Bias fucking bullshit. Why is Joe Rogan named and not the podcast that usurped him? Media fucking blows
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 126
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 126
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
If you have the resources to do something and cannot be stopped from doing it, that is power.
If Trump can fire people, and others will agree that person is fired and cannot stop him, then he can fire people.
This is basically the ultimate test of the constitution. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump can't do something, will someone stop him when he tries it?
Or worse, if the Court says he can, will everyone just agree?
He is seizing power by people's lack of reaction. Honestly, I'm disappointed in government workers simply complying with DOGE and similar activities. They should not comply until a legal basis is proven. Of course, maybe that basis has been proven, and I'm not aware... but it's sus
It makes me so happy that people are offering advice to help. It gives me hope despite all the madness going on in the world. "Look for the helpers," right?
But yeah, OP. Get some regular exercise, even if it's not intense. Eat well, avoid processed snacks and soda and such. Drink more water. Spend time on yourself to relax and have fun, even if only a little time. Call an old friend, if you're lucky enough to have one. Sleep on a regular schedule with at least 7 hours, ideally 8. This stuff should help, at least a little
Most importantly, know that we're rooting for you <3
Sorry for the delay, busy days.
Yeah, fake postings are total bullshit. I still don't understand the motivation for them.
As for having jobs up for months, I can understand that when a role has very specific needs. But if the roles specific needs haven't been made clear in the job description, then yeah, that's total bullshit
My job postings are usually up for two to three months, and the rejection rate is maybe around 80-90% for the resume review stage at the beginning. I'd like to think the job descriptions are clear, but that's subjective. But do those sound like reasonable numbers to you, though? What do you think is reasonable? (Like I said, I want these opinions for my improvement)
Unfortunately, I haven't hired for a service job, so I don't have a complete perspective here. You mention "one of the first to apply." For an imaginary job that requires no background, what do you think would be good reasons to reject a candidate or choose one over another?
- JumpLocked
Shutdown 315
Thank you for sharing. Know that at least one person has signed up for the livestream thanks to this :)
- JumpLocked
Shutdown 315
Here are the demands from the site as of when I accessed it:
- Protection and permanent guarantee of civil rights for all
- Total government reform
- Publicly funded health care
- Adequate and accessible disability support and services
- A permanent solution to Homelessness, hunger and the housing crisis
- Respect and support for tribal Sovereignty and involvement with indigenous leadership for environmental action
- Enhanced enforcement of constitutional rights
- More power to american voters
Personally, I believe these are not specific enough. If I may be so bold, I'll rewrite them:
- Improved laws at the municipal, state, and federal levels to include LGBTQ persons as protected classes under anti-discrimination law, including explicit punishments for owners and minimum damages award amounts
- Replacing district-based voting with proportional representation for representatives at state and federal levels, first-past-the-post voting with either ranked choice voting or approval voting at municipal and state levels, and your state joining or better advertising if already joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
- Single-payer healthcare at the federal level, including coverage of preventative treatment and protection for pre-existing conditions
- Clarified laws around enforcement of disability support, including failure modes to prevent dropping compliance and punishments scaling to the wealth of the offender, at the state level for physical locations and services and at the federal level for online services
- Funding and development of government housing and support for the unhoused, including mental health services, training for entering the workforce, training in financial hygiene, and addiction treatment, be it chemical (e.g. drugs) or behavioral (e.g. gambling)
- Clarified and improved enforcement of laws at the federal level for ensuring the sovereignty and support of indigenous peoples, including environmental protections in line with their beliefs, punishments for private entities including corporations that violate their sovereignty, and failsafes to prevent intentional lack of enforcement by government entities
- Incorporating government ethical norms into the US Constitution, closing loopholes that enable abuse of power, strengthening ethics review committees' power to remove individuals using government power unethical, creating federal and state level departmental entities enshrined in law to ensure constitutionally granted rights
- Explicitly excluding corporations and similar non-individual entities from contributing campaign funds to political candidates, outlawing lobbying, drastically increasing public political campaign funding based on a metric that scales with the economy, further limiting private funding for political campaign funding based on a metric that scales with the economy, defining independent entities for auditing and pursuing legal action against tampering with voting mechanisms including voters registration methods, ballot submission methods, and voter tampering methods - all via constitutional amendment
People can fix my grammar/typos. Yes, I know more specific demands are more difficult to acquire alignment on from broader audiences, but I think these would be palatable up most Americans.
However, I am realizing that my points above are too verbose for quick consumption. Via web media, maybe they could be hidden as expandable sections beneath the original bullet points
- JumpLocked
Shutdown 315
My friend, maybe edit the original post to include this? A lot of us remember how much support and visibility Occupy Wallstreet got and how ineffective it was due to lack of direction.
It's only my intuition, but I think it may be easier to get people onboard by listing demands/goals, even if they're only tentative.
With these kinds of things, we're asking people to do a lot of work. The lower we can make the initial barriers to entry, the more likely people are to consume enough info that they become more willing to put in effort. This means prioritizing headline information well, making graphics appealing, etc
All this said, I haven't organized this kind of stuff. I defer to those with demonstrable success in these things
Keep fighting the good fight <3
- JumpLocked
Shutdown 315
I just wanna jump in and say good job with "Yes and." It's inclusive to make sure we're all on the same side and doing everything we can to impact, even if we disagree on how. You're awesome.
I live abroad, and my resident country's currency is weak compared to the dollar right now... but screw it. Where can I throw money that's trustworthy?
Got it. Okay, that makes much more sense. Nothing new there for me, then.
