6 ms·

Damn this is the most depressing comment in this whole comments section

by wunderland 4y ago

gautamdivgi 4y ago
Why - if I may ask? What’s wrong with pointing out potential employers?
- sli 4y ago
  It's depressing for the same reason why the military getting pushed onto people as a way to afford college, and the way that frequently works out in reality, is depressing.
- 1attice 4y ago
  Well, I can't speak for parent, but those of us that aren't U.S. citizens are already having a hellish time. To those of us with work visas, this is like saying, "if you're homeless, just go to your vacation home," and then being surprised that people without vacation homes express feelings of despair.
  - neilv 4y ago
    I think most people realize that people on visas can be in an additionally tough situation during layoffs. I think the commenter's helpful suggestion has an implied "Unfortunately, this doesn't help everyone, but..." In an attempt to help the people it can help. For people currently in certain especially difficult or unfair situations, it might hurt less to know that people are sympathetic, though they might feel powerless to help right now. Knowing that, maybe some of the people getting the short end of the stick would prefer not to have that constantly articulated. I can only guess at when is the right time to articulate, and when to leave it implied.
    - 1attice 4y ago
      Yep, and I have no beef with the original comment. However, someone explicitly requested an explanation, and so I gave one.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Can confirm, defence (related) and security clearance requirements largely limit the applicant pool. One, because for some reason Lockheed is dirty while Palantir or Facebook isn't. And because a lot of people are, by virtue of country of birth, ineligible of getting a security clearance. Also decent money and job security. But while I draw my moral.line at small arms (those have the nasty habbit of ending everywhere, and the likes of Heckler and Koch have their long list of export scandals), others draw their line at weapons in general. Both view points are fine, as is working for the likes of SIG Sauer.
  - mmanciop 4y ago
    > Lockheed is dirty while Palantir or Facebook aren’t Said nobody with any common sense, ever. Palanthir or Meta are in my eyes as bad on CV as… as… wait is there a way I don’t go Godwin’s in this thread?
    - taylodl 4y ago
      Agreed. Where I work we hire people from Lockheed all the time. Meta? We wouldn't touch them. Move fast and break things isn't the mentality we're looking for when working with what the Department of Homeland Security has classified as National Critical Infrastructure. If our service goes down, civilization goes down. We can't afford to hire people who've spent a career playing games.
      - dangwhy 4y ago
        > Meta? We wouldn't touch them. is this your employer's policy? Or do you just fail them in in the interview regardless of their performance.
        taylodl 4y ago
        Their performance would be considered very carefully - and I'm not talking about leet coding exercises. We don't prioritize solving silly problems. We prioritize people who can get stuff done, using a technology portfolio that ranges from ultra-modern to 15 year legacy and make it all work together. The ability to estimate and deliver are highly prized.
howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
Yeah, would be great to live in a magic land, where the US has no competitors, adversaries and sworn enemies. But this isn't magic land. US defense contractors are very much for profit and deliver a product that deters or kills some very bad people, more and more discriminating between collateral damage and intended targets - far more than can be said of Russian in Ukraine, for example. There's an entire generation in this country that thinks the US is safe, a villain even. How wrong they are, and how much they stand to lose if the US loses.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- skyyler 4y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/afghanistan-drone-strike-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/afghanistan-d... Anyone that gets into defense because of this thread, remember that the technologies you develop will be used to slaughter the innocent.
  - Our_Benefactors 4y ago
    For a more balanced take, “Why I chose a gun” https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun
    - aklemm 4y ago
      Why is that a “more balanced take?”
      - Our_Benefactors 4y ago
        If the alternative is a world where these weapons systems don't exist? I’m afraid that is a fantasy world which would quickly be ceded to the bigger stick. So consideration of military force requires balance, reverence, and respect. Posting something like “btw if you work in defense you’re a baby killer” is more insult than reasoned debate.

Damn this is the most depressing comment in this whole comments section

gautamdivgi 4y ago

Why - if I may ask? What’s wrong with pointing out potential employers?

sli 4y ago
It's depressing for the same reason why the military getting pushed onto people as a way to afford college, and the way that frequently works out in reality, is depressing.
1attice 4y ago
Well, I can't speak for parent, but those of us that aren't U.S. citizens are already having a hellish time. To those of us with work visas, this is like saying, "if you're homeless, just go to your vacation home," and then being surprised that people without vacation homes express feelings of despair.
- neilv 4y ago
  I think most people realize that people on visas can be in an additionally tough situation during layoffs. I think the commenter's helpful suggestion has an implied "Unfortunately, this doesn't help everyone, but..." In an attempt to help the people it can help. For people currently in certain especially difficult or unfair situations, it might hurt less to know that people are sympathetic, though they might feel powerless to help right now. Knowing that, maybe some of the people getting the short end of the stick would prefer not to have that constantly articulated. I can only guess at when is the right time to articulate, and when to leave it implied.
  - 1attice 4y ago
    Yep, and I have no beef with the original comment. However, someone explicitly requested an explanation, and so I gave one.
hef19898 4y ago
Can confirm, defence (related) and security clearance requirements largely limit the applicant pool. One, because for some reason Lockheed is dirty while Palantir or Facebook isn't. And because a lot of people are, by virtue of country of birth, ineligible of getting a security clearance. Also decent money and job security. But while I draw my moral.line at small arms (those have the nasty habbit of ending everywhere, and the likes of Heckler and Koch have their long list of export scandals), others draw their line at weapons in general. Both view points are fine, as is working for the likes of SIG Sauer.
- mmanciop 4y ago
  > Lockheed is dirty while Palantir or Facebook aren’t Said nobody with any common sense, ever. Palanthir or Meta are in my eyes as bad on CV as… as… wait is there a way I don’t go Godwin’s in this thread?
  - taylodl 4y ago
    Agreed. Where I work we hire people from Lockheed all the time. Meta? We wouldn't touch them. Move fast and break things isn't the mentality we're looking for when working with what the Department of Homeland Security has classified as National Critical Infrastructure. If our service goes down, civilization goes down. We can't afford to hire people who've spent a career playing games.
    - dangwhy 4y ago
      > Meta? We wouldn't touch them. is this your employer's policy? Or do you just fail them in in the interview regardless of their performance.
      - taylodl 4y ago
        Their performance would be considered very carefully - and I'm not talking about leet coding exercises. We don't prioritize solving silly problems. We prioritize people who can get stuff done, using a technology portfolio that ranges from ultra-modern to 15 year legacy and make it all work together. The ability to estimate and deliver are highly prized.

howmayiannoyyou 4y ago

Yeah, would be great to live in a magic land, where the US has no competitors, adversaries and sworn enemies. But this isn't magic land. US defense contractors are very much for profit and deliver a product that deters or kills some very bad people, more and more discriminating between collateral damage and intended targets - far more than can be said of Russian in Ukraine, for example. There's an entire generation in this country that thinks the US is safe, a villain even. How wrong they are, and how much they stand to lose if the US loses.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
skyyler 4y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/afghanistan-drone-strike-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/afghanistan-d... Anyone that gets into defense because of this thread, remember that the technologies you develop will be used to slaughter the innocent.
- Our_Benefactors 4y ago
  For a more balanced take, “Why I chose a gun” https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun
  - aklemm 4y ago
    Why is that a “more balanced take?”
    - Our_Benefactors 4y ago
      If the alternative is a world where these weapons systems don't exist? I’m afraid that is a fantasy world which would quickly be ceded to the bigger stick. So consideration of military force requires balance, reverence, and respect. Posting something like “btw if you work in defense you’re a baby killer” is more insult than reasoned debate.