I've just went through a round of interviews from various companies after being made redundant from work 4 months ago.
Admittedly the job market was really quiet but it was eye opening the differences in interview techniques and processes.
I had one interview from a FinTech company which I actually thought went quite well, the next day I got a rejection stating "I need to improve my STAR technique". I just rolled my eyes thinking FFS
Another company the CTO wasn't on the call but had asked to record the last 15 minutes of the interview with questions he'd prepared, I was close to terminating the interview. If he couldn't be assed sitting in on the interview why should I answer questions the interviewer himself didn't understand. One of the questions was "What is triple D". I'm an experienced dev, fully aware there are too many acronyms in the industry but had never heard of triple D before, when I googled it after I was thinking FFS, that's just what any competent dev does by default. I guesses data driven development but admitted I wasn't sure.
Another interview the principal engineer yawned 3 times when I was talking before I even got to the half way stage, not one apology. I know it's just human nature but to not even acknowledge he was making me uncomfortable reminded me afterwards that it's probably a toxic work culture, which I've been told since is the case from people who worked there.
Thankfully at the start of the new year I was offered 3 roles, 2 of them I thought I'd screwed up the interview. The one I accepted, apart from taking on a task to review some code and raise issues with it, I was asked to describe an architecture of some system I'd worked on and enjoyed. I spoke too long, going past the interview time but didn't feel I explained the whole system.
I understand interviewing candidates is difficult, I've had to do it a few times in the past but the competency of interviewers and the process to score candidates varies wildly from organisation to organisation. A realisation for me although I was already aware of it, is the personality of the people interviewing you varies wildly, more often than not it's a good indication of the organisation itself.
I've just cancelled too and also recently with Netflix.
Maybe it's the type of content I want to view but I mostly watch movies and it's been a while since I thought either platforms were any value.
I'm not sure if it's a symptom of poorer quality movies in general or the number of streaming sites available but I'm not paying for something I don't use, free prime delivery isn't enough a reason.
It's not some phenomenon, it's shitty sensationalism from the UK's worst "newspaper". I'm still surprised it didn't go the same was as the news of the world.
The UK would be a better place without media like this including the people who work for them.
depending on the kind of earthquake and sediment/ground/stone it can involve a bunch of friction not just in the crust which could create electric charge which could lead to ground to sky/cloud lightning
which would make it a (normal non mystical) natural phenomena
Just a personal comment.
I used to love calamari, I'm from Scotland so seafood is plentiful and of a high standard. However I decided never to eat it again after watching "my octopus teacher" on Netflix. It's an emotive documentary clearly made to evoke feelings in the audience, it certainly changed my mind.
We can't effectively measure animal intelligence compared to humans, we make decisions based on ethics and morality so I made that decision to never eat squid again.
It's clear that humans over-consume and as an "intelligent species" who can make decisions based on morality and ethics, we still collectively seem unable to logically reason this overconsumption will eventually effect us all.
> It's clear that humans over-consume and as an "intelligent species" who can make decisions based on morality and ethics, we still collectively seem unable to logically reason this overconsumption will eventually effect us all.
Why should individuals that live for themselves and don't share the same values as you do suffer because of your decisions?
You've summed it up in your sentence "live for themselves" i.e. greed and selfishness.
And what do you mean by suffer? Do you mean the richest people earning less or people in poverty?
We could live in a more ethical and sustainable way, we just choose not to
Wow, I'm surprised you actually typed that out in public but fair play for being honest
> I couldn't care less about rest of people.
I can clearly see that
> I could live without shower and toilet paper, I could live without washing machine or meat. Doesn't mean that I want to.
Overconsumption isn't having toilet paper or a shower, those are necessities. Drilling in the Arctic for more oil, shark finning, the strive for constant economic growth are examples of overconsumption
> I couldn't care less about rest of people. When it comes to either me or them*.
Small fix to clarify. I'm not some cynical edgelord, don't misunderstand, I probably care a fair bit more about other people than your average person. But when it comes to situation where I have to give up something that I don't consider morally absurd, well then we have a problem.
> Overconsumption isn't having toilet paper or a shower, those are necessities. Drilling in the Arctic for more oil, shark finning, the strive for constant economic growth are examples of overconsumption
Sure. But we're discussing food here. I don't see why me, an average Joe, has to discard of the only joys of my life because someone thinks that it is morally correctly to switch to artificial meat.
Bacteria will form on your skin and can lead to infection. Maybe that's the answer to population growth, never shower or excercise good hygiene measures therefore increasing mortality rates.
