Had one guy apply for a job in my field saying “My experiences in different field> will help me as <job title>.”

There is very little overlap in hard skills (soft ones obviously do help). Not like that matters a whole lot - their actual list of past jobs and skills would have landed them an interview at least, because we already expect it to be a learn-as-you-go type of deal. Bro would have been better off leaving it out and I would have just assumed they’re trying to strike out in a different direction.

(I told HR to invite them for an interview anyway, because fuck cover letters - I’m not gonna hold anyone to a higher standard there than I’d like to be held to)

That community is… something. For every funny or good complaint there’s a dozen whine posts, mostly by the same person. Did someone piss in their coffee or are they the probably least lucrative M$ shill ever?

Walking home from her raid on its lair

I always use butterflies

taints in its history

Ooh, let’s play “find the dark history”! What better way to distract from today’s issues and avoid talking about solutions for tomorrow’s problem!

This is me agreeing with you, to be clear. The description “taints in its history” is so ubiquitous as to be useless. Yes, acknowledging the errors of the past is important to learn from them and improve, but the focus needs to be on that learning and improving.

The NATO has potential to be a force of security. In a modern world, conflict between peers is more destructive than ever and the returns on aggressive action are more strongly affected by the strength of the defense, such a union of forces can discourage attack by making it too unprofitable.

Of course, that requires the union to actually stand united and the potential aggressor to be reasonable and motivated by the state’s prosperity. Neither of those seem entirely guaranteed right now…

Forming groups is still important. We need it to find our place in the world. There is no single truth, therefore we argue and fight.

Absolutely. Forming groups defined by commonality is good. Discussions are important to check our own biases and misconceptions. Diversity is key to avoiding stagnation. Conflict can create opportunity for growth.

War, above all else, destroys. There are many great things we can do with each other that don’t involve violence.

Not saying anything you said is wrong, btw. Just wanted to state why we still have this stuff.

Good point, adding nuance is important.

I think we - collectively, as humanity, not any particular subgroup - need to get over that greedy, jealous, tribal “us vs. them” mindset that feeds nationalism, turns demographies against each other and leads to that security dilemma in the first place.

It made sense when our individual survival hinged on competing for the best land, subsequently forming groups to further that claim and drive others from their land to increase your own margin of subsistence.

But with modern farming, logistics, administrative capabilities and real-time communications across the globe, I think we should be able to do better by working together instead of against each other.

Of course, that would require people who like power to stop reaching for more and more, and that is an issue I don’t think I need to lay out in detail.

living in Germany

Your username and instance kinda gave it away, comfortable cushion ;-)

But I also like the saying “If you want peace prepare for war”.

It’s the cornerstone of the Security Dilemma: Increasing your own state’s security by increasing military strength may be threatening to other states that don’t know whether you’re just improving defenses or gearing up for an offensive war.

Particularly in pre-modern times where land was more valuable (compared to developing the land you already have) and battle wasn’t so destructive, war was more profitable, the threat was real. With the development of modern arms and mass mobilisation escalating the scale and destruction of war, the distinction between defensive and offensive militarisation is even harder to tell, and even though it’s not as lucrative, we haven’t outgrown the martial impulses so the issue remains.

So because you want to be safe, you improve your military. Because you improve your military, your neighbour fears for their own safety, so they improve theirs. This is why international relations and diplomacy are so important to prevent a runaway arms race.

Might be a joke?

‘hunter-gathering was the peak of human society’

I love perpetually balancing on the edge of subsistence, one step below the agrarian societies that drove me out to the marginal lands unfit for more efficient cultivation! I want to be stuck in a loop of raiding other tribes in the attempt to drive them out of their hunting grounds, then having them raid mine in turn in an eternal struggle to get away from the precipice of doom!

I think it’s really hard from a modern perspective to gauge just how unpleasant life was. Nothing about low-tech farming is simple.

What’s on the playlist? Trivium - Insurrection, Bad Omens - Dethrone, what else?

