After suffering a mass layoff last year, one observation points to explicit and endemic ageism:
All my former colleagues and reports 15-20 years younger than me landed jobs within a matter of months. Those of us 50+ remain unemployed a year later. It isn't about skills; I was at the top of my game when a layoff robbed me of my livelihood. It isn't a matter of pay. One of my former reports whom I mentored when I was a senior IC left right before the layoff hit with a job offer making as much as I was at the time as a manager.
It was even explicitly revealed to me by an insider and former colleague who referred me to one position that I didn't get that the hiring committee wanted to go with someone younger, after which he caught himself and backtracked saying "earlier in their career". I was told on another occasion that I'd make a great addition as a manager or principal IC, but that they were reviewing their needs and deciding to search for someone less senior.
Yeah, I think it didn't come on for a while. I spent probably the 2nd half of my trips just laying down watching the closed eye visuals because my stomach hurts and I felt nauseated when I walked around or looked at stuff for too long.
Untrue, have a little more confidence in career statisticians.
> Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs.
> But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
If you look close enough at the details, its fairly obvious that the details are highly lacking, and appear to only give the illusion, without the accuracy or objective measure.
Sadly it is not. The bot's github page leads back to a real looking webpage. But then again that could be some top tier trolling. The page is completely bereft of any personality, names, or faces... so...
For anyone that cares the argument basically comes down a weak form of the Sapier-Worf hypothesis and the primacy of emotions over any other consideration. A useless and potentially harmful admixture.
I too never really grokked some essential points of linear algebra until I (re)learned it from a chapter in Hungerford's Algebra book, part of Springer's yellow GTM series. I was taught from Strang in undergrand, and while I did well in the course, I often found myself blind as to what all these computations meant. I recall that Strang had said in his preface that the subject had been taught too abstractly and the crucial importance missed, which reading Greub e.g. or other treatises of that era may be true.
All my former colleagues and reports 15-20 years younger than me landed jobs within a matter of months. Those of us 50+ remain unemployed a year later. It isn't about skills; I was at the top of my game when a layoff robbed me of my livelihood. It isn't a matter of pay. One of my former reports whom I mentored when I was a senior IC left right before the layoff hit with a job offer making as much as I was at the time as a manager.
It was even explicitly revealed to me by an insider and former colleague who referred me to one position that I didn't get that the hiring committee wanted to go with someone younger, after which he caught himself and backtracked saying "earlier in their career". I was told on another occasion that I'd make a great addition as a manager or principal IC, but that they were reviewing their needs and deciding to search for someone less senior.
Ageism is 100% real.