that's a pretty indirect contribution. if we start to boycott companies because of what is done with the taxes they pay then there won't be many companies left to use or do business with.
The country has literally started the war and keeps killing people. Is it not enough to boycott any relationship with it, especially those from which it benefits financially?
as far as my observations go it's a little more complicated than russia started the war and apart from that life is not just about politics but also about mundane practicalities.
Only psychopath children: “I’m not bullying him, I’m just saying if he does anything I don’t want him to do I will bully him.”
Allegedly astute observers of European history: “Russia isn’t an aggressor, it just will aggress if its independent neighbors do anything Russia doesn’t like.”
sure, but that is sadly how world politics works. if the US expands nato right to the border of russia then they retaliate. ukraine fought a war against their own citizens in the eastern half when they sympathized with opening up to russia - a majority there perceives themselves as russians. this is not just whataboutism - if you don't fight for resources then you'll have to buy them for a very high price. and ukraine is very rich in resources. as is greenland.
Don’t give yourself credit for understanding the “much more complicated” picture of the invasion than what other people are identifying.
You’re right here saying that it’s a resource grab. That’s what everyone else identifies it as too. You don’t have a more “complicated” picture or a more complete one, just one that’s devoid of a moral imperative.
your explanation boils down to "russia is an aggressor and hence will aggress". i'm considering the context - so, my perspective is a little more complicated.
Like "the US expanding NATO" haha. No one is coerced into joining NATO, ya goofball.
Yes, dictators who express imperialist ambitions and who fashion themselves after former emperors tend to engage in empire building. Ooooo so complicated!
My position as a russian, if you want something (resources, gas pipeline, whatever) you make a better offer than the other guy. it is called diplomacy, such a new concept. You attack = you are unilaterally at fault.
I heard so many times how ukraine "invited the attack" by behaving in ways russia didn't like. Tbh I feel like anyone who says that is a potential domestic abuser.
While Kagi is not good enough for an advanced user I see no problem buying it for a tech illiterate relative. But that is assuming Kagi doesn't literally pay in some form to Yandex for using their search
Well, that changes things a bit. Glad I don't use it anymore... IMO their "pay to help us rank search results we get from other engines" is not great anyway.
Oh I know I have no hope of convincing them! But there are all sorts of less engaged people on here ready to be taken in by whatever slightly contrarian take they come across.
if it is a majority today, it is because those who had pro-Ukrainian views were killed or had to leave not to be killed. people have families and not always can just "move away" - that's why they are forced to get russian passports not to be killed
it has never been internal war in the east of Ukraine, and the full scale war there today is the proof.
And those who didn't applaud learned what "punitive psychiatry" means:
Refusing to bow to an occupier in Russia’s world labels you as “mentally ill.” Through forced diagnoses, drugging, and institutionalizing—even children—Russia’s modern occupation of Ukraine echoes a horrifying Soviet tactic: punitive psychiatry.
> sure, but that is sadly how world politics works. if the US expands nato right to the border of russia then they retaliate. ukraine fought a war against their own citizens in the eastern half when they sympathized with opening up to russia - a majority there perceives themselves as russians.
This is not some "nuanced view", but blatantly wrong Russian propaganda:
1. The notion of "the US expands NATO" is ridiculously wrong. In Central and Eastern Europe, getting into NATO is considered the holy grail of foreign policy. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been regarded as the top goal in foreign policy (along with the EU membership), because nobody wants to return to being unfree prisoners under Russian rule in severely stagnating dictatorships, from which European nations broke free only 35 years ago.
2. I stress: Central and Eastern Europe passionately wants into the pact that would help to defend them in case of another Russian invasion. Sweden even abandoned its 200 years of neutrality and entered the pact. Trying to depict this as some kind of American initiative is plain wrong.
3. Existing members had refused to invite Ukraine into NATO in 2008 and the topic of Ukraine's entry into NATO was completely off the table by the time of Russian invasion in 2014.
4. There was no "war against their own citizens" in Eastern Ukraine. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the entire thing was a covert Russian special operation, directly under Russian military command. Their verdict is long and gives a really good overview.
