The resume still matters. The thing is, hiring managers get over 100 resumes for any position, so they learn pretty quickly to just focus on what matters most, and if they trash a few good candidates... well that's ok, because there are so many. No one has the time to conduct 25 interviews with 25 people doing a test.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. You interview based on the resume, and the resume catches your attention based on so many factors; education can be one, but it's not nearly the most important, unless you have no experience at all. And once you're in the interview, your education doesn't matter, and matters even less once you're on the job. I've never seen any large employer care about past educational achievements for any of their employees, it's 100% about what you can deliver on the job.

There is no such training in an MBA. You don't learn anything related to "how to avoid break laws". The curriculum is not meant to make you an economic predator, because the curriculum is pretty shallow in the first place. It's basically a shortened Bachelor of Commerce that really focuses on getting you a job.

Our problem is we have a society that reveres economic predators, and has rules in place (or a lack of rules) that help economic predators stay on top, with no political will to change anything. People with MBAs and the MBA-heavy industries (PE/VC, IB, consulting) is a symptom of living in such a society, not a cause. Most of those folks are just trying to live their life, and get the best career they can.

You got the order reversed. The network is first, or perhaps more accurately, first, second, and third. You mix that with soft skills, and basics of business (accounting, strategy, marketing, etc.), sure, but the most most most important thing is being able to network and get good jobs.

Also, as much as you want to rail about MBAs, it's not the MBA that turns people into mindless capitalists. That just the society we're in. Some MBA folks came in greedy as fuck, some do their job mostly against their will, but they're all playing the game because they have to, to earn a living. The network a good MBA gives you helps you make it to the top, and so MBAs are over-represented in the ranks of the top 5%, but there's plenty of folks that are as greedy and would go as far as any MBA to make money, they just don't have the background to get them there.

For those who haven't read the memo... He glosses over the layoffs. He starts by saying it's weighing down on people, and then... progress isn't linear. Doesn't explain why they need to go through "unlearning" and "learning". Layoffs happened, progress isn't linear, deal with it, now let's talk about our mission.

It's what execs (or politicians, or anyone in a similar position) do when they don't want to be transparent. He lightly touches on the subject, then moves away, without giving an actual answer. The real reason is likely something like "look we have net income growth expectations baked into our stock price, and weren't going to make it organically with our revenue / cost trajectory, so we cut 15000 positions to save $3B in compensation. That will protect our stock price, which obviously benefits me, but also most of our employees as they are also shareholders." However, that would sound.. pretty raw, wouldn't it? Instead we get a word salad, when everyone knows the real reason.

Can we stop with this? You're right, the average American is vastly better off than the average person in Africa or Asia. But that's irrelevant to the people at the bottom of the pyramid in the US. You're part of your own society, and despite sharing a planet, the reality of folks across that planet is different.

Within the US, there are "better offs" and "worse offs", and the better offs are maximizing their profits at the expense of the others. The fact that those same better offs are treating the bottom of the pyramid in other countries even worse, and therefore that the US bottom is doing relatively better than the other bottoms, doesn't mean this situation is right.

We've built a society that doesn't care about its people, other than as a means of profit. Our decisions are short-term, to maximize such profits, and then our leaders that have benefited from this system will blame everyone but themselves when it leads to problems (e.g., blame the Chinese for stealing our manufacturing, not the CEOs and Board of Directors that have decided that low cost is better than giving jobs to Americans).

I like your analogy, but it's a bit flawed, because politics and trade relationships are never one and done. When the US buys stuff from Canada or Mexico or whatever, it's not a single transaction. It's more you walk into the store, and you commit to buying 1000 fasteners each week, for as long as you live. The store has a sticker that says $0.30, but on a whim the guy changes it to $1, and after 10 min of talking you both agree to $0.50. After 3 weeks you come in to pick up your fasteners, and the store guy says "ah you know what I don't like our deal, it's back to $1", and that happens every few weeks.

