jechamt · HackerTrans

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

This is what I was looking for, in the article as well as comments. Lemon juice has also worked for me, especially in combination with the sealed plastic wrap, but I was not scientific about it and was hoping for some mention of testing this in the article!

jechamt

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

I am in the US, but otherwise your situation highly resonates with me, and I feel your description could be used to describe my own search.

I've been looking, applying, and interviewing (though not as often as I would like nor expect from my volume of applications) for 8 months. After some recent disappointing news, I am looking to be moving away from software development and systems-at-scale roles, and spending more time and effort at IT support / system administration roles in the future as I can't help but feel the industry just isn't interested in any desire to grow and develop professionally, they just want the perfect applicant that has already used the technologies they need for 2-5 years and won't waste time on anyone else.

It doesn't help my own confidence that I have "FAANG" experience (I'll leave it to the reader to decide which FAANG belongs in quotes), and it hasn't helped my response rate or evaluations.

In any case, it's disapointing, and I feel your struggles. I wish you the best, and hopefully your newfound perspective separating the CV and the interview will help you spend less time and anguish over the less important parts

jechamt

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

https://www.aboutamazon.com/about-us/leadership-principles

> Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit Leaders are obligated to respectfully challenge decisions when they disagree, even when doing so is uncomfortable or exhausting. Leaders have conviction and are tenacious. They do not compromise for the sake of social cohesion. Once a decision is determined, they commit wholly.

In this context, “leaders” is (at least) aspirational, and meant to include all employees. I have a good deal of experience with the LPs, though I can’t claim to be an expert in evaluating the merits of their various applications. Particularly with this one, as it appears to be sort of encouraging situations that are more likely lead to discord and conflict. I would venture that, in my experience, this one is one of the more highly prone to differing interpretations among individuals. The times I have seen it used, or examples broadcast of its value, it is used in the spirit of starting or engaging in a good faith discussion, and at some point concluding a time box to the discussion by one party asking another to disagree and commit. In other words, two well-intentioned parties that both have meaningful contributions to the discussion (and represent that they understand the other party also has meaningful contributions) reach an impasse and know they need to get past it. By invoking disagree and commit, they both agree to commit their full energy and attention to the same concluded direction, work to see the success of that path, and (usually) discuss as an after action lessons learned, so that future disagreements of a similar nature can point to the data / conclusions to make better decisions. Again, I don’t know I have the best understanding of this LP, and it has not come up often for me personally, so I welcome feedback here from others with experience.

This is completely independent from my opinion on this particular issue, which I will omit. It does differ somewhat from the representation in the reporting:

> In other words, once any company decision is made, workers are expected to fall in line, even if they disagree with it

jechamt

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

https://web.archive.org/web/20231129174929/https://fortune.c...

First time posting an archive / access link. If this link doesn’t work for anyone, feel free to hide this post. I’ll monitor and delete if it’s failing / not helpful.

jechamt

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

I don’t doubt any of the reporting I have read thus far from either theverge or variety, but the sequence of events seems utterly disconnected and difficult or impossible to reason about. Standing out to me:

> in response to “feedback from the filmmaking team that wanted the actor’s remarks to be centered on the movie.”

the idea that someone could make edits to the text that will go to the teleprompter and thus favorably control what a human being will say, after being surprised on stage with edits to what they certainly planned and practiced, strikes me as phenomenally absurd and disconnected from reality.

It is even more striking that included in the cut speech (which the reader sort of must take for granted was part of an alternative, planned speech) is an impassioned description of the pervasiveness of lies and efforts to present alternative/revisionist histories.

It recalls comedy scenarios like a scene from Anchorman, or more acutely, that someone made decisions thinking people will actually behave this way.

jechamt

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

Under "Our Research" section near the top:

"At the end of the study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 14 participants."

I wondered something similar while reading, but recognized the choices of explicit gender and detailed inquiry inclusion while intentionally changing the names. These pointed me to the likelihood this was in-house/controlled research. I believe that is the case from the quote above, though I don't see any additional details about how the study was conducted.

jechamt

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/openai-confir... News reports and their https://status.openai.com/incidents/21vl32gvx3hb incident reports indicate they are mitigating / fighting off attacks recently