locklock

I've only listened to this one, but...

1) You sound very anxious and/or nervous. Which is normal, interviewing isn't fun and can be stressful, but it does not come across great. See if you can relax a bit?

2) "Why do you want to work here?" is one of the most softball questions you can get in a phone screen... they want to know that you've done 5 minutes of research about the company, their tech stack, their values, basically anything. It doesn't have to be your dream job but you have to sound like you're somewhat familiar with what they do and at least partially interested in being a part of it.

"I don't actually know what your company does, sorry, I just sent my resume out to a bunch of places" is about the worst answer you can give here. Why would a company want to hire someone who doesn't know anything about the company and doesn't even pretend to care?

You can ignore a record spinning on a turntable while you're having a drink, it's a bit harder to ignore a live band playing in the same room

And if you're getting a $365k bonus you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not. I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society...

How did you get into freelancing, specifically in Germany? Do you get most work from Linkedin? I really don't like that site for various reasons but if it's necessary for freelance work I might have to sign up...

It all falls under the same umbrella, which as you accurately described as "rich guys who don't share anything" and as far as I'm concerned any amount of elevated consciousness around that is a good thing, even if strictly speaking taking money from Bezos the man and Amazon the company are two separate types of taxation and two different discussions. Bezos and his company Amazon both make almost unfathomable amounts of money and don't pay anywhere near what I'd consider a fair share of it back into society. As Amazon's PR people point out this is legal, naturally, but this article does a good job of contrasting Amazon using every tax trick in the book with normal human beings who aren't able to deduct their expenses for cancer treatment. Likely because the lobby representing the financial interests of individuals with cancer is not all that strong.

"Amazon doesn’t pay taxes, but I pay taxes" is a very good sound byte from this, even if the reasons why that's the case are obviously more complicated.

I'm fine with outrage-inducing propaganda against people who have tens or hundreds of billions of dollars since that class as a whole spends so much time putting out propaganda in their favor. I'm not particularly interested in the details as long as it elevates consciousness about the inherent problems with a society that allows Jeff Bezos to have more money than he could spend in ten thousand lifetimes while millions of people aren't entirely sure how they're going to afford food next week

One of @jason's tweets in the same thread says

"#996 = 6 days a week, 9am to 9pm

The same exact work ethic that built America!"

Given that slaves built most of America, he kind of has a point, but not for the reasons he wants to have a point. It's so laughable to see venture capitalists appeal to some imagined moral imperative ("democracy vs. communism," which as DHH points out might have been a bit scarier in 1950) when in reality they're just arguing for shaping the system in a way that will ultimately make them more money.

There's a difference between these tests (has this person smoked weed at any point in the last month, roughly?) and breathalyzer tests (is this person currently drunk?)

Showing up to work drunk vs. showing up to work two weeks after smoking weed are relatively different scenarios, to say the least.

I've been using Mac products since I was a child (thanks, dad) more or less happily and the removal of the headphone jack and the requirement that you have these adaptors has been the first thing to make me seriously consider going elsewhere. I probably won't, due to years of lock-in, but to rephrase it's the worst experience I've had with anything Apple in my lifetime. I've had three adaptors, two Apple ones that broke in separate ways (one would keep firing commands randomly from the control buttons on my headphones, the other lost the right channel entirely) and a crappy third party one that just fell apart. Even when the adaptor works, having a dongle sticking out of your pants pocket is a total pain that nobody really asked for. It solves no problem, it's in no way better than the previous alternative, and it really just reads like a massive "fuck you, pay me" from Apple to their customers.

I settled on non-Apple bluetooth headphones, which have their own set of problems but at least I can reliably listen to music during my commute (for the most part).

Kind of, but not for the reasons they want me to like it. The redesign itself is terrible in almost every way, but in being so terrible it really drives a point home I've been thinking about for a while: the "best practices" of modern SPA design and implementation can really lead to drastically reduced functionality.

It might look slightly easier on the eyes (debatable) but other than that, actually using the redesign is worse in almost every way. It's slower than the previous version and there's way less information on a page, yet this is the app you'd get if you followed all the "common wisdom" about building a web front end in 2019.

Compare this to something like craigslist, or pinboard, or HN, which are all theoretically "ugly" but all very fast and very easy to use. Content notwithstanding the user experience on craigslist is infinitely better than the one on new Reddit.

So yes, I like the redesign, but only in the sense that is has highlighted all of the bad parts of modern web design to me in a very concrete way.

it's "really cold" if you're from southern california and "beach weather" if you're from a lot of the rest of the world

at this point in time you need a job to pay rent and buy food (and, if you're american, have a chance at decent health insurance). for coders it's easy to find a job, for people without such "in-demand" skills maybe not so much.

so any retail or food service job replaced by a robot means one fewer job for someone who might need it. in a just world that would be great, the whole point of doing work should be so that we have to do less work, but that's not how society is structured now. an american barista who loses their job to a robot has more or less no safety net at this point. the only benefit in this story is more profit for whoever no longer has to pay a human when they can pay a robot less for the same job

I'm really thankful I haven't yet had a job where all I'm developing is new ways to force people to see ads. Imagine working on a 'feature' like this for weeks or months, and the end result is simply that people who don't want to see ads now have to see ads.