one wonders whether the question is really worth the bandwidth.
Tell me about your hiring process — how many rounds, how many interviewers? Is there anything special about your interview process I should know? Are coding interviews on a whiteboard or laptop? What resources do candidates have access to while coding? Assuming the process goes well, how long does your hiring process typically take? How long do candidates who are given offers have to decide on an offer?
are perfectly fine, because they're simple and objective, and can be immediately answered by the company (if they have their shit together on any meaningful level). But questions like:
What are you trying to figure out about a candidate in an interview? Why do you think your current process does that effectively? What biases have you decided to accept in your hiring process? Which are you trying to change?
would be a red flag, because really now, it's not like employers have huge swaths of time available to holistically explain the raison d'être of their hiring process and how it got that way. If anything it's the exact opposite -- if they company is successful, then their people have almost no time at all to wax philosophic which each and every candidate about such topics.
So to ask questions of the latter sort strikes me as a bit obtuse.
The point is that this guy took some actual risk (even if it's "just" career risk) to at least make a noticeable dent in the problem. While you and I just sit here and type about it.
Meanwhile, your imputation above is simply illogical, and doesn't exactly do very much to help to solve the underlying problem, either.
At the same time, there are only so many column inches available, and there's only so much effort (and so many lines) one can devote to the regurgitating the broader context (that's generally covered in other articles they run).
A better stance to take might be: "We need to reiterate to the citizens of Puerto Rico that they are perfectly free to opt for statehood, or independence at any time."
Or they're just randomly cut-and-pasting whatever fast-sounding lingo they've seen in other ads.
Either way, it's a negative tell.
While their country's Executive Branch not only shows no signs of taking their plight seriously, but goes out of its way to make spiteful comments about it.
If you prefer to believe that there's such a thing as "reverse racism" that's in anyway comparable to - or even worth mentioning in the context of - what's very blatantly happening in regard to the situation Puerto Rico right now, that's one thing. But if you're going to play the "headcount" card - it's not like the current administration gets any saving points for the demographics of astronauts put in space by previous administrations.
And to bring up Sally Ride, who was not only closeted at the time of her mission, but for decades afterward (up until her death in fact) as some kind of an example how "already diverse" the space program has become - let's just say that doesn't exactly buttress your point.
Which is what the Army, Coast Guard, and Marines -- not to mention all those gold bars in Fort Knox -- are for.
If the current administration wanted to flex every available muscle to help the people of Puerto Rico, it would. But very clearly it doesn't.
The key question raised in the parent comment, which your own riposte artfully dodges, is once again - who stands to benefit from this N% increase in global energy usage?
If you're in an office where dogs are peeing and barking (and no one knows what to do about it) - then clearly you have a people problem, not a dog problem.
Disagree, given the observation that pets (provided they're well-behaved, are well-groomed etc) reduce stress and promote empathy. It's just a question of measure - somewhere between "once" and "every day" there are these notions of "once in a while" or "from time to time". Which I suspect would be optimal, for this particular indulgence.
Or just respect for sleep (and other forms of tuning out), on- or offsite, period.
Including such forms as "I came in at 11 today, because there were no meetings scheduled. And for some reason my body wanted me to stay under until 9 or so this morning, instead of the usual 7-730a, and to chill for a bit and rise gently instead of jumping out of bed. So that's what I did. Being as this is clearly the way our species was designed to operate, if we are to achieve long-term optimal performance."
"But then again, it's not like I have to explain that to you. We're all adults here, so as long as work gets done no one thinks twice about, or even stops to notice really, what time people come in in the morning."
For the shipping containers (not ballistic missiles) they'll most likely smuggling these in on, for the next few years, any COTS system (on an appropriately flagged freighter) will suffice to get them across the Pacific. From there they'll just usual visual identification to get it close enough to place it could do enough damage. Like near the Embarcadero, say.
You don't have to buy any "narratives". It may be better to simply take stock of the chain of events of what actually happened.
In this case - was there, in fact, something like a high-level, coordinated effort on their part to conduct various covert social media shenanigans (as opposed to open campaigns, like buying ads) in the U.S., for whatever purpose? Maybe the effort was ultimately futile and wasteful (like the "Illegals Program" a few years back -- but the more important question - was there such an effort?
Available evidence increasingly indicates that, in fact, there was.
How much was spent on these adds, how many hundreds of millions? Oh just $100k.
No idea where you're pulling those numbers from. But the overall scope easily suggest a budget >> $100k.
Did the Chinese buy ads, the French?
Wide-scale social media trolling != "buying ads".
Without hypotheticals, here is Qatar giving a $1M birthday "gift" to Bill Clinton
Well again there were several journalistic pieces at the time that summarized his work both for the CIA and as a contractor that (taken together) make it pretty clear that, while he's not like some domain expert, his crypto and security skills (before the leak) went significantly beyond that of a typical sysadmin. And again, they're pretty easy to find my keyword searching and the like.
I flubbed the detail about the VPN though -- apparently all he did for Poitras was set her up with a (significantly) enhanced mail drop.
So people can get jollies downvoting me for misremembering something I last read about 4 years ago, if they want. The bigger point is that the depiction of Snowden as simply a "SharePoint administrator" is clearly off base, according to multiple journalistic accounts (which are very easily findable).
For example.
But the bigger point is that - even assuming for the sake of argument that these questions actually do "work", on some leel - they've become such a huge fad that people are just adopting them solely on the basis of authority, without intrinsically understanding why these questions work, or more importantly, how to interpret candidates' responses to them
In other words, they're just following a script. I wouldn't say quite it's on "blind faith", per se (because the companies do have some reputation). But it's not much better than blind faith. Such that this precious quote of yours, from just a few days ago, seems quite apt here:
This practice of blindly adopting ideas just because they work for Google needs to stop.
This is just silly. His skills are clearly way broader and deeper than that.