This is exactly why the takeoff clearances say “RNAV xxx, cleared for takeoff”. It’s a last confirmation, right before takeoff, of which departure procedure to use.
People today are more able to see people who are doing better than them economically, through social media etc., than at any time in the past. This is a huge contributor to the negative sentiment.
Referrals are valuable when the referrer has worked with you in the past and can vouch for your abilities, experience, work ethic, creativity, etc. with specific details. Generic referrals that provide no information other than “the applicant knows someone who works at the company” are worthless to a hiring manager.
So these pension funds were fine with investing in Fox year after year despite all the other crap Fox News had been spewing, but somehow now they want to sue?
No, the market sets the interest rate. The government issues bonds to fund the government, and they have to offer an interest rate high enough to get buyers for all of the bonds they are selling.
Isn’t this reversing cause and effect? Corporations are able to raise prices because consumers are willing to pay higher prices. Corporations always want to make as much profit as they can. If consumers can pay more, you get inflation.
I agree “HR departments shill on Blind” but the claim made by several people in that thread (at least one who said they are a hiring manager) that Databricks has recently hired multiple people who were laid off is verifiable as true or false. It’s not just a generic weasel statement like “it’s not our policy to…” or “we treat all applicants fairly” or something like that.
This seems like a lot of discussion for a single report from a possibly-disgruntled (but definitely rejected) candidate, about a policy that was denied by multiple Databricks employees in the thread, who clearly said that Databricks has hired a number of people who were laid off recently.
A lot of domain-specific publications have become insufferably political; they are trading on their previous reputations but are now so ideological that they're basically worthless. A few that come to mind are Wired, MIT Technology Review, Vanity Fair, and Rolling Stone.
This co-opting of previously reputable domain-specific publications by radicals with only an interest in pushing their political agenda and no interest in the supposed topic of the publication, has happened to a lot of publications in the last few years -- Wired, MIT Technology Review, Vanity Fair, and many others.
No, it was not always like this. It became an anti-tech, anti-capitalist publication some time in the last 5-7 years. I'm not sure why, but something similar also happened at other magazines in the same time period, like Vogue, Rolling Stone, etc.