It will always be true that the best you can do is hustle 24/7 as long as your bosses have the ability to collectively replace all of you with immigrants from areas with lower levels of material comfort who are willing to accept worse conditions than you.
For this process to reverse, one of two things must occur:
1. Scab immigration is completely stopped.
2. Every society on earth normalizes to the same level of material comfort.
We didn't re-invent mental misery, globalization created the conditions to allow your bosses to impose it on you. The good news is it is likely temporary.
Religious groups, volunteer organizations, charities, clubs in college, extracurriculars in high school, the military, van life, swingers clubs, outdoorsmanship clubs, working at renaissance festivals, clubs for specific sports like skydiving or fishing (not gyms, gyms are for working out with people you already know well), private events in intimate settings where you are introduced to an existing friend's other friend group, and your extended family are all places you can find people to have these kinds of social relationships with. People tend to cluster around activities they enjoy where they can interact with other people who at least have enough in common with them to enjoy the same activities. They are more open here than anywhere else in the modern world to forming new social bonds.
Better places would be if you were raised in an insular high-trust community or if you were trapped in a traumatic environment with them such as a siege from which you ultimately collectively escape by working together. These are not reproducible.
You might need to work on becoming more sociable if these sorts of places aren't working out for you.
That sucks that the people you work with only care about your credentials, though.
A private citizen is most protected from their governments when decision makers in society have no expectation of privacy. Monitoring them 24/7 with everyone on the planet having access to the feeds at any time would afford the most protection.
Every conversation they have,
every thing they write down,
everything they do on a computer or phone,
everything their staff does, says, writes down, or does on a computer or a phone,
everything all of these people do: who they have sex with, whose comedy shows they go see, where they spend their vacations,
all of this should be entered into the public record.
Not even national security is a compelling reason for secrecy. The only legitimate need is to wage war against other nations, but the majority use case is to conspire more effectively against the public for profit or to increase authority. In a world where every country on earth is forced into a similar regime, the default case is everyone watches the political situation and can react accordingly if things go wrong. If war sentiment precipitates quickly usually the cause can be traced to individual actors, and those people can be removed from office by the people of their respective countries if the sentiment isn't generally shared. If the people decide they want war anyway, they can direct their governments to resume secrecy for the duration of the war.
If you are not a decision-maker in society this is ideal for you, and it is probably worth suffering WW3 to enforce it globally.
Those people have families. You're being really insensitive to the Altman family right now. You should take a look in the mirror and realize that your violent words have consequences and can spread malinformation, distrust of authority, and a collapse of democratic norms. They succeeded in the free market and have the backing of your freely elected representatives, they deserve your respect and obedience.
Because an automated screening system allows the company to screen many more candidates without interacting with them, which they will do, which will make the majority of these screenings wasted effort.
Let's look at two cases to see why this is:
Case 1: company does 10 30 minute in-person technical interviews for a role for equally qualified candidates, doesn't use automated testing. Every candidate knows that because they're talking to a human, so they know they're dealing with a human hiring process that deals with time constraints. They KNOW that they're one of a small group of people selected to move forward. They can reasonably calculate a value for their in-person technical interview as having a 10% chance of success. If they do 7 interviews like this they have a >50% chance of getting hired by someone, which would take them only 3.5 hours of interview time to achieve. Each such hiring process has only take up a combined 5 hours of candidate time.
Contrast this with case 2: company uses your system, and so technically screens 1000 equally qualified candidates in the same period with no human interaction. The candidate now has no idea where they stand in the applicant pool, but they effectively have a 0.1% of getting hired by this company. If they do 666 interviews, they still don't have a 50% chance of getting hired by any company doing interviews like this, and they will have spent two whole weeks of their life not eating or sleeping, just doing interviews. That company will have wasted three weeks of candidate time conducting this round of interviews.
Furthermore, the 10 minute time difference is irrelevant, the candidate already doesn't care when they do the interview, and the pressure in no way lessened. They still have to perform in a 30 minute window, and they will still be nervous. The only difference is the recorded screening is more impersonal, which allows the candidate less opportunity to make a human impression on the hirer.
Your system assumes the applicant's time has no value.
he's saying the plant breathes the CO2 then turns it into food, then you feed that food to the fish instead of other fish, putting the carbon back into the life cycle
and the earth probably did turn into an ice ball millions of years ago
because their garbage cheese is still miles better than what other people make, and there's no cheese market large enough and rich enough to pay them what their top cheese is worth, so its worth more just to keep it for themselves
'Visible from space' loses its bite when you see they're using cameras that can practically read your mail from space.
Yes, this is terrible, but atrocities like this happen all over Africa on a daily basis for innumerable reasons, and Sudan specifically has been in civil wars longer than I have been alive. The piece's structure: 'look at how terrible this is, don't you just feel soooo bad?' + 'by the way the UAE has been accused of facilitating this' signals to me that the writer is primarily motivated by a desire to make the UAE and all muslims by comparison look bad. Notice how they focus on the atrocities by the RSF, ignoring the fact that all sides in this war are complicit in slaughter.
America, Europe, Russia, China, and their satellite countries have been starting and fueling wars in Africa since before these countries became independent.
They deliberately draw borders that cut ethnic populations and religious groups in half.
They flood these regions with weapons and mercenaries.
They replace incentives to develop stable societies, robust agricultural industries, and infrastructure with 'just good enough to survive' aid.
They bribe local warlords with collective billions of dollars.
Global power blocs have effectively enforced a continent of lawlessness where you're only safe from war in the immediate vicinity of resource extraction sites, and lucky for you those sites are the kinds of places small children handle mercury without PPE and die of exhaustion and chemical burns. All of this to give you fiber optic cables.
Yes, the UAE is complicit, but so are you if you're reading this. This is not a 'muslim' problem. This is not a 'UAE' problem. This is a structural problem driven primarily by increasing population, materialist consumer habits, and the geopolitical reality that if any bloc stopped doing all of this horrible stuff the only outcome would be that the other blocs get a bigger share.
This article is not written with the intention of solving these problems, it is written with the intention of keeping you just angry enough to do what they tell you, without making you so angry that you replace the ones making these decisions.
Having read the article you linked, I can see your point on complexity and how it's much easier to discuss and debate than it is to actually spec it out and drive adoption.
While I would love for these systems to be fair and righteous and all of that jazz, I soberly must recognize that I lack the resources and desire to do all or even any of that work myself, and therefore have no leg to stand on in holding others accountable for not doing so.