cantrip

This kind of covers every conceivable case for doing this. If you list enough reasons you're bound to be right on one of them.

A level headed classy response to a knee jerk baseless claim.

To think that two (or three or a dozen) clever engineers couldn't independently look at one of the most popular mobile apps and think "I can game this" is silly.

Yeah honestly it's annoying enough already to pick out one specific word from a whole thoughtfully written comment and point out that it's incorrectly used, but you're not even right in that.

Furthermore, you can't even be bothered to spend 5 seconds Googling your belief, rather you just blindly stick to your incorrect assumption and post a one word completely nonconstructive reply.

>spreads between exchanges

In the 70s were the doomsday stories saying we only had 110 years left?

Just the author not fully understanding what he's writing about.

I dunno I think if it were an alien spacecraft we should just keep our heads low and not draw any attention to it. Our first window of opportunity might be our last.

It's a repeal of federal rules so California is free to create their own laws regarding this issue.

Refusing to defend your statements is not a compelling way to win an argument.

If you believe that you can dismiss a candidate because you have "fundamental disagreements" about politics you are incorrect.

My contention is not that "culture fit" is used exclusively to bar candidates because of race/sex/etc, but that it is used in that way and that it is impossible to know what culture fit even means because it means different things to different people.

To some people, such as yourself, it means something that is not a valid reason to dismiss a candidate.

If nothing else, please respond to this question: If my company does not have a dress code, but the "culture" of the place is that everyone generally dresses in button down shirts and slacks every day. Furthermore, I believe fundamentally that people work more productively when they dress nicely, by my definition of what nice is, and that there is greater team cohesion when they do so.

Then a fully qualified candidate walks into my office wearing clean, but baggy jeans, a hat with a sticker on it, tilted to the side, sneakers, and a t-shirt. He actually mentions in the interview that his style is important to him and part of what defines him.

Can I dismiss this candidate on the grounds that he is not a culture fit for my organization?

I wholeheartedly disagree and do not believe you have done anything other than support my thesis.

Fundamental disagreements about something important are the very definition of political / philosophical belief.

If someone does not possess the technical skills to do the job, they can be dismissed from consideration, but "compatibility" with your preexisting beliefs is in no way a valid reason.

Could you legally disqualify me from employment because I disagree with you on this very point? No. But you seem to be saying that you would anyway.

You dream of building an electric semi truck to beat Tesla to market? If that's in your range I don't think you're currently in the right field, whatever you're doing.

But the example you cited is not a legitimate legal reason to dismiss a candidate in the United States. It is a philosophical belief and thus protected by the Equality Act of 2010.

"but I'm actually glad American border security doesn't discriminate."

Wait, what?

Questioning a group of teenagers is discriminating them based on age, not skin color. They're looking for drugs.

Not everyone is treated the same by border control, thus it is perfectly viable to blend in and get away with whatever you're trying to do.

But what exactly are you referring to when you say they're not a culture fit?

A blockchain and a company are not the same thing.

A blockchain shouldn't need trust but a company absolutely does need it. Until the product is built you have no idea if they're even going to produce anything.

If they have a number of known entities in the space willing to peg their name to it, that's at least a modicum of trust that they aren't going to just take the money and run. It's not much, but it's something.

I'm sure you could cherry pick a few blockchain based startups with extremely small all engineer teams that you absolutely should not trust above some of these ones.

If team size is indicative of anything it's indicative of just how much money is being poured into anything blockchain based. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.

Lastly, the writer simply scanned the company's team page and decided "at least 4 of them look like they might be able to write code"? What exactly is that expertly produced opinion based on?

I'm not a fan of the name "Culture Queries" as that harkens back to the pernicious "not a culture fit" excuse, which is a term used by folks in order to discriminate against candidates under the guise of some amorphous "culture" when really they're just too old, female, gay, or black to hire.

Both environmental friendlyness and anonymity are on the roadmap.

As soon as I can experiment with programming an EOS or Cardano smart contract I'll be happy to comment on their viability, but as far as I can figure out you can't, or at least no one is doing it.

Ethereum has a working smart contract on the foundation website, as well as an online compiler to test with.

I would argue that Ethereum is where it's headed. Ethereum does everything that Litecoin/Bitcoin does along with a smart contract programming layer built into it, and a great team of incredibly smart people iterating on the platform.

Millions upon millions of dollars are being poured into companies built around Ethereum for a reason. If you look at the open positions for Consensys you can see just how many positions and projects one company has going on.

Yeah why? Why would you publish strictly an answer key, with no solutions or discussion when the site itself, a well known and cherished part of the software development community has explicitly requested that you don't?

The whale metaphor in this sense means something completely different. Language is highly subjective, so no the gambling metaphor is not applicable here.

Yeah you took out the word ostensibly when you quoted me.

Tether are, ostensibly, backed by $1 in a bank somewhere.

Having a dollar token is very useful, since you can move in and out of crypto trading positions into a stable store of value, good old USD.

Converting to real money takes a long time so you can't react to the market, and is also taxable and often has other fees on top.

I disagree. There is a section of the article titled "Where is all this cash coming from?" which claims (via a Reddit thread) that it's individuals buying on credit.

Anyone speculating about what's going on with Bitcoin without at least mentioning Tether is out of the loop.

It's a site with a Coinbase affiliate link, nothing more.

I honestly had deja-vu when I saw this comment but then realized I guess it's just a shill-bot.

Not sure where that's from but that's not true. There are no intentional inefficiencies and you can't mine Ethereum individually.

Doesn't a sale penalty mean the token is not actually pegged to the dollar? It's pegged to the whims of the cryto currency?

If a high quality watch is made from the same materials, in the same conditions, with the same brand logo, what does the term fake even mean?

From the article:

"Historically, less than 5 percent of the watches that we authenticate are fake,” said Powell. “At one point this number was as high as 10 percent.” However, the numbers are growing."

Is it possible that the number of "fake" watches was always going up but that even experts can't tell the difference any more?

And lastly, is it legal for watch sellers re-sell fake watches themselves? If they do, what incentive does a watch seller have for telling you the watch you want to sell to them is authentic?