That doesn’t preclude taking a moment to write such a letter.

If anything, it serves to challenge the pretense of dignified and harmless “opinions” that fascists like to leverage. I’d argue that is much more productive than the way discourse has occasionally evaded calling out the cruel, sadistic, violent, bigoted assholes and enemies of human progress and dignity as just that.

As Russel notes, there is no reasonable discussion to be had with someone so openly endorsing violence beyond reason, whose entire worldview is so diametrically opposed that there is no common ground to found a discussion on in the first place.

Giving fascists the “Eh, just opinions” benefit normalises their hateful views as permissible. For anyone valuing freedom, tolerance, progress and justice, opposing these rhetorics is not just sensible, but even crucial to combat the spread of this ideological cancer.

There can be no peaceful disagreement with an ideology that, given the chance, will suppress all disagreement violently.

“I hate bigotry” is quite a strong opinion

I’m guessing the point wasn’t to express mere disinterest, but active resentment of the opposing viewpoint: “Not only have I no desire to converse with you, which may be taken as a hesitation to engage with your views, but I believe such a conversation to be utterly worthless because I despise your entire world view” with a dash of “You’re a bigot and I want nothing to do with your kind.”

“No thank you” just doesn’t drive that home.

Probably to make the patient squirm and see what excuse they come up with so the job isn’t as drab?

More seriously, they need to know the circumstances of any accident to be aware of potential other complications or risk factors. That’s just a standard question they have to ask.

I was thinking a similar thing earlier. Instead of publically marking an arbitrary demographic as undesirable, an actually undesirable demographic marks itself

Yeah, you’re right. I got hit on a sore spot, responded impulsively and was a dick about it.

Sorry I was trying to match the level of insulting tone of your reply, I guess I went too mean.

Eh, I’d be a hypocrite to point fingers for that. All good.

Technology Connections actually has great CC and Transcripts as I believe Alec adds them directly after proofing an as aired script after his final edit.

I don’t know this specific creator, or many YT tech creators really, since YT isn’t really my main haunt (I’ve tried to explaing that elsewhere, but it boils down to “I rarely have the mental ability to sit and watch them”) and I genuinely prefer articles.

The video having good CC doesn’t solve most of my problems, unfortunately. It’s a good thing to have, don’t get me wrong, just doesn’t help me a whole lot.

it’s about a crappy ‘news’ site generating a two paragraph summary of a YouTube video and screencaping images from said video in order to generate ad revenue with minimal effort and dubious ethics

I’ll grant the dubious ethics point. That subtext didn’t parse for me. My focus was on the fact that the article, being a textual medium, is more useful to me.

I’m mostly upset at the prevalence of video content and the tendency to push people away from text, like “This guy has a great video” is a useful response to “I’m looking for an article”. This topic set me off, but my frustration is independent of the specific context. I’ve had it happen often enough to make it a sore spot, but that isn’t strictly the original comment’s fault.

If you’re so interested in the subject and want to learn more about the subject why not look for one, or even just ask?

It’s not a deep interest so much as a passing “stumble across something interesting”, so I wouldn’t necessarily seek out content on the topic. But if I were offered an essily digestible format, I’d be curious enough to consume it.

I agree that it would be better not to post cheap ripoffs, but they fill a market gap that I’m the audience for. The solution isn’t to complain about the moochers filling the gap, but to fill the gap yourself. I’m not defending sloppy AI text specifically, but the concept of converting content to a different medium.

If the content creators don’t want to cater to those who prefer that other medium - perfectly fine, that’s their prerogative. But to then complain if someone else adapts your content to a medium you didn’t want to, that’s what rubs me the wrong way.

Also, you’re a dingus.

Fair enough. My phrasing was harsh and born of a frustration that I didn’t really convey.

In my experience, YT would still end up loading a section of the video along with previews of suggestion. Maybe that has changed.

If it can make accurate transcriptions, sure. I’d enjoy the option of sending a link to an autotranscriber and get a conveniently readable version out of it.