My observations do match what he had to say, I estimate that a large number of marriages ( 50-80%)are dysfunctional and when a divorce happens, if you are a man in the first world you are screwed up financially and emotionally _permanently_ . The courts nearly always side with the woman. If young men need advice they need to see realty as it is.
Walled gardens and proprietary software can allow for fantastic user experiences in a way that open platforms often cannot match. However, I feel focusing on the user experience misses the main point - the web is an open platform, and this is an example of Google exerting an authority that many may not feel comfortable with.
Because the criteria will inevitably be biased towards technology and techniques that favor Google, Chrome, AMP, etc. If you trust Google to be an unbiased arbiter of objective measurements of website efficiency, you are giving them a lot more credit than I would at this point.
Visit an AMP page in Lighthouse and you won't see an especially good score. Lighthouse doesn't special-case AMP or pick metrics that would make AMP look good.
In the United States, the role of a central bank is to manage two measures: inflation and unemployment.
The US Federal Reserve Bank does not measure inflation or unemployment. Rather, the US Department of Labour, an independent organisation (and a branch of government rather than a freestanding entity) computes both measures.
This is the principle of division of responsibility and measurement or judgement. You cut, I choose.
Google are both measuring, and rewarding, website performance, as well as designing and distributing the principle tools that benefit by both choices. That's an extreme locus of power. And, history shows, generally a Bad Idea which Ends Poorly.
>Google are both measuring, and rewarding, website performance, as well as designing and distributing the principle tools
Also given their market share as a search engine, they also get to decide which websites you will be able to "discover" additionally incorporating their performance metrics into their website ranking. So not only a website will get a "slow badge" but will also be downranked into oblivion.
Because Google is the decider of what constitutes "slow"? You have a single organization deciding what the threshold is between slow and fast. And, they also have a Google-approved solution (amp) that I'm sure they will tie into the recommended actions for "slow" pages.
I'm not saying it's a walled garden (that's a more extreme situation on the continuum between open and closed), I was just using the phrase to illustrate my point that the end-user experience isn't the only factor to consider.
If Google didn't have a long history of this sort of thing (interpret that as you may) the open web would have lost the battle for mainstream users to the proprietary platforms long ago.
The person you are replying to didn't say it's impossible for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian, just that it doesn't happen very often. They cited a statistic, you found an anecdote to counter. The disconnect seems to be around the word history. You're taking it to mean "something that's ever occurred", where as the person above is taken it to mean "something that is a common occurrence".
Again, his exact statement was: "Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of 'endangering the lives of others.'"
He's stating unequivocally that cyclists do not have -- and have never had -- a history of endangering the lives of others.
They kill people. I certainly call that endangering the lives of others.
They don't kill a lot of people. Neither do sharks -- in the US they only kill about 1 person a year. That doesn't mean sharks are not dangerous or don't have a history of endangering people.
If you or he want to make a statement about the low probability of such an event -- fine. Or compare cyclists to far more dangerous motor vehicles, also fine. But to say that cyclists don't and have never endangered pedestrians is not factually accurate.
"A history". As I said, you are interpreting that word differently than they are. I think it's valid to interpret "a history" to mean "something that happens with some amount of frequency". I also suppose it's valid to interpret "a history" as "something that's every happened".
At the end, you write "don't and have never never endangered", which is something only you are saying.
A history = means a history, not a low probability history, not a high probability history, just a history. You seem to be creating requirements for a "a history" to "needs to happen with a certain frequency." Even 1 time would be a history, altho cyclists kill more people than that.
It's not something "only I am saying." Cyclists have a history of endangering pedestrians...it's a low probability event but by any rational definition of "history" it's a track record aka history.
Not sure why people are so eager to defend cyclists they're willing to overlook the fact that they can and do endanger pedestrians and now -- in your case -- pretend they have no "history" of doing so because it's not happening often enough for your satisfaction.
And it looks like this parent comment was deleted and this thread is now detached -- I'm assuming the moderators also had a problem with that original statement.
What's the benefit of targeting only people who have been part of a high profile layoffs? Seems like a smaller pool on both sides-less people to recruit, and less recruiters who specifically are interested in these types of candidates.
If it's as a proxy to quality of candidate, isn't there a better way to measure that?
We feel like keeping a very niche focus allows us to do a fantastic job at helping candidates find their next job. It will enable us to work closely with the candidates and work on a process that can eventually scale.
Sure, its possible that they place "greater emphasis on academic education" etc., but then you have to ask yourself what is the reason behind this.
As an Asian American who has had good academic success, my best guess is its socioeconomic. Asians who came to the US in the 70s - 80s often were highly educated, upper middle class, and they had resources to raise their kids towards academic success. They certainly faced some struggles, but were not socially disadvantaged in the way that other minority groups in the US have been.
You may not have meant it this way, but your post reads like a racist dog whistle.
Employees "would be paid a week of severance" - I haven't gone through something like this, but that seems low. I know when the money runs out it runs out, but I hope employees weren't totally blindsided...
This is an unfortunate reminder to always have an emergency fund. If you're doing the paycheck to paycheck game, with one week severance, you're basically shit out of luck. Something eventually will come up.
On the other hand, I don't think it's that uncommon for startup funding to come through at the last minute.
I later found out that a company I worked for had come within 2 months of running out of cash before their next round of funding came through. I'm glad they didn't shut down at that point to pay a "proper" severance.
You don't understand why it's informative to hear a viewpoint on a topic from someone who has had a different experience than you? Why are you on this site?
Yes, but that's important to know if you're proposing unionization in the hopes that it will make it so that every qualified person who wants to work in game development is paid fairly. Like with acting, only a small fraction of people will find such jobs, even with unionization.
But the point is they often go beyond ensuring people are treated fairly, and artificially drive up wages by constraining the supply of labor. This is a very unfair system. It benefits those they have the privilege to get into the guild (which often entails having the right connections, and until the Civil Rights movement also had the requirement of "be White"), at the expense if those that don't get into the guild. It also drives up costs for consumers.