The entire war is about as complicated as the invasion of Poland and France. Just plain naked aggression by a totalitarian dictatorship that first crushed all internal opposition, then turned outwardly expansionist. History has seen many such examples.
> if the US expands nato right to the border of russia then they retaliate.
US didn't expand NATO, those countries begged and pleased and threatened to get in and the US and other NATO countries finally threw up their hands and said fine. Note they didn't build any bases there or station significant amount of troops there.
> ukraine fought a war against their own citizens in the eastern half
To portray any part of the Ukranian war as a civil war even 2014-2021 is wrong. Ukraine fought Russia. At most there were a handful of far right and criminals who were willing to fight their own country. Girkin the FSB agent who took the first steps in the war admitted that if it hadn't been for Russia Ukraine would just have arrested the handful of troublemakers.
> when they sympathized with opening up to russia
I feel like you don't know very much about Immigration or business between Ukraine and Russia before Russia invaded, things were pretty open. It's that Russia ruined it by invading.
> a majority there perceives themselves as russians.
If you don't know the demographics or identities of Ukraine then please don't make stuff up. The majority considered themselves ethnically Ukranian in almost all parts of eastern Ukraine including Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. And of course ethnicity isn't politics there are shit ton of soldiers politicians and ordinary Ukranian citizens of russian origin supporting their country. The head commander of Ukraine is an ethnic Russian who moved to Ukraine as a teenager and still has family there.
> this is not just whataboutism - if you don't fight for resources then you'll have to buy them for a very high price. and ukraine is very rich in resources.
Russia has many more resources.
Granted this war has been built on idiocy but invading Ukraine for resources makes no sense considering how much it would have business/expenses it would have cost even if Russia could have won
> as is greenland.
Greenland is militarily useful because of its location. It already has a US base so the status quo is good for the US
The problem with people who claim the Russian war on Ukraine is more complicated is that they dont seem interested in the actual complexity as opposed to the Russian propaganda.
They do not. Also, the ads are sponsored follow-ups. Maybe someday they will be more blatant, but for now at least, they are easily ignored. I almost never use the canned follow-ups.
Also, why would you ask this question to LLM? It's not a hammer, there are things is very useful for; adding numbers and math in general is not one of them.
For me it is only useful as a rubber duck, I could not find real use for it except toying with it and conversating with myself. This question was asked to LLM just while exploring it's funny limits, and they don't sound funny anymore when I imagine someone using this data sucker seriously.
> Most people in Germany can't afford to buy an apartment let alone build a new house and you're taking as if your situation si representative for the average German.
- 2.84 million people in Germany were able to afford a new car in 2023 [0]
- 1.25 million dwellings were constructed in 10y 2011-2021 [1]
- The homeownership rate in Germany is very low compared to other countries but still around 50% [2]
While parent's situation is likely above the median, it doesn't mean it is not representative.
> Just because you're wealthy enough to afford a new EV and to build a new modern house, doesn't eman Germany has no problems.
Parent commented on their energy usage change over the years, not on wealth or problems. Where does you comment come from?
>Parent commented on their energy usage change over the years, not on wealth or problems. Where does you comment come from?
Because policies on being eco-friendly is a matter of wealth. Wealthy countries and wealthy people are less effective by switching off fossil fuel dependency and can afford to be green without major sacrifices to their finances or their lifestyle. Poorer countries and people are hit the hardest.
One of my friend who work at a call center (clearly not wealthy) changed her main transportation vehicle to an electric bike ~6 month ago (just before winter, she's crazy), andshe told me last weekend that this was a net positive in every aspect, on her mood, on her routine (she has to be mindful of the weather), on her money, and on her fitness. She also go out more, since she go through the city center/harbor when biking to her job, and it's easier to stop at our bar (weirdly the bike parking infrastructure is way behind the bike lane infrastructure in our city, which makes parking with bike almost as bad as parking with a car nowadays).
But a car is one area where “trickle down” actually works. If you want to get affordable second hand energy efficient EVs into the market.. someone has to buy new EVs. Now. Preferably as many as possible.
