Yessing

is there something special about 2020 (regarding leap years)?

the rule I know is divisible by 4 && ( not divisible by 100 || divisible by 400) so 2020 is not even an edge case.

for example Café M’Rabet – Tunis was created in 1630 and it is still operational till now. But it was not registered as a company at the time.

"Oracle now says this was an accident. According to a spokesperson, the site was temporarily flagged by anti-virus software but was whitelisted once the issue was noticed."

stuff like this makes my blood boil. it's obvious that this is just a legal defense, but it feels so insulting to the reader/listener.

I think it's just that writing is seen as the primary mean of communication.

if something goes bad at work, someone (orally) always makes a joke to defuse the situation. This is the same thing happening here.

to clarify I'm asking about the meaning of dwm. The only term that I'm familiar with, and that shows up in google is Desktop Window Manager.

if the best candidate you interviewed is a fraud:

- either the candidate was competent:

then why did he need to lie to get the job? maybe you're over-filtering based on resume and years of experience. The variable your looking for is competence. Years of experience, is just a proxy. if the proxy is drying up your supply, maybe it's not an effective one.

moreover, people are not born managers. why not give new talent a chance.

- the candidate was not competent:

The interview process is therefore broken and is not measuring competence. Maybe you're overvaluing confidence or the speed of answering. Maybe the questions are not Technical enough? I don't know. But notice that valuing anything that is irrelevant would lead to a lower expected value of candidate's competence.

Using ineffective tools while searching for something rare is unsurprisingly hard.

As a side comment, I'm kinda taken aback by the fact that interview results like "culture fit" are shared this way. I would've expected a higher standard of privacy. Is this commonly accepted?

Another point, I've noticed that the hiring process involved a lot of "friend / wife of a friend". Wouldn't this if left unchecked cause some ethnic/age-based bias ( not necessarily in a legal sense)?

the dwm? "Desktop Window Manager"?

- why are we providing the names and addresses as input to the neural network? they should be annonymized?

humans may also act on the same information. The fact that you are less likely to be called if you have an arabic sounding name in europe is well documented.

at least with neural networks we can remove those variables.

I guess another problem could be that our current distribution is biased. so the system might give an advantage to new-grads from unviersity X becausea lot of old employees are from it. which is inherent disadvantage from people from tradtionally-black university Y.

but hiring based on alma mater is already a common practice.

I thought the whole point of backward compatible versions, is that you don't discuss, you just move.

while the disgust is warranted, I can't help but feel that you've created a toxic culture there.

for example, the Keyboard scene, being horrified because someone touched your keyboard is not logical behaviour. In fact, the keyboard is probably more disgusting than the toilet paper.

The actions of your employee were not rational. But by validating them you create a mob.

"begin sickned/disguested" becomes a behavior of the in-group. Mocking that guy, overreacting is than encouraged by social validation. These are the same dynamics as bullying because it is a form of bullying.

Plus, this is exacerbated by your team member ( and maybe you later, just by asking) going arround bad-mouthing him.

Imagine if everyone started acting hostile towards you and you had no way to know why?

"not offending others by asking sensitive questions/Avoiding awkward" is the polite thing to do.

But a core part of being polite, is not hruting others through your actions directly or undirectly. ( or at least trying)

In cases where not asking the question puts the other party in a disadvantage or at the risk thereof, I feel one shouldn't be allowed to claim that one was being polite or "doing the right thing".

You were being either too shy, cowardly or selfish. This doesn't mean that you must ask such questions/ venture in those topics. But it certainly does mean, that those that don't, shouldn't be allowed to claim active virtues ( to others or to themselves).

* Also, if one chooses to not inform the other party of the problem, I feel that one shouldn't make them suffer for that choice. Which means at the very least, not trashtalking them behind their backs for it.

The first part is about being good, the second part is about not being actively evil.

Why should the system have access to the candidates' name?

You've been denied parol because someone with a name similar to you skipped bail is unfair regardless of race.

You've been denied parol because you come from a rough neighborhood is also unfair, regardless of race.

In fact, even if 99.9% of all people named X skipped bail, it would be unjust to deny somone bail because his name is X.