muchtest

Reminds me of the scene with the Mortgage Brokers in The Big Short - "They're not confessing, they're bragging"

On Nordstream explosion "Russia denies responsibility for the explosions. But few doubt that the Kremlin did it."

I can stop reading at this line to know that this isn't journalism, it's opinion at best and propaganda at worst. I expect better from HN.

At this point if Moscow gets obliterated in a Nuclear Mushroom cloud, I expect the next mornings headlines to be "And here's how Russia benefits from this"

The legal class is the big winner in these things - win or lose. Lawyers get paid

There are two narratives being told - one to the top brass to increase investment and one to gen population of not to worry we're going to win so don't be a defeatist/pacifist/collaborator.

I've heard this dangerous narrative down playing dangers of nuclear war from people who have never experienced a total war before & are leaning into narratives spread by the military-industrial complex.

However many failures the Russian military may have, all it takes is 1 missile hitting a major city and you'll see more deaths in the US than have been seen in all the wars it fought combined.

I agree - but the decisions on the recruiting process is not on the team, assuming this is a mid-large sized company - that decision could be made miles away from the people interviewing you.

You can write them off based on this, but it's not pragmatic. Downside another hour of their life vs $$$ increase from the role. That 60 mins could be the difference between X00k!

I've seen that happen when they are either

1 - Uncertain about something about you (I imagine technical aptitude), and want to rule out their concern 2 - There are 2 close candidates

Either way you should confirm that it is the final stage, confirm what they'd need to see to hire you and if you are feeling confident maybe use it to negotiate salary!

Sounds like you are close to getting the job though so I wouldn't dismiss it especially if you have no doubts about the company!

I'm saying it's a broad term - forget Russian news. Go ask take a Fox watcher and a CNN watcher to point out what they interpret as "Fake News" and you'll get 100s of differences.

You're splitting hairs when you say down ranking is not censorship - you know full well the impact to a websites traffic once it gets out of the top 3 results let along the 1st page of results.

The fact you started censoring "Russian media outlets" right after the start of the war shows the political nature of your decision, those "limited press freedoms" weren't a concern until Mar 22.

Do you publish the decision making process for how the "non-partisan" decisions on censorship are made - or is this another blackbox? I'm sure Dailymail, New York Post and Al Jazeera are all down-ranked too, considering they meet your "non-partisan factors" right?