oDot

> ... it doesn't matter that you have a 7 year experience, you still have to do fucking Leetcode for 2 months if you want to get a new job

Exactly my point -- two weeks of leetcode do not significantly affect the candidate's ability to perform the job, but it has immense influence on how well s/he'll do in the interview

The current state of job interviews is terrible. Just the fact that studying for a few weeks affects their outcome should raise eyebrows everywhere.

And don't get me started on lack of job-related questions, false negatives and having to guess what interviewers want to hear

Arch does this best. If you are displeased with the official repos, you can use the AUR.

The article assumes that only an "easy" real-life scenario will fit in an interview's timeframe. That is only true if you select scenarios unaltered.

A truly challenging real-life scenario can fit just fine after some alterations.

What is the current industry standard equivalent of Synfig? Drawing each frame individually in Krita-like software?

I agree about the Evergreen Communication being hard to realize. It's more of an ideal, something to aspire to even if never reached

Thank you for reading

Fixed, thanks!

I have actually tried doing everything in markdown when I initially released the book, but then I figured that for it to look the way I want the quickest way is to Google Docs & export as PDF.

Then I figured I can export as HTML and this is how this version was born (manual tweaking was and still needed)

Thank you for responding with valuable feedback! Will definitely fix this.

This sure is a real challenge in some places, I hope tools will come out to support it as more businesses work remotely

Thanks!

I wrote Emergency Remote[0] for companies thrown into remote due to the situation.

From my experience, it seems that the reason companies use sync communication and "emulating" an office is not because they don't understand the benefits of async, but because of the required discipline.

Fortunately, that discipline is required vastly more of the initiator of the conversation. This allows the recipient to quite easily refuse sync communication. This way employees can help each other out and get used to async.

[0]: https://www.emergencyremote.com/EmergencyRemote.pdf

> Because it helps align incentives. You can have a 7% tax on sales, or a 5% tax on sales plus a 2% tax based on a noisy correlate. The latter will raise more revenue at a lower excess cost.

I see. Well we seems to have different goals. As I see it, government is mostly good at destroying wealth, and so I aim to minimize their revenue.

> That would make it a tax on revenue, which is quite distortionary indeed and generally considered a last-resort. (Or you could have a VAT, where all entities pay but tax paid on non-final sales is refunded. VATs are quite good but not totally free of this kind of gaming.)

I am essentially suggesting a non-refundable, uniform VAT

Note that a sales tax as only tax means no income tax, so overall a gain to production incentives.

An economy is driven by production, not consumption.

> Mostly, because it correlates somewhat with basic ability-to-pay;

What do you care about ability-to-pay?

> ...also, because people might try to disguise income/expenses as investment-related in order to shield them from taxation, and having a more uniform tax base helps prevent this.

You can't shield from that tax. All entities pay, for every sale, no refunds.

If you take a look at the data, "investing in land" wasn't as luxurious as it is today, due to government actions inflating the market.

But what is investing other the attempt (aware or unaware) of creating wealth? When people make money, it means someone bought something from them. This means they had to create something other want. That can be a service, a good, or a house for rent. Remember that those who rent houses are people who can't afford to buy them, so they need someone with capital to manage the house. I am renting myself and I much prefer it at the moment to owning a house.

You want billionaires to keep their money, because unless they put it under their mattress, they are growing the economy, which means lowering prices and raising quality.

It actually makes much more sense to use a uniform sales tax:

(1) If you spend more, you're taxed more. Obviously this is better for poorer people, who spend less, but also for rich yet reserved people, who keep most of their money in the bank (which lends it) and are earning an income (=productive). Both will not penalized.

(2) It's much hard to raise, because people will just stop buying stuff, which is much easier than quitting a job to not pay income tax

(3) Being uniform, it doesn't choose favorites. Everything is taxed the same

I never said it existed, but that the US has less of it then it had.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. If you want we can discuss a specific "horrible thing" and examine the ties to capitalism at the time.

I have clarified my original definition, that would be self defense, in the same way that if someone tries to coerce a knife into your throat, you can coerce their face to the pavement.

Yes that is correct. It really depends on the approach to libertarian law, but protection boils down to contractual limitations that come with purchasing a copy.

I also know of some libertarians that do not oppose IP itself, but claim that any system to enforce (and definitely our current patents system) is worse than no system at all.

I may have needed to be clearer, but coercion in response to coercion is self-defense. If someone physically forced their way to your property (if you'd let them, no violence will be needed), you have a right to defend yourself, and this should be enforced.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, due to less government involvement

Depends what the owner of that house wants to do. It will be within their right to evacuate that person.

Otherwise if you want a house all you have to do is go bankrupt then pick an empty mansion.

As I said in another comment, you're attacking a straw man. I did not say pure capitalism existed before, but that the US is less capitalist today than before.

You're attacking a straw man. I did not say pure capitalism existed before, but that the US is less capitalist today than before.