The case studies, historical events, and intellectual movements discussed in the book all receive superficial treatment, and in general the content does not work in service of the argumentation.
That's how academics say "this book is racist horseshit"
I did say, in a nice way, that "they are your competitors either way".
And yeah, companies treating interviews as a one-way evaluation is a red flag.
There was this book that was hype around 2010, called "Are you smart enough to work at Google?". It was full of interview questions and brainteasers that I strongly suspected I'd find interesting, but I couldn't get over the title. I wanted to scream "Fuck you, book! Is Google smart enough to hire ME?!"
We are, as a profession, systematically manipulated via these interview processes to feel stupid and inferior to drive down wages. I'd rather come off as slightly too arrogant now and then, rather than submit to that.
there are people who make me feel good because they give me various benefits. is that what you mean?
No, but it is a good point to bring up, because it illustrates the attitude you bring to human interactions. It reduces people to transactions, and it shines through. This creates a very strong wall/barrier to forming connections.
i was literally just asking about mosquito bites what the fuck
You also asked if you should lie about safety on stuff to inject into other human beings who need medical aid. That shouldn't even be a question. Needing money is no excuse to gamble with the lives of others.
Why would anyone give a shit about negotiating with a government that change course 180 degrees on a whim, and recently launched a surprise fucking drone strike on Iran even while they were cooperating militarily?
Any negotiated promise or commitment from the US would be literally worthless. They'd just forget in a week anyway.
The music is stored in compressed form 7z, which as far as I can tell contains a few notes, a folder A that says "1000 x notes", a folder B that says "1000 x A", a folder C that says "1000 x B" etc in a long LONG string.
Is it a privately owned company under at-will employment? Then don't allow yourself loyalty to an abstract entity that would ruin your life if it was more convenient than not.
At any rate: If you change, you are safer long term. When things one day get hard, it is healthy to know that you are able to move employment on your own terms.
I'm a software developer, and understand the technicalities and options available to me. I am capable of forking Firefox and make myself a custom build with anything I don't like stripped out. (Capable of, not wanting to.)
They removed "We don't sell your data and we never will" from their FAQ and they added "We may sell your data" to the ToS.
I am unhappy about this change. It is a clear sign that the people in charge of Firefox want to sell user data, and that the irrecoverable enshittification path has been chosen. It means that at some point in the next few years, I can't trust Firefox' with my privacy. And they sure as fuck don't have anything else going for them: The browser eats memory and freezes my camera during video conferencing, and is plain not supported in some of the software I use at work.
The rationale is probably something entirely reasonable, like "While we do not intend to sell user data, the phrasing was too vague and not helpful. What is selling, and what is user data, really?" An organization with strong privacy values would be so far from anything "bad" that the phrasing as it was would not be a problem for them.
It's irrelevant that right now privacy settings and xyz and telmentry is clear and opt in etc. Because the point is that they are gearing up to change that. The settings will be less clear, user data will be separated into shit like "operability assistance", "personal information", "experience improvement metrics" with some of it enabled by default because, etc.
Reading past the headline, the article goes on to say that calorie in/out is correct but hard to calculate usefully and thus they recommend strategies that are easier to keep stable.
It's pretty shitty to equate a first worlder feeling hungry for a bit to actual starvation. One is unpleasant. The other is serious.
That's how academics say "this book is racist horseshit"