They're dying because we all saw the lying for the last 4 years. Morning Joe said Joe Biden was sharper than anyone he knows. Not much needed after that to shut off the TV and go on YT from here on out. Lately I might be switching to TYT to get a more middle of road view of things.
It explicitly advertises itself as an unbiased news programme that represents all views, not as a left wing talk show.
If you search "Morning Joe" you get the following page snippet as the first result: "More about the MSNBC Morning Joe show. Watch Morning Joe for news commentary & informed perspectives. Hear the news from Morning Joe guests today". This is on a website titled "MSNBC News".
First sentence of the Wikipedia article for the show: "Morning Joe is an American morning news talk show".
Google presents this description in the sidebar, not sure where it's from: "The show attracts a wide variety of guests, including top newsmakers, Washington insiders, journalists, and cultural influencers, representing a diverse set of voices and opinions that provide keen insight and analysis around the day's biggest stories".
Part of the reason news outlets like the WP, the NYT, CNN and MSNBC attract such opprobrium is because they all advertise themselves as unbiased and neutral arbiters of the truth without any political leanings, yet they're all extremely biased in ways that their own staff will happily admit to and even go to the wall to fight for. When Joe Scarborough went on TV and said "this Biden is the best Biden ever", he knew he was lying, and he knew he was lying about presenting a diverse set of voices and opinions too.
Those blurbs all seem to pretty clearly indicate it's not an unbiased news reporting show? Do you legitimately feel "hear the news from our guests" after "news commentary and informed perspectives" is proof that they are trying to make you think it isn't a talk/discussion/opinion-centric show?
We will at some point have a JS API to run preliminary LLM to make local decisions, then the server will be final arbiter. So for example a comment rage moderator can help an end user change their proposed post while they write it, to help them not turn the comment into rage bate. This will be done best locally on the users browser. Then when they are ready to post, one final check by the server would be done. This would be like today's React front ends doing all the state and UI computation, reducing servers from having to render HTML, for example.
These people are just suffering from ODD right now. They can't handle a world-view that makes them bad or evil, and so they will do anything they can to make you look evil/crazy/unhinged/depressed or bitter.
I believe thst it's just socially inept trolls who don't like my political statement. They're demonstrating their lack of ability to judge character - basing their whole assessment of my personality on alleged red flags in a few sentences that were made in response to their backhanded "advice". Typical internet incel behavior. I am not deterred.
Its quite strange. I'm being piled on for saying that I support American workers over immigrants (which is literally Trump's position) and I am accused of being bitter. I'm actually doing great considering. Would love to have a job, but if society won't allow me, then I'll simply use the system and continue building video games, not my fault. Blame Elon etc.
You can take this any way you like, but I'm genuinely trying to offer constructive criticism. Whether you mean to or not, you come across as bitter and angry.
...also a little socially awkward? Why use my last name in this forum? Not that it bothers me; I deliberately maintain a public profile. But the convention here is to use each other's usernames, and you had to click through at least a couple links to see my name. Do we know each other? I presume not, or you would have used my first name.
There's something a little strange about it; either you aren't picking up on community social conventions, or you're deliberately trying to break them. It's just a small and almost insignificant data point, but if I had to take a totally wild guess, these sorts of subtle social issues are what interviewers are picking up on.
You're spot on. Thanks for drawing this out and making it clear that, no matter what might be going on in the industry, the original poster's issue obtaining (and probably keeping) a job is about their contrarian attitude and lack of social skills.
What a goofy thing to say. I have excellent social skills and I do not have a contrarian attitude. The original post isn't even about my personal experiences. I've asked others what their experiences have been. Would you mind pointing to something outside of this post that would make you claim that I have a contrarian attitude and lack of social skills? Would you mind pointing to a specific job in which these alleged defects affected me negatively?
I recall holding down many jobs for many consecutive years and being let go of only one. I related why I was let go: the owner was able to hire cheaper foriegn labor - were you aware of this? The president said in 2016 that hiring h1b just to save a buck is something he would permanently end.
Here is a link to his statements. Were you aware of this as well?