We don't need to clean our teeth either right? We can lower food consumption through that too.
We can "make decisions based on morality and ethics" but why do these decisions have to be that we shouldn't eat meat? What is it that is inherently immoral, or unethical, about eating meat?
I mean, I'm probably just as capable as you of making "decisions based on morality and ethics" as you are, but I don't think it's immoral to eat meat. So clearly there are different interpretations of "morality" (duh). But your comment seems to assume that no, there's just one morality: eating meat is immoral. Why?
You've completely misread or misunderstood my post.
Eating meat is not wrong, overconsumption is wrong, wasting resources is wrong. The question of morality is, is it right to over consume the planet to the point we extinguish other species, or even our own?
Are we comfortable that future generations look back on us as selfish and greedy for what we did, or didn't do?
I am not vegetarian, pardon the pun but that's maybe what your beef is about
Again, I''m confused by the very, very strange replies.
Yes, it seems I did misunderstand your post, because you started it with saying that after watching "My Octopus Teacher" you decided never to eat calamari again. The context of the film and the post is that cephallopods are intelligent creatures and I thought that you meant you decided never to eat callamari again because of that.
So now I'm very confused. Why did you decide never to eat calamari again? What does your decision have to do with a film about an octopus? What does any of that have to do with over-consumption?
You made your comment very confusing so I was confused. Thanks for clarifying, but it's still very confusing so don't go accusing me of having any "beef" with anyone. Just make sure your comments are easier to understand.
> You made your comment very confusing so I was confused. Thanks for clarifying, but it's still very confusing so don't go accusing me of having any "beef" with anyone. Just make sure your comments are easier to understand.
No it really wasn't confusing. Perhaps English isn't your native language, nowhere did I mention meat, unless you define a mollusc as meat (some vegetarians do choose not to eat them). I think you just wanted an argument on the internet which you'll find I don't do
Absolute nonsense. Only a few days ago it was the 25th anniversary of Dunblane, a massacre that will never be forgotten and out of which the snowdrop petition forced the government to have some of the strictest gun laws in the world.
Who in the UK looks at the US and thinks "yes, we should have more guns"?
I'm not sure it's misconception. When I was a student a very long time ago on holidays I used to work in a paper mill in various departments laboratory and engineering departments, mechanical, instrumentation, electrical etc.
The UK paper making industry has (and had) been in decline for decades for many reasons but the main issue is cost, more specifically energy costs. Second to those costs were material resources.
This paper mill was a recycling paper mill and the cost to produce acceptable standard paper was enormous. It used an enormous amount of gas to feed it's huge boilers producing steam, it even had it's own water turbine generators fed by the local river it was built alongside to produce electricity. It supplemented this with electricity from the grid which was even more expensive. It's biggest customer I'm fairly sure was McDonalds
Pulp was shipped in from Norway because again it was cheaper, at that time 100% recycled paper was not profitable and pulp from the UK was too expensive. When the company went into administration most of it's equipment which was old even at that time was bought by companies from China.
This mill was old, dating back to 1880 and it's infrastructure was part of the reason of it's demise. But there were 2 other paper mills in the same small town that eventually met the same demise, one being a much more modern construction, however it lasted longer by specialising in more profitable products such as tissue.
The paper industry is not carbon efficient, it will be much more efficient than it used to be but it still takes a huge amount of energy to produce. In lower volume it could be but consumerism dictates it isn't, it's why China is the largest paper making country in the world now.
I do have some fond memories working there even though it was hard work, at christmas time when the mill would shutdown it was absolutely freezing and doing a 12 hour shift on boxing day working inside a 5 storey high boiler was maybe not so pleasant. There were some wonderful quirks about the place, where the turbine generators were you could climb below the workshop floor where the bypass outflow was and you'd find one or 2 people sitting on wooden girders above the water fishing on their lunch break
It'd be good if the reasoning for the foundation could be properly explained.
I understand what governance and architecture etc means in large scale projects but what does it mean for JavaScript if it's not standards based governance i.e. ECMA specs?
The Dojo and jQuery foundations merged a year ago, both of them brought a number of libraries and toolkits together such as lodash, grunt etc under a single banner.
What benefit to the open source community does it actually bring?
Is it the combined power of contributors and experts to debate and future proof standards?
The libraries and toolkits under this foundation could be argued by the cool kids of today be legacy. It could be easily ignored by these cool kids.
Bringing it under the linux foundation is interesting but can anyone explain whether this news is actually important for the future of JavaScript?
