This is exactly why the takeoff clearances say “RNAV xxx, cleared for takeoff”. It’s a last confirmation, right before takeoff, of which departure procedure to use.
People today are more able to see people who are doing better than them economically, through social media etc., than at any time in the past. This is a huge contributor to the negative sentiment.
Referrals are valuable when the referrer has worked with you in the past and can vouch for your abilities, experience, work ethic, creativity, etc. with specific details. Generic referrals that provide no information other than “the applicant knows someone who works at the company” are worthless to a hiring manager.
So these pension funds were fine with investing in Fox year after year despite all the other crap Fox News had been spewing, but somehow now they want to sue?
No, the market sets the interest rate. The government issues bonds to fund the government, and they have to offer an interest rate high enough to get buyers for all of the bonds they are selling.
Isn’t this reversing cause and effect? Corporations are able to raise prices because consumers are willing to pay higher prices. Corporations always want to make as much profit as they can. If consumers can pay more, you get inflation.
I agree “HR departments shill on Blind” but the claim made by several people in that thread (at least one who said they are a hiring manager) that Databricks has recently hired multiple people who were laid off is verifiable as true or false. It’s not just a generic weasel statement like “it’s not our policy to…” or “we treat all applicants fairly” or something like that.
This seems like a lot of discussion for a single report from a possibly-disgruntled (but definitely rejected) candidate, about a policy that was denied by multiple Databricks employees in the thread, who clearly said that Databricks has hired a number of people who were laid off recently.
A lot of domain-specific publications have become insufferably political; they are trading on their previous reputations but are now so ideological that they're basically worthless. A few that come to mind are Wired, MIT Technology Review, Vanity Fair, and Rolling Stone.
This co-opting of previously reputable domain-specific publications by radicals with only an interest in pushing their political agenda and no interest in the supposed topic of the publication, has happened to a lot of publications in the last few years -- Wired, MIT Technology Review, Vanity Fair, and many others.
No, it was not always like this. It became an anti-tech, anti-capitalist publication some time in the last 5-7 years. I'm not sure why, but something similar also happened at other magazines in the same time period, like Vogue, Rolling Stone, etc.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see this statement. The ACLU has really lost its way lately, shunning the principles it used to embrace and just parroting progressive talking points on many issues.
The headline is a bit sensationalized. Their coverage ended on a Sunday and the new coverage started on Monday. And if anyone had denied claims on the expired insurance, they just need to file a cla with the new insurance and they'll be repaid.
It's actually the opposite -- if employers raise wages, we can easily get into a wage-price spiral with extreme inflation. The only way to avoid inflation is for employers to just wait until potential employees deplete their savings and extended unemployment benefits, and then hire them at uninflated wages.
Yes he has an attitude of "I've got mine, now nobody else should be able to have the kind of financial success I have." He and Reid Hoffman are two of the most politically active CEOs (and with the same political viewpoints).
But the things this author is criticizing about Facebook in the quote I posted really only apply to the main Facebook service -- not Messenger, Marketplace, Workspace, dating, Instagram, etc. And they apply equally to Twitter.
Isn't this also true of Twitter? Why always such unique hate for FB? Because they don't deplatform conservatives quite as aggressively as Twitter? "We’re sure many of you, like us, have experienced first-hand how Facebook gives people license to be their worst selves. It can elevate mere differences of political opinion into anger and hostility, pushing friends and family into extreme views, turning loved ones into ugly caricatures of their former selves. Perhaps you have even regretted some of your own posts there; the Facebook interface is designed to make it difficult to engage in good-faith disagreements."
Technology Review used to be about the science and engineering aspects of tech, but in the last few years focuses largely on social issues (and advocates a very specific ideological viewpoint). Not unlike how magazines like Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, Wired, etc. in recent years went from being industry publications to political outlets.