I fail to see a contrarian attitude in this thread, but I do see internet trolls who smell blood and are attempting to bait me into a fight that won't happen. Good luck.
You have your full name linked in your profile. Look Jeff, you've offered up backhanded advice twice now in this thread. I'll offer up my honest feedback to you: you come across as rude and obtuse. We are having a discussion in this post about H1B, job shortages etc. Nothing I've said in any of these posts or comments is bitter or angry. You're free to read my words however you wish, but you might want to take a step back from your emotions, because they seem to have gotten the better of you.
I'm a pretty happy guy. I'm not really sure where you're getting any of your intel from, but you're wrong. Now I've corrected you twice. Anymore insisting on your part is just trolling. Your "constructive criticism" has been rejected.
I had a free minute to look over my posts. They aren't bitter. If someone reads these posts as bitter or sees red flags that prevents them from hiring me, that is a petty employer with poor reading comprehension who is too involved in my personal life and I wouldn't want to work for them regardless.
Furthermore, I haven't offered up enough information about my situation or experiences to make a real judgement about my personality. Anyone who hires or fires or makes other judgment calls in such a rash manner would make a terrible coworker, employer and business owner. Again - not someone I have any interest in spending time with.
I need no education on the hiring process or sly backhanded tips that are meant to degrade and belittle me. I have no time for such people or their empty words, and I won't be baited into a ridiculous argument. If you would like to stay on topic and post information about your recent experiences in the job market, by all means, do so. I didn't make this post seeking advice or help. I'm looking for information for research purposes.
Offering one's advice when another hasn't requested it is condescending, especially when one knows absolutely nothing about the other person.
If you wish to imagine me as a bitter person sitting around cursing immigrants for my woes, so be it. You'll be wrong and dumber for it, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince some idiot otherwise.
I have nothing to hide. I shared this whole post on LinkedIn. I don't care if a potential employer reads it.
Just to reiterate: they don't like it? I don't care. I like working with people who aren't petty and obtuse. Having no job is better than walking on eggshells and being strong armed out of a political opinion by trolls like Jeff under the guise of "creative criticism".
I just think start with the moral issue first. Then legal experts can craft logic around that.
Basically, if an unemployed American that can write React code, that person should have a job before any H1B (or remotely hired person) at the same level, same remoteness status, etc... If all the Americans are hired, then H1B levels (and remote work Indians) may rise again.
I might have a larger shot at getting a job right now if I literally move to India and get in with one of these programming shops. Of course I won't participate in the night-time scamming operation of US grandparents.
You don't need to move to India for that, it is enough to just bid for 3x less salary like an Indian and you will get the job from anywhere. Then you maybe will consider moving to India.
If this is the case, why do I get someone in India when I call US based companies for support (during their midnight)?
Should US employees do support for Indian companies during our midnight too? I'm being honest, I can probably work for a few pennies since I was laid off months ago. Anything will help keep me going at this point.
People not working? WTF? It's the direct result of deregulation/self-regulation of the food chain. When the inspectors work for the food processing company, they don't have an incentive to find problems.
You'd think companies would value not killing their customers and market forces would take care of the problem, but, empirically, that's not how it has turned out. Customers are too far from the source; the incentives for fucking off are too high, and too frequently the food processors get away with it. Big-L Libertarianism is not compatible with safe food and medication.
People whistleblow for many reasons, but sometimes those reasons are disordered thinking, conspiratorial mindsets, etc, which are probably comorbid with suicidal thoughts.
Whistleblowers are also often subject to harassment. Treatment, stress and potentially reduced career prospects probably weigh quite heavily on most whistleblowers.
Parents all too frequently have a poor understanding of their children's mental health. The opinions of close friends is a better assessment of state-of-mind.
I have no idea how much any of this applies to the case being discussed here. I doubt other commenters have any better idea and their assessment comes down to their own biases.
Be wary of statistical claims when something 'seems to be happening a lot'. Something not happening is generally not news, so you lose a sense of what proportion of a population you are considering.
Even if you know that 30% of deaths of whistleblowers were murders, that means that for any given death the likelihood is that it was not murder.
Every case deserves to, and should, be investigated thoroughly.