If you needed to haggle the store guy on every product type, and that deal was respected, it would be a hassle but it would work out. However, needing to revisit your agreements regularly because store guy can't make up his mind and calls the last deal he signed "the worst deal of all times signed by an idiot" makes it nearly impossible to maintain a working relationship.

It's not just cycling, we should do that for all sports. Have everyone use the same equipment. Swimming? No you get the same swimsuit type made with the same material. Tennis? Same racquet. F1? Same car. Golf? That's not a sport, but still, same clubs. It really would bring sports back to athleticism and skill, not tech advancements. Unfortunately, sports equipment = money, and without the money from those sponsors, professional sports cannot exist.

That's exactly it. The vast majority of societal complaints that people have in the last few decades (and probably before too) can be traced to greed and uncontrolled capitalism. In the pursuit of money, values crumble. Is the risk-adjusted cost of less security greater or lower than the cost of enforcing better security? Microsoft has obviously done the math (and perhaps they're bad at math, only the future can tell).

I read the Slashdot title / summary, and it sounded like Mazda redesigned the steering wheel to have more buttons and understand that touchscreens have safety concerns. Then I go to the article, which has this in the first paragraph: "But after a generation of development as the only major outlier in the industry, the company is now pivoting to a conventional, touchscreen-style experience—and axing most of its physical controls in the process."

I will add this blurb: "But it’s not just the navigation and other digital features that are moving behind the touchscreen interface with this generation; Mazda swept the dashboard of most of its knobs and switches, including the controls for the audio and climate control systems. Both are now found in the central, 15.6-inch screen."

TFS should have been entitled "Physical buttons disappearing from Mazda cars".

The problem is far from solved, but look at your chart (or the Wiki itself, https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...)! They've moved from ~18% renewables to 32% in 16 years. The increase in absolute quantity of coal still sucks, but you can't say they're not trying. You can say it's not fast enough, not good enough... but damn you've got to give some credits for trying, and not just trying, but likely leading the pack in terms of energy transition.

Ahh, that's fair. I just don't think the US will stop at asking Canada to contribute more from a defence perspective. It'll be contribute to defence, buy more of our stuff, give us more of your resources... it'll be ask ask ask ad infinitum, and no matter what Canada does, I doubt it'll be enough for the current US administration. The relationship this administration wants with Canada is that of a lord and vassal, not two allies, so I don't think a new military policy will move the needle in the health of the relationship.

Won't someone think of the rentseekers and the greedy capitalists that bought the rights? How the fuck are they supposed to pay their yacht personnel if they don't make most of the money?! Think about it for a second, an artist is just one person, whereas the leech.. I mean, the proper right-holder maintains the lifestyle of DOZENS of folks (maid, gardener, pool person, personal chef, yacht captain, etc.) with their hard-earned money. It's for the common good, think of the economy, stupid!

Seriously... I wish they just told me the sensor size instead. 200 MP with a normal phone sensor will just lead to 25MB photos that are just as blurry when zoomed up as the 10MP camera.

I agree with almost all your points, but not sure about the conclusion. Boycotts work if they can be sustained, because the only thing the US (read, the elites in control) cares about is the economy. If Canada decoupled entirely from the US (which admittedly is impossible), the US would react. The US wants Canada for its resources, and every act so far has been economic warfare, not military.

Now military policy matters too, because that's how you stay independent. If Canada refused to give anything to the US, there could be military consequences. However, I don't know that the US truly wants Canada to have a stronger military. Spend more (on US military equipment), yes, but actually be strong? Why? Perhaps just so Canada contributes more in international action, but again that comes back to money (more involvement from Canada or the EU = less resources from the US). And I doubt a higher Canadian contribution to the worldwide military would make Trump back down on economic policies, because unless Canada is buying more American products, the negative balance of trade is still not "fixed".

I also wish Canada could stand up to the US, but even if Canada quintupled military spend, it wouldn't be enough. There's such a massive difference in historical military investments (not to mention human bodies and size of economy) that I'm not sure Canada can stand up to the US militarily, within the next multiple decades. Just for comparison, Canada has supposedly less than 100 tanks in service. The US has over 4000. The comparison for the air force looks even worse...