Seriously? A candidate puts in a week of work and he can’t be guaranteed a 30 minute discussion?
Nobody is getting a few hundred or few thousand submissions to evaluate. Nobody. If you are getting 1k applicants, at best 50 are asked to do a take-home and even then, not all at once.
If by some miracle 100 people did this to completion at the same time, there should be a notice to the effect that due to high volume, blah blah blah.
…which is totally understandable… if the hiring manager had communicated that. They could’ve easily mailed back “Hi this proposal seems much more detailed than what we need for evaluation, please save yourself some time and energy.”
The author may have had issues (I personally don’t count “need clear instructions” as an issue - edit - I see they didn’t adhere to the TUI prompt), but the hiring manager definitely did.
> …which is totally understandable… if the hiring manager had communicated that.
I agree that the hiring manager could have handled it much better, but as a rule: If at any point during any hiring process you feel like you need to spend even close to a full time week of work on anything without being very explicitly told so, you are wrong.
I am a hiring manager and we do take home homeworks. I fully agree that this is a key piece of communication. I always take the time to tell candidates that although they have as much time as they want, we expect 2-3 hours of effort at most, to be respectful of their time.
Without that, take home problems would seem predatory.
I did try a boatload of OTC products, and eventually went to a generalist and then a specialist when it became severe and chronic. The OTC products recommend that on their labels. I now manage it with careful diet and a daily dose of polyethylene glycol.
In my experience from a poor Latin America country, rich people rob those far away, poor people rob those close.
If there is no obvious diversification in the path forward, then the resources of wealth are few and easily identified. Ex: oil, banana plantations, etc. These countries are more likely to be like this. With a colonial past, there is a view by the strong they can only steal. It takes an exceptional leader who is strong, cares about his country, willing to kill to defend, and willing to not be bribed by the global powers to turn a country around. And he may still fail.
When talking about fundamental rights (like say, the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion or ...), I don't understand the thinking that only some people should have them based on some legal criteria. I'm talking out of my ass here but it feels like the kind of legacy that is carried by having stuff like slavery and the like where humans were not equals.
I guess this is why in France we call those fundamental rights human rights and not citizens rights.
My point being: I don't see how the difference you give provides anything other that than the ability to abuse some groups, I don't see any advantage from it.
For how long will it apply only to non-citizens? Trump is trying to figure out a way to deport citizens. Admittedly, the citizens are actual criminals, but how long will it be possible not to be a criminal for one thing or another? It appears that disagreeing with the administration is enough for them to at least consider if they can do it.
So far they've already detained a lawyer who is an american citizen when he was reentering the country, and tried to grill him for inside information on cases he's actively working and people he knows. They eventually let him go, but they targeted him specifically and knew his name and significance, and he was defending one of the student protesters.
They even called a "tactical terrorism response team".
Oh, and check out how you can find them being used in already opaque and sinister ways back in 2021 under Biden, and earlier.
It's literally something that helps maintain a physical aspect associated with a person's gender. Granted, hairloss can happen to anybody, but baldness is highly predominant towards the male population.
Many men aren’t happy about balding, especially earlier in life. They feel distress at their body not presenting the way they want it to (with hair!). hence, gender affirming care.
I've never heard anyone argue that men with no hair loss are less manly so no I don't think it counts as gender affirming care.
I have man boobs, I guess fixing that would technically be gender affirming care because I'm embarrassed of having female features, but balding is really a stretch.
But male pattern baldness is a male trait. So to affirm, wouldn't it be more of this? Men getting their hair follicles removed to emphasise this male condition.
It doesn't really make any sense to say that preventing a natural feature of men from progressing is being done to affirm men.
It's called "male pattern baldness" and is caused by androgens, counteracting it would be 'less male'. And that's without mentioning the social aspect of focus on appearance, which is generally feminine-coded.
I disagree. I despise pampering in a country where everyone makes a pittance and slaving over some rich American is a more lucrative career than most others. I come from such a country.
It’s possible to have fun very easily, even a very relaxing vacation and not have most of the money siphoned away by some corporation like a giant resort company that plays fast and loose with local resources because the government is desperate for employment
It is 100% irrelevant that a doctor “experience” a disease. They should have training / exposure to it though.
I constantly hear non-medical people talk about how “only female doctors understand because they’re women”. What crap.
The very same people when facing cancer magically don’t require a doctor who has had cancer. Suddenly they just want the most qualified.
The problem lies much more in over-specialization, rapid patient turn-around, patient demand that treatments be easy, pills, and yes, training in how patients (fe|male) communicate and feel pain, illness, etc
This is bad. The Mere-Exposure Effect can increase the number of victims as AI CSAM can act as a gateway drug so to speak.
This is the justification for keeping the ban on legally culled elephants. Yes, a percentage of elephants are legally hunted to control population and fund national parks, but you cannot import that ivory because the thinking is it will create a market and that market will quickly turn to pouching.
The anology here would be, that poaching is a thing even though it's illegal, so say we found a way to create ivory that is indistinguishable from the real thing, without any harm to animals.
You can flood the market with it curbing the demand, and still continue to hunt down poachers.
There's an argument to be made that they might have an easier time claiming their ivory is actually fake but the real strategy is to make poaching just not worth the risk by inpacting the reward.
You described two different things: a psychological effect first, and then a market. The elephant example isn't mere-exposure.
Also, I'm not an expert on this but do we see more sensless killing by kids playing violent video games? This is usually the counter example to the exposure argument and I haven't seen it properly argued against.
In the US there's also been an interesting rise in sexlessness and male virginity recently [0] which is a fun one to compare with exposure to pornography. There is evidence that real-world conditions have a lot more to do with real-world action than pictures on the internet.
Nobody is getting a few hundred or few thousand submissions to evaluate. Nobody. If you are getting 1k applicants, at best 50 are asked to do a take-home and even then, not all at once.
If by some miracle 100 people did this to completion at the same time, there should be a notice to the effect that due to high volume, blah blah blah.
reply