21723

9 ms·

31.
by 21723 4y ago
The schools aren't broken. (Or, at least, that is not an aspect of them that is broken.) Employers are. If we want to fix this house, we have to take out the rot.
32.
by 21723 4y ago
Then you're included as disabled. You have a neurological makeup that increases the difficulty of securing and succeeding in employment. You have almost certaimly been given fewer opportunities than you would if you were neurotypical a
33.
by 21723 4y ago
This'll probably be read by no one, but I want to correct the record... I was trying to set up rhetoric for the argument that TG is not "toxic", because from what I've read, she is not. The downvotes suggest that I was i
34.
by 21723 4y ago
> Can anyone honestly and sincerely tell me that online whiteboards are exactly equivalent to in-person whiteboard sessions? Of course not. They're an ersatz replacement for the in-person thing. They do the job about 90% as well. Is
35.
by 21723 4y ago
> The complaint that returning to the office will lead to a "younger, whiter, more male-dominated, more neuro-normative, more able-bodied" workforce is maybe the most absurd attempt yet to destroy RTO plans. It isn't. If y
36.
by 21723 4y ago
Fair point. I thought I was being helpful but I won't do it again.
37.
by 21723 4y ago
That wasn't my intent, and his username appears to be a real name (although I don't know). Apologies if it seemed that was what I was trying to do. I wasn't. I assumed that he was a real-name account who wanted to be known by
38.
by 21723 4y ago
It sounds like you're alleging that Timnit Gebru (whom I've never met, but who seems like a fine person from what I have read) is "toxic" and that working with her would be "a nightmare" to you. Am I correct in
39.
by 21723 4y ago
This. People get let go all the time and that's just how the game works, but if a company is publicly saying someone was "fired for cause", that means someone who outranks the lawyers is out to rape this guy's name, be
40.
by 21723 4y ago
The really brazen thing here is that Google is claiming he was fired "with cause". People get let go all the time: layoffs, management changes, redundnacies. Usually, the company and manager try to avoid any legal or PR risk by sa
41.
by 21723 4y ago
Scientists are pretty used to the idea of having their papers rejected. It happens all the time for all sorts of reasons. Never say never, but the likelihood that someone who's already gone through a PhD program would act out in some e
42.
by 21723 4y ago
This. And if an AGI is built (unlikely in the next 100 years, IMO) by a for-profit corporation, we are dangerously, dangerously fucked.
43.
by 21723 4y ago
That too. The debts basically ensure that people have no choice but to "move where the jobs are" (which the reptilians tell us is a virtue) and work 65+ hours per week. Everything that took so long to build gets destroyed in a yea
44.
by 21723 4y ago
> It seems that everyone these days is aware that friendship is on the decline, but so few actually seem willing to do anything about it. Maybe people really do love their Disney+, their Oculus, their Doordash, and their Cheeto-dust more
45.
by 21723 4y ago
Australia and America are different in this regard. In the US, social life is optimized around making money. That's not because we're individually more materialistic than anyone else--I don't know if that's true--but bec
46.
by 21723 4y ago
I feel like we should stack rank corporate executives. Hold a public vote to rank them and the most despised 10% get the 'tine.
47.
by 21723 4y ago
The ones who do 3 months of actual work get fired because their overperformance scares the boss. But less than 2 weeks of actual work and you're an underperformer. The sweet spot is probably the geometric mean of the two.
48.
by 21723 4y ago
FAANG is banking with uglier people and even more casual sexism.
49.
by 21723 4y ago
Whether the US civil system itself is based on merit or reason, the problem is that employers have all the resources and can play parliamentary procedure ad nauseam--even in the rare cases where the good guys win, they'll file appeals
50.
by 21723 4y ago
Frivolous litigation happens but is fairly rare but, as you said, nothing in this country prevents potential employers from anally raping candidates for "bad-mouthing" prior companies. In the US, that's a legally defensible r
51.
by 21723 4y ago
I spent more than a decade in the tech industry and I know a lot of people. Silicon Valley is a disgusting place. The less you know, the better for your soul. What-the-fuck is a reasonable reaction. As for physical consequences of bad refer
52.
by 21723 4y ago
Answer: Maybe. What we are experiencing is acceleration. Left-wing accelerationists want to bring on capitalism's end-stage calamities in order to foster a revolution that will overthrow the bourgeoisie. Right-wing accelerationists thi
53.
by 21723 4y ago
I'm saying that people in the tech industry will do anything to protect and expand their reputations. The stakes are just that high--we're talking about the difference between 7-figure jobs and unemployability--and most of these p
54.
by 21723 4y ago
It's not that surprising. Reputation is a big deal in Silicon Valley. The people who won't do whatever is necessary--even end a human life, if it comes to that--to defend their reputations end up having theirs taken away. I'm
55.
by 21723 4y ago
I don't think anyone publishes statistics on this, but the thing you have to understand about Silicon Valley is that it runs on reputation. Skills are commonplace. H1-Bs have skills. 20-year-olds have skills. Instead, people get the go
56.
by 21723 4y ago
Bad references can ruin careers. When you're talking about the difference between getting a $500k per year job and being completely unemployable, it makes sense. That all said, people usually start with intimidation, and that's us
57.
by 21723 4y ago
I think there's a good chance that you just hate work. Not that you're lazy, not that you hate working or doing work , because that's different. Corporate "work", the institutional nonsense that people have to do
58.
by 21723 4y ago
It's not just horrible advice. It's dangerous and unethical. In Silicon Valley or on Wall Street, when people lose jobs on reference checks, people often get hit men sent to their house, and while the objective usually is just int
59.
by 21723 4y ago
Some of these are good, some are bad, but this one is dangerous and unethical: When checking references for a job applicant, employers may be reluctant or prohibited from saying anything negative, so leave or send a message that says, “Get
60.
by 21723 4y ago
Yeah, it'd be a bad look for a self-publisher, but it seems like traditional publishing has enough indirection that it could work... and compared to the sausage-making that drives "book buzz" it's relatively mild.

More ›