We’re also rapidly heading towards the possibility of EVs with the same purchase price as an ICE. As long as you don’t need long range.
LFP batteries, motors with little or no neodymium magnets, power electronics are getting fairly cheap, 48V is enabling less use of copper, … we probably have all the tech we need, but since car companies can sell all the EVs they can make anyway, they’re still focusing on the higher end higher margin models.
Similar thing goes for heat pumps. They were pretty expensive 10-15 years ago. Now half my neighbours have gotten one, and many of them have very average jobs.
80% of new cars are bought by companies or in leasing agreements in Sweden, most people buy used cars. Doesn't matter that much for you point, but it does affect what people can buy.
Well gosh, what a good problem to have. So many good options that still respect people's times. You get to write a process that selects for the things you want to select for!
Let's assume these are 700 _qualified_ applicants and its for a programming role. I.e. their resumes and applications have passed the most basic of filters of "claims they can do a similar job" and "is probably a real person".
How about...
* Filter candidates if they have typos in their resumes
* Filter candidates who don't explicitly state that they leverage your tech stack
* Filter candidates who excessively job hop
* Filter candidates who have below some minimum of professional experience
* Filter candidates who live far from the workplace
* Filter candidates, for a remote role, who live in HCOL area
* Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume
* Filter candidates who don't put objective statements in their resume
* Filter candidates who don't have a link to some online portfolio (Github, personal blog, etc.)
* Filter candidates who don't contribute to open source
This sounds way way way worse than a simple test. I think the critical thing is that your online test shouldn't be difficult.
A simple fizz-buzz level test will narrow 700 candidates down to like 100, no need for arbitrary nonsense like linking to github profiles, contributing to open source or typos.
Respectfully disagree, especially in a world where simple tests will be solvable by LLMs/code-assist tools remotely.
* How would you proctor the test to know the candidates aren't cheating?
* How would your test actually test capability to program? (Assuming a legitimate test and not just a blind take-home proving you can code a todo-app...)
* What do you do when your test is leaked online?
* How is your test better than requiring an accredited degree from some institution? (which, for the record, I think is also not a great filter.)
The test is switching the filter from you filtering candidates to the candidates filtering you. Why apply to you when I can apply somewhere else? Interestingly, Canonical keeps coming up as a place to _not_ apply for because their entire process is bonkers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39750181
I think asking candidates to fill out 18 pages of prose before talking to someone is inhumane.
Fair point about LLMs, but I'm still not sure it matters. Say 20% of applications cheat - what does it matter? They still aren't going to get the job, it just means your filter is slightly less efficient.
> How would you proctor the test to know the candidates aren't cheating?
I wouldn't. I would just add a note "if you cannot pass this test without cheating then continuing the application will be a waste of your time; we will do more tests in real life" (but nicely worded). I don't think candidates want to waste their own time either.
> How would your test actually test capability to program?
I'd probably use leetcode.com but with very easy questions (no dynamic programming!).
If you mean "how would I test good programming taste & architectural design skill?" then that is really hard. Take home problem is probably the best way, but I'd just make it a short one (1 hour max).
> What do you do when your test is leaked online?
Change it I guess. But it doesn't really matter anyway. We're talking about people who can't do FizzBuzz.
> How is your test better than requiring an accredited degree from some institution?
Because most programmers don't have a degree in programming, or even in CS. Do degrees in programming even exist?
Just roll the dice. I refuse to believe that the average recruiting process is better than a fair dice.
The outcome seems to be a dice roll anyways. All these ceremonies just introduce bias.
Put up some requirements, get applications, roll the dice. Qualified, real person with valid credentials? If not, reroll. Can talk to you inperson for 30 minutes without seeming to want to cut your throat? Give offer.
For what its worth, modern recruiting pipelines should be able to automate a good chunk of resume filtering for you if that's what your org values. Being able to only grab applicants that have `Go` listed in their resume, for example, or those who claim to have a degree. That should make a dent in the manual effort. Nevermind that you would still need to review whatever output the "test" is giving you.
