> It sounds like violently agree with everything other than my framing and wording choices.
No, you previously implied that the discovery of this information is somehow leading to less judgment and blame and more of an effort to understand.
> The author seemingly had a lot of judgement and blame for the dad before finding this out. It sounds like they are seeking understanding
If you read the story, it looks to me that prior to learning all this she felt bad that he didn't get to have a life of his own and sacrificed for her. But she learned that this wasn't the case. This is kind of the opposite of what you're suggesting.
Also on this:
> You can either seek understanding or seek blame, but not both at once.
My point here is that she's doing both.
> Maybe. I didn't notice it was a period and not a comma until posting it. I still read it as "we found...his life" sure maybe they interpret it was him wasting that life, but your prior sentiment I quoted is the thing I'm emphasizing. I'm not saying there's no judgement. I'm saying there's a clear (to me) attempt at understanding that goes beyond blame.
It's not about the period - it's that she's using italic for quote and this is part of her mom's statement.
I think you're misreading that last line. I'm pretty sure what the author is saying is:
> the evening we found the love letters my mom said to me, "he wasted his entire life, his entire life, and mine as well."
Also, I don't think she's seeking one vs the other, nor is she judging him less now that she knows he's had a bunch of affairs. She's presenting a story and it's obvious that she has mixed feelings, full of both positive and negative judgement.
What kind of data do you have? Do you work at one of these companies and know that the data is fudged? Do you run an analytics company? There could be some measurement errors or biases but it's virtually impossible that it's directionally incorrect when we're talking about 67% growth y/y.
You're talking about the streamers? As I mentioned, streaming is a tough business, it's going to have a lot of churn. In terms of viewership, there's publicly available data and it's not going down:
I don't see how any of these are deal-breakers for the viewers and if the viewers are there, the streamers aren't going anywhere. The network effect is real - it doesn't matter how good your streaming platform is if no one is using it.
What in particular do they hate about twitch and what type of streamers are they? (top, emerging, casual, etc).
I too hear a lot of complaints about Twitch too but I feel that most of them have nothing to do with the product, but the zero-sum and competitive nature of gaming streaming. It's just difficult to succeed as a gaming streamer (or content creator more generally) and the vast majority of people who try will never make any meaningful amounts of money, so frustrations tend to be attributed to the arbitrary quirks of the platform, even though that's just the nature of any content business.
How does any of this change GME's valuation? Any company can decide to get into anything - the existence of an opportunity that everyone is aware of doesn't impact the company's valuation unless the company's uniquely suited to exploit the opportunity. I don't see how GameStop is particularly well-situated to take advantage of e-commerce or streaming opportunities. They don't have any unique offerings or substantial online presence. They obviously don't have any real tech or product talent or expertise. They also primarily deal with console games and all new consoles lock you into their own online store. They are suddenly going to compete for 2nd place for PC games?
And, Ryan Cohen has no operational role at the company and changing an existing company is very different from building a new one. It's not just having some grand vision, but having the culture and talent to execute on it at every level. And it's unclear Ryan Cohen himself would have any particular expertise here - selling digital goods is very different from selling physical goods.
The program that led to a very small percentage of German nationals in the US and an even smaller percentage of German Americans in the internment camps was for German nationals that were considered to be pro-Axis. They did not mass intern German nationals, let alone German Americans. German Americans that ended up in these camps generally went voluntarily to avoid family separation. There were a lot of Nazi sympathizers in the US at the time and it's not surprising that a small percentage of German nationals may have been supportive of the Nazis in ways that were considered problematic.
Japanese internment isn't considered problematic because it led to Japanese nationals that were supporting the Japanese war efforts being interned. It's problematic because it was indiscriminate and race-based - nearly all Japanese Americans in the continental US ended in internment camps. There's no comparison here - Japanese Americans were treated substantially worse than even German nationals, actual citizens of the country the US was at war with.
> You also forget that in Japan the Emperor was a cult-like hero. The majority would have walked over a cliff for him.
I'm struggling to find a charitable interpretation for this. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that it's okay to consider Americans of national origin X traitors if the US is at war with X and the country X happens to be led by a cult-like hero?
There's a distinction here between demonizing the enemy you're fighting against and demonizing the citizens of your own country for having a particular national origin. The cartoon here implies that Japanese-Americans (depicted the same way as the Japanese emperor in other cartoons) are traitors. And Dr. Seuss was German-American himself and did not try to imply through his cartoons that German-Americans or Italian-Americans are traitors.
I've worked in different contexts at a lot of different jobs (full-time, contract, etc) over the past few years and my overall assessment is that whiteboard coding interviews do work. By "work" what I mean is that places that do screen this way have more productive developers on average than others.
My feeling now is that the fact that it is arbitrary and doesn't have that much to do with real-life work may be a feature. You can dissect job performance in a number of ways but I think most people would agree that these four factors are important: general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, domain knowledge and motivation. And of those, domain knowledge is already relatively easy to discern from the resume and otherwise easy to screen for and if your company is doing anything unique, not as important in the long run. Almost any process would do a sufficiently good enough job of taking into account relevant domain knowledge. Thus what makes one process better than others has more to do with extracting other signals.
Whiteboard coding interviews, by being timed, somewhat arbitrary, yet something that is widely practiced and easy to study for, implicitly selects for cognitive ability, motivation and conscientiousness. It's hard enough that you can't be dumb, it requires enough preparation that you have to be somewhat motivated. And the process of preparing for interviews is sufficiently repulsive and it's easy enough to fool yourself that you're prepared enough when you really aren't, that studying to the point where you're prepared is a test of conscientiousness. This creates a paradoxical situation where the test itself isn't necessarily that relevant for the job, yet those who get through the test are almost always very good.
In short, given that what you need to do to pass these interviews is fairly widely publicized, the ability and willingness to do what it takes to pass positively signal that you'd make a good employee.
Even if you're great at software development, if you're neither sufficiently motivated nor conscientious enough to prepare yourself to pass these interviews, it's unclear to me why you'd also go out of your way to excel at any given job - every job requires you to do things you don't want to do, learn what you don't care to learn and deal with a variety of suboptimal situations constructively. So while I'm sympathetic to the point of view that this shouldn't be how things are done, I think the willingness to say, "you know, this is how things are, so let's deal with reality as it is instead of wishing it away and ignoring some of the best job opportunities because I don't want to study" is a positive characteristic. Every job has challenges like that - something that in an ideal world is kind of stupid, is not at all fun to do and takes a lot of effort, but doing it is strictly better than not doing it. You want to hire people who are willing to do these things, not just complain about how stupid it is.
No, you previously implied that the discovery of this information is somehow leading to less judgment and blame and more of an effort to understand.
> The author seemingly had a lot of judgement and blame for the dad before finding this out. It sounds like they are seeking understanding
If you read the story, it looks to me that prior to learning all this she felt bad that he didn't get to have a life of his own and sacrificed for her. But she learned that this wasn't the case. This is kind of the opposite of what you're suggesting.
Also on this:
> You can either seek understanding or seek blame, but not both at once.
My point here is that she's doing both.
> Maybe. I didn't notice it was a period and not a comma until posting it. I still read it as "we found...his life" sure maybe they interpret it was him wasting that life, but your prior sentiment I quoted is the thing I'm emphasizing. I'm not saying there's no judgement. I'm saying there's a clear (to me) attempt at understanding that goes beyond blame.
It's not about the period - it's that she's using italic for quote and this is part of her mom's statement.