1,066 karma · joined August 23, 2013
The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him. That is right in the video, clear as day. That is very much a clear fact. What you seem intent on breaking down is whether or not this was seen as some form of intimidation tactic and I'm trying to explain to you that people can, and do, interpret personal encounters like that in varying ways.
You seem to be one who can't understand the way in which people are able to react and interpret actions of people different. You asked me my opinion of the situation and then proceeded to tell me that my perception of reality is wrong. I watch that video and I personally feel that they are being intimidating, how am I in a 'confused nature of reality'. I am watching people confront each other and reacting to the situation.
Your whole argument on this video boils down to "your personal feelings don't match mine, so you're wrong".
I'm speaking to how some watched videos and felt they agreed with WaPo on the matter. There is no 'fact' to this story beyond an interpretation of events. This isn't a situation of clear cut and dry (like the recent released footage of the Chicago officer). It's people reacting to a situation and how it's making them feel.
> We are debating whether children surrounded and intimidated an old man as reported by the Washington Post. We are doing so because WaPo was cited as an example of 'real news'. > That did not happen. WaPo was wrong.
Your statements are perfectly proving my point. To people that scene and moment gave them a sense of intimidation. You cannot tell them their feelings and interpretation of the situation is wrong. If I walk up to you and stand in your face, and you tell me that it made you feel intimidated I don't have the right to go "Stop, you're wrong".
> You keep discussing unrelated issues without specifically answering whether you believe this happened or did not happen
Im trying to explain to you why that particular situation is not something you can clearly point to as fake news. I'm trying to paint a larger picture to the whole matter and why many took issue with it.
Since you're so hung up on the matter, yes to me I viewed the way those kids acted as intimidating and inappropriate. If I saw that many kids in a group, wearing those hats, and chanting the way they did I would not want to be near it.
However my comment was about how that actual scene can be viewed differently by people, and is exactly what is happening. This is not a matter of scientific facts being disputed, it's an interpretation of a real life event that took place. Too many people, the scene of 30-40 boys yelling and acting how they did invoked a sense of fear and intimidation to them. Too many others, it was just 'boys being boys'.
The other reason people are so miffed over this is because of the actual people in it and the narrative. For one, a boys family had the means to hire a PR firm to help with the ordeal (again, a place of privilege). And two, there is so much hand wringing over this boy and this event, but for some reason when many young men have been shot or hurt by cops it's often met with negative depictions of the person hurt. You can call this whataboutism all you want, but that's the reality of it. Why in this instance where a boy and his group of friends, that are clearing acting up and provoking others (not even touching the negative nature of their hats), are given a free ride as 'boys being boys' but yet we chastise people who get in trouble with cops? Aren't those same people "just being boys"?
This comes off pretty condescending. What makes an (assuming computer) engineer any more capable of reading & comprehending reports than a barista or banker?
E2E tests can be slow and extremely fragile though. They have a place and purpose, but they should not be the only form. Why would you skip entirely over "inner workings" tests that could catch bugs sooner?
Zapier goes over their hiring process (https://zapier.com/jobs/our-commitment-to-applicants/). It lines up with what I've experienced in that technical assessment is valued to the company, but more than anything they value ones ability to communicate and articulate in the interviews. So much of working remotely is trust and that is pulled out in different ways during the interviews.
This is fine when it's 5, 10, 20 people but open offices of 200+ people that is a combination of engineering, product, sales, marketing, etc does not. Even when small groups have conversations it's suddenly magnified through the whole office.
Yep, exactly. You're shifting your knowledge and skill of computational related programming into another field just to have more of a challenge.
At my own place I've seen engineers internally transfer to take on new challenges. Not surprisingly the trend of this is front-end -> back-end/ops -> video.
I feel like you're over selling this by a lot, especially the Hawkings and paper comparison. Someone moving from Google to Tesla because of "boredom" is likely due to the industry more than the intellectual challenge. People go to work at Tesla because they believe in Musk's "vision" of a better world.
The author does touch on this though by highlighting that you will need less and less people. As more services move into 'cloud' solutions it can free up time for those and they'll step into those spaces.
Additionally it became rather humorous to see how the most minute things became 'projects'. Sometimes it's worth just stepping back and observing what you're considering to be 'projects' or 'tasks' and ask if you're over doing it.
Where it fell apart the most for me was on weekends when I wasn't working, or with a notebook all the time. So I'd just end up opening my phone and then forgetting to move the notes over. And vice versa, if I forgot my notebook I wouldn't have my notes on me.
I've been trying to find a digital solution that lets me keep a notebook at work and easily put those into digital tracking. The closest I found was Agenda (https://agenda.com) but it's kind of over engineered for my needs. I know Notion is well liked, but again it's overly complex for my needs.
One remote first company I interviewed with told me all their daily calls were video because they wanted to make sure people still felt human. And I think it's such a crucial piece in all this because people have been accustomed to just doing audio only which only further creates a sense of loneliness.
And as I stated you can replace this in other ways. Because you're home you may end up at a gym or coffee shop or group bike rides more often. That gives you a different form of social interaction in the day to day to replace "water cooler" talk.