No one needs a giant TV, but a lot of people 'like' a bigger screen. A lot of media is just better on a big screen. It's the whole reason a great many people enjoy or even prefer watching movies on a theater screen.
I don't think there's much more a reason that, nor do folk need more reason than that.
Especially in an interview or promotion situation, I'm proud of and speak to my accomplishments and the skills and knowledge I've been able to obtain, but I can also speak with real honesty about the mistakes I've made, tend to make, and my own shortcomings. I talk about both without hesitation.
Though I know it's entirely anecdotal, I've found most of the time those traits were taken quite well in an interview context, and certainly I've appreciated people that display those traits when I'm interviewing them.
The key I've always found was the tone in which both your humility and confidence are displayed. After all, confidence is a totally different animal than cockiness.
Not that I ever saw, not really. What's far more likely to happen is that if you screw up too hard (or potentially piss off the wrong person) you can fairly easily get your clearance burnt, and that can easily (and permanently) cut your IC career off at the knees.
How devastating that is depends entirely on your level of investment in your career in intelligence.
I was in the US Army as linguist. While I've been out long enough that I no longer feel like or identify as a soldier, I find I very much cherish the sense of support I always felt while in the Service. I felt as though whatever came, I'd have people around me that had my back. Civilian life doesn't seem to have that. It seems an ultimately selfish culture. No tribe.
Ah, sorry, that's what I meant to imply. NSA has the same policy. I took the poster's meaning to be no phones at all. I always left any electronic devices at home.
When I worked there (2012-2014), we were certainly allowed cellphones, and friends that are still in the IC all still have such devices, so I don't think that's changed. We just (obviously) couldn't bring any electronic devices into the SCIF without specific approval.
Anything with an antenna would pretty much never be approved, but if you wanted to bring, say, a Discman or somesuch, you could check it in, it would be torn apart and checked for anything foreign in the device, and then would be tagged for use in the SCIF. Typically, if something goes in, it's never allowed to leave the building except shredded, mulched, and burned.
A great many people seems to be very upset that a large portion of the non-integrated squads had experienced Marines, as if this negates the test. Two things:
First, the integrated squads had experienced Marines as well. They selected randomly (within criteria) to have the MOS (Military Occupational Speciality) and experience distribution a typical combat unit would have. That means both junior and senior Marines. That also means that, as combat MOS's have not yet been integrated, women will by definition be inexperienced in combat roles. This does not mean the women were inexperienced Marines.
Second: This is not an experiment about what's fair, it's to test what's real right now. And when women are integrated into combat roles en masse, this is what that will look like. Women will be less experienced and will be both integrated with, and adversary to, experienced male combatants.
This is a test of the current situation--everyone is green once. But that changes. And women will gain significant combat experience. You'll see an evolution in training to shore up potential weaknesses and exploit inherent strengths (and they are manifold) that women bring to the table.
That said. As it currently stands with women having had less experience, there is the very real potential that those units they are integrated into will experience a s degraded combat capability until training learns to compensate for certain inherent physical and psychological differences between the sexes (not to mention internal cultural hurdles that they inevitably be faced with). Degraded capability means an increased likelihood of casualties in combat. As I said, I believe this will change. I believe in five years this type of test will yield far, far closer results.
The question is this: Is that painful (and very likely lethal) initial period worth the ultimate goal of total integration? Is the risk to our servicemen and servicewomen worth that ultimate reward? I believe it is. I was pro-gender integration before I joined the US Army, I was pro-integration during my six years in the Service, and I remain fervently pro-integration years later as a significantly balder and fatter man.
It's worth it. But don't hide yourself away from the fact that there will be pain.
I don't think there's much more a reason that, nor do folk need more reason than that.