When you say companies shouldn't be "this selective," what are you referencing that they're being too selective about? If I'm being more picky than I need to be, I should stop, so I'm eager to learn something here
Can you share what kinds of questions you're asking? Or at least generic versions of them?
100% this
And the same thinking applies to interviews, but that's very difficult. My leadership sometimes gets surprised about how much I help interviewees, and I have to clarify to them that I don't care about how good they are at interviewing. I care how good they are at the job.
Unfortunately, this makes my interviews super long, but we have arguably the best engineering team in the company.
Our new CTO was very skeptical of our long interviews and ordered us to shorten them. Fortunately, we had one scheduled already. He sat in on it and is no longer worried about our long interviews. He understood the value once he was able to see where the candidate stumbled and excelled in our ... simulations? of the work. We try to simulate certain tasks in the interview, especially collaborative ones, to see how they would actually do the work. It's really hard for us as interviewers to prepare and run, but it's proven highly effective so far
All of this. When I tell people I meet that we don't do coding tests, we instead do tiny assignments, they often get quite excited. It also seems to be way, way more effective
Do you have any qualifiers for that? Like "with sufficient time to learn" or something? Is there some kind of personal development that you think could enable that?
In my understanding, asking a chef to be a doctor or a software engineer to be an artist often doesn't work great.
How selective do you think is appropriate?
To be clear: I'm a hiring manager for some specialized stuff. I'm genuinely curious about your perspective because I hope it can help how I do that work. I'm not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong or anything.
You assume the actors in the system act in good faith and that the system's incentives are well designed. It is not.
What kinds of people want to join the organization responsible for keeping foreigners out? How many of those groups are racists that don't actually care about the citizenship part? How do you measure the success of this organization?
When you start asking these kinds of questions, you start to see the cracks. Additionally, when you look at US immigration policies compared to other developed countries, they're quite harsh. I emigrated to Korea. It's quite easy if I have a college education and some work experience. I benefit Korea's economy. My Korean friends who want to go to the US have a totally different experience.
Additionally, you need to look at the US's history with regards to race. See the Japanese internment camps of WW2 or the fire bombing of Tulsa, OK. We don't necessarily distinguish between actual citizens and foreigners.
You can also look at how illegal immigration is managed in the US. Look at Ron DeSantis in Florida. He spooked illegal immigrants in Florida with his crackdown on immigration. The orange farmers started panicking because there were no workers. The oranges were rotting. Did DeSantis prop up the orange industry and encourage them to hire Americans? The good faith act? Fuck no! He rolled back the crackdown, and the illegal immigrants continued to be used for basically slave labor. America doesn't want legal immigration. They just want a group with no rights to beat the shit out of when they're feeling bad and to use for labor that citizens don't want to do.
Your argument of people behaving in good faith with regards to immigration doesn't have a lot of evidence to support it when looking at history.
The right thing to do would be to pursue immigration reform first, give time for current illegal immigrants to become legal, crackdown on the employers of illegal immigrants, and then start enforcing immigration law more strongly. But surprise! It ain't happening.
Of course, my comment assumes you're trying to argue in good faith, which also may be naive. Let's see
Shooting a dog is nothing compared to shooting a person, so it's no problem if I shoot a dog.
This is the stupidest take I've ever fucking heard.
People don't support hard progressives because they associate them with brain dead ideas like this. You're part of the problem you hate. You're just as bad as the fucking nazis because you're helping their cause. And oh sure, it's not bad now, but that's what Germans said when those assholes were just starting to get moving.
Pull your head out of your ass and think in practicalities. Idealism should guide direction, but practicality should drive action towards that direction.
And I know this isn't going to convince you. This is for the third parties reading this conversation. Don't be like this asshole.
Edit: and fuck, if you didn't now the term accelerationism before forming this kind of opinion, you truly have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Go read some shit
Edit edit: and I think you still don't understand what accelerationism means because it makes no sense in the context of climate change, which you've mentioned is a larger concern. Unless you're making the assumption that at any arbitrary point climate change is reversible, which would also be blatantly uninformed. Fuck, I hope you're not old enough to vote
How are you defining "normal?"
I think the main thing is that Korea's government still has some fear of its people, which is very, very important. Enough stupid moves and millions of citizens can be on your doorstep (see Park Geunhe).
Yes, there's a bunch of corruption. Yes, working culture blows. Yes, birth rates have been tanking for a reason (but reversed recently?!).
But there's a reason those soldiers heading to the parliament building had no ammo except one guy in a squad with less lethal rounds. There's a reason the martial law was ended so quickly. There's a reason Yoon is actually getting his on a reasonable timescale.
In Korea, once you hit that tipping point of people realizing you're a dick, you're gonna have a real bad time.
Presidential pardons are only for federal crimes. Rape is likely a state crime. I haven't checked
I might have laughed out loud on a silent bus. But worth it
Not necessarily. You don't know why they're making that claim.
I live in Korea, where the letter of the labor laws are quite strong. However, they're not enforced. Workers don't sue companies because they're either afraid to rock the boat due to cultural norms or afraid they will develop a reputation and become unhirable.
Korea and China are very distinct cultures, but there are key facets that are common between them. Confucian (or at least neo-Confucian in Korea) values prioritize maintaining the peace and deferring to authority. This is one of several factors that causes Koreans to endure intense working hours, and I'm more willing to believe Chinese folks overwork a lot due to the few shared values.
Per the other comment, headlines. Internet dwellers read the headline to decide whether or not to read something. You can think of a headline as involuntary information injection.
So Newsweek wants everyone to see Joe Rogan's name but not MeidasTouch.