I agree with part of what the OP said:
> My take on interviews is that the company must eventually spend as much time as the hired developer in the process
In my opinion, making applicants take a test is creating asymmetrical busy work just so the job-poster can feel that they've selected the "best" candidates (whatever that means). If you legitimately have enough great applicants that you cannot possibly hope to interview them all, then just roll a dice!
> If you legitimately have enough great applicants that you cannot possibly hope to interview them all, then just roll a dice!
How do you know they're all great? You know you have 700 of them. What do you do next? Pick one at random, because you don't want to hire unluckly people?
> * Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume
> * Filter candidates who don't put objective statements in their resume
> * Filter candidates who don't have a link to some online portfolio (Github, personal blog, etc.)
> * Filter candidates who don't contribute to open source
I can't tell if this post is supposed to be sarcastic or not. I'm assuming so? Because these criteria are horrible compared to what's currently done now. "* Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume". What in the world is that?
If it is just sarcastic then why even post it? Why not post an actual proposal for a better way to interview?
Its both. I chose some particularly ostentatious examples to drive home you can select for whatever it is you may or may not want without subjecting your applicants to _tests_. I figured the dual-objectives would make that clear.
> * Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume".
> What in the world is that?
Some people, as well as my early education, recommended to put "objective" statements on your resume stating your literal objective in applying for the role. I'm surprised you haven't heard about them! edit: Personally I dislike them as archaic wastes of space.
> Why not post an actual proposal for a better way to interview?
And quoting you above:
> you can select for whatever it is you may or may not want...
Yes a person can do anything they want when interviewing candidates. That was never a question. The topic being discussed is what alternative method that gets you great candidates.
Simply skimming their resume would probably weed out 50% of that. A better way is to have a few simple questions on the application, like "Where do you see your career in 5 years", "We use Django here, what are some things you don't like about it", etc. With that, just "skimming" will weed out 90-95%. That said, now that everyone will just pipe that to chatGPT, not so sure how any private interview questions or projects are going to work out.........
It's good option to have an option to stand, regardless how good your chair is, sometimes you have enough of it.
I used to stand a lot 4-6h / work day. I used the "LIDKULLEN" stool most of the time instead of a proper chair. Nowadays, I picked up a cycling and train regularly and I find my legs are often tired and I rarely stand.
What's important to have comfortable shoes. I'm a "neutral" shoes person (vibram five fingers, barefoot running, etc.), but I hate them for standing desk, they are not comfortable when standing.
I guess it depends on the person, and their lifestyle in the end.
I don’t care about trillion dollar company. I care about my experience. App Store purchases and subscriptions are a good experience for a user. I’ve never had problems canceling subscriptions, or getting refunds.
I am afraid that some developers will drop Apple payments all together and I will have to type my credit card info inside of low-quality apps. Currently I just press ok after a Face ID.
> Ironically under the Soviet Union Poland was one of the first Countries in the whole Europe (and probably the World) to have legal abortion
>> the law was first introduced in the Russian SFSR in 1920
Poland was never part of the Soviet Union. It became socialist and part of the eastern block only after WW2, so I doubt the legal abortion date.
Also I mean, yeah the eastern block was quite progressive in some ways, but human rights were not one of them. Some of the gain were hugely offset by the millions of people who were tortured and killed by the system. Also much more blood thirsty in the Soviet Union than in Communist Poland.
In 1932 the new Penal Code legalised abortion only when there were medical reasons and, for the first time in Europe, when the pregnancy resulted from a criminal act. This made Poland the first country in Europe outside the Soviet Union to legalize abortion in cases of rape and threat to maternal health.
In 1920 Lenin legalized abortion in the Russian Federation, not in Poland.
> but human rights were not one of them
Poland has major human rights issues right now, in 2023, as a member of the EU.
Stricter laws about the abortion rights have started popping up in 2011 and the latest reform is from 2021. They are quite bad, they basically abolished abortion for 98% of the cases it was performed and for the rest of the cases the waits are so long that it becomes virtually impossible.
