> Burden of proof belongs to those who want to change the system.
This is only true if the existing system does not keep on worsening. As the technology progresses human working hours has become more and more. How is this even fair when the whole point of technology is to make human life easier. So the Burden is on the people who want the current system not to change.
In an economy where at the early 30's people are too afraid of being unemployed this is the stupid advice. Without financial independence everything is a luxury.
The company policy to speak to another department without managers approval seems great in theory. The problem with this approach is that managers will favor good ratings and promotions to those who take permission before speaking with other departments. How to avoid this situation ?. Are there any links to how tesla management is structured ?
How to define a nonscientific problem. There is none. All sociology problems are related to psychology that is related to biology which is related to chemistry which is related to physics which is related to math. https://xkcd.com/435/
After the google diversity memo issue, i have started thinking about using DDG all the time. The reason being what if google decides to censor the information when it is negative about it. It looks so obvious but never hit me so hard after the google diversity memo issue.
> But I see no evil whatsoever in someone making a software tool and selling only the binaries to someone who is happy to use said binaries under the terms the seller and buyer agree upon.
Same thing can be said about slavery. Some very very small minority may be happy being slaves. The rest of the slaves(people who just use binary) just does not know what it means to be being free(the freedom that comes with changing their software they use at will).
The author has a point. One suggestion to hire people without bias is to make the interview online for the most part and then conduct very few face to face interview with multiple rounds and getting an averaged feed back of the interviewees in text format and judge based upon it.
Like it or not, only the founder cares about the company. So the founders attitude should be forced to change and not change the founder itself. If Uber brings Meg Whitman then she will do the same what she did to HP. Split in to multiple pieces (HPE, e.t.c) and then sell em all, because only the founder cares.
hckrnews is awesome. Before i found hckrnews i had no idea at what point to stop scrolling for more news if i missed looking hacker news a day later. The problem was since the feed is not linear with time and the newer articles can go beyond the articles you have already visited, there was no right way at what point to stop. hckrnews has addressed this issue very cleverly with the 20% , 50 % vote. Amazing.
You may have a good reason to not disclose your identity, but how do you plan to get paid. Do you want to get paid anonymously in bitcoins or you just want to provide your identity to the future employer only which does not make sense to disclose privacy only to your future employer. I am confused here.
The best way is for the company to tell in a few lines that this is all they can do due to market pressure and any possible helps they can offer over mail. Its pointless to call in to a room and deliver through hr which creates unease to both humans.
This is only true if the existing system does not keep on worsening. As the technology progresses human working hours has become more and more. How is this even fair when the whole point of technology is to make human life easier. So the Burden is on the people who want the current system not to change.