For CBT therapy, the evidence strongly suggests that it does help in the vast majority (but not all cases). More research is still needed to your point, and we can acknowledge the research done so far has provided evidence in favor.
"The effect's associated prediction interval −0.05 to 0.50 suggested CBT will remain effective in conditions for which we do not currently have available evidence. While there remain some gaps in the completeness of the evidence base, we need to recognise the consistent evidence for the general benefit which CBT offers." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7856415/
"Eleven studies compared response rates between CBT and other treatments or control conditions. CBT showed higher response rates than the comparison conditions in 7 of these reviews and only one review reported that CBT had lower response rates than comparison treatments. In general, the evidence-base of CBT is very strong. However, additional research is needed to examine the efficacy of CBT for randomized-controlled studies." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3584580/
"Our Story
There are many variations of passages of available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form, by injected humour, or randomised words which don't look even..."
Employer.com is a new "brand" from long-established Recruiter.com. My guess is that Recruiter.com planned to launch Employer.com in the near-term, and they saw the Bench.co shutdown as the perfect opportunity so they've sped up their plans and "launched" employer.com.
edit: after reading Recruiter.com's investor filings (as they're a public company) the acquisition of Bench is going to kill them. The founder has gone hog wild on acquisitions despite having barely enough income to support them. It's a tale as old as time: a medium successful company goes public and starts issuing shares to fund acquisitions at a rate far outpacing the business growth and suddenly, one day, the music stops and everything comes crashing down.
The process you describe above is highly vulnerable as Ponzi scheme. The goal would be to raise total revenues, to paint a certain financial picture to meet targets for cashing out before the high debt load and interest payments sink the ship.
As soon as there is insufficient cashflow for several consecutive periods, the whole thing comes crashing down. This is a strategy for cashing out, rather than building a long term sustainable book of companies for steady, organic growth which has the cash to payout dividends and reward loyal investors.
> The process you describe above is highly vulnerable as Ponzi scheme. The goal would be to raise total revenues, to paint a certain financial picture to meet targets for cashing out before the high debt load and interest payments sink the ship.
You have just described almost every modern VC backed company….
I searched the phrase "What's the mission behind Strivo?" because that felt like a rather specific question in the middle of a bunch of placeholder text. This template came up in the results, and it's a lol to see how little was changed from the template...including some of the photos
"By accessing and placing an order with UXTheme, you confirm that you are in agreement with and bound by the terms and conditions contained in the Terms Of Use outlined below. "
Amazing how this company that barely existed 5 minutes ago is already trusted by Google, Chipotle, Robinhood, HubSpot, X, Chime and Anthropic per their landing page. I wonder if that's also news to those companies.
If you are going to use a passage of text, you need to be sure there isn't anything. There are many variations of passages of available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form, by injected humour, or randomised words.
Yeahhhh I wonder if this is a new shell company spun up to either take on the old one as a way to restructure financially and get rid of some debt (I have no idea how this would work) or to give them enough time to wind down. Or something else? Who knows but definitely weird.
My team at Stripe was scattered all over, during COVID our company was fully remote, and prior to that I worked remotely on a presidential campaign. All of those were great experiences and, in their own ways, necessarily/understandably remote.
Compared to the early days at Gusto and my own startup, though, in-person has very real benefits that (in my opinion) are worth the challenges in hiring. I don’t know that it will always be true and can’t rule out that we’re wrong.
Having internal users and domain experts there in person makes a huge difference. It’s not impossible to do remotely, and maybe the tradeoff doesn’t make sense forever, but it’s worked well thus far.
I’ve felt similarly. In-person has benefits, but across my career it’s been easier to assemble top-tier teams when hiring remote than in-person.
For myself, I’m past the point of moving for companies. If they happen to be nearby I’ll make it work. If they’re not nearby, its either remote or I’m not at all interested anymore.
I, personally, haven't found many situations where continuous in-person-ness is required for hardware-free, software companies, when the actual 1:1 time necessary to get requirements / etc exceed an hour or so at a time and couldn't be as efficiently done over a Zoom call.
There are obviously huge, huge exceptions to this the moment you add hardware to the situation; or you need something you can't replicate well with screen-sharing.
Addendum: but I'm also mildly frustrated because it's a type of work I would be interested in; but I'm on the other coast, so I can't easily apply :)
Would highly recommend checking out Critical Core - https://gametogrow.org/criticalcore/ which makes it much easier for both players to start and DMs to manage
No, they weren't under extra security. The thieves seemed to not understand or not care about the value of what they stole versus what they left behind.
