This, and why would one post negative reviews about a local business in a foreign country while one was still in that country? Naive.

Probably an accurate breakdown, despite not knowing what a corkage fee is.

The point of the pills is to allow someone who is depressed to be able to function well enough to be able to benefit from counseling aimed at helping them cope.

People with severe depression often aren't able to function at a level where they can "face the pain and become a fully functional human being" without a chemical assist at the beginning.

Pills alone aren't the answer. Then you're just someone who has had a lifetime of behavior and patterns built around being depresses, and it isn't much different from actually BEING depressed. Pills and therapy - and you have to work at the therapy - can be life changing.

I agree and disagree.

Having useful stuff to do - that's important. I think that when a person feels like what they're doing - whatever it is - matters, they will find some fulfillment.

Having artificial responsibilities tied to a job? Not so much.

I find no value in responsibilities tied to work that may or may not be meaningful in any real way. I find zero value in responsibilities tied to an arbitrary job for an arbitrary entity - they are pointless constraints on my time, energy and freedom.

I do find value in responsibilities voluntarily tied to people or persons, where my unique self is of specific value to the people or persons I'm responsible to.

What do we do when people have no "work" responsibility? We hopefully teach people to care about other people, rather than just economic gain.

If that were actually the intent, then lottery tickets and casinos would likewise require people to prove they can afford to lose that money.

They don't, and this rule is just another way that the haves are trying to remove the ability of the have nots to better their lot in life. If one thinks otherwise, one hasn't been paying attention.

Based on the comments here every time gender imbalance in tech comes up, I guess it must be because men in general just aren't biologically, emotionally, and intellectually suited to being veterinarians nowadays. Only someone with a radical SJW agenda would say that we should try and get more men in veterinary medicine.

Thank you sir, I truly appreciate it.

We do. They just need to be good. By good, I mean:

- Relevant tech skills and the demonstrated ability to keep current
- A "years of experience" appropriate understanding of architecture, team operations, the non-code parts of writing good code
- Age appropriate interpersonal skills or better (communication, empathy, that kind of thing)
- The ability to demonstrate clearly how they will generate more value than it costs to bring them onboard
- Make me feel confident that it's a good fit and it looks like it'll work out for 2-3 years

That's it. A pretty low bar, I think.

With the fit part, lest anyone think that's a hidden gotcha - I'm over 45 myself and I actually prefer older people because basically, by the time someone's 45 or so, they are who they are and are generally comfortable enough in their own skin to show that at an interview. I'm biased against hiring people in their 20's because they're still figuring out their shit and while I don't have a problem with that on a personal level, I'd really rather not have them do that on my dime.

Do you have any suggestions for cold storage? Thanks.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, you should try some.

Nobody is "pro-illegal" first and foremost - that's pretty dishonest to use that term, about as dishonest as "pro-abortion" is. Secondly, you're lumping the entire group of people who have different views into one mass when it's a hell of a lot more complex than that. Thirdly, you're then mocking that entire group using intentionally infantilizing and simplistic language. Finally you're blaming those people you have treated as a monolith and infantilized as entirely responsible for the tone of the discussion.

So, if you actually want to have an intellectually honest conversation you're off to a very bad start.

Here, let me help:

The only people I feel are xenophobic are people who say or cheer for people who make xenophobic remarks. I believe that It's perfectly possible to have a problem with immigration (whether legal or illegal) without being xenophobic.

I'm opposed to illegal immigration. I feel that it is an incredibly dangerous thing to do just to get here, and then when here, people are forced to live half-lives for fear of being caught. I think this leads to a situation where those here illegally are able to be exploited and ultimately that exploitation causes huge problems in many areas.

However, I do not think that deporting people is the solution. I would much rather we overhaul our immigration and guest worker policies to make it easier for people to use legal means to come here than illegal means. I think the effort would be worth it and everyone would benefit. I think we should do a sort of amnesty for people who are here illegally so that they can contribute more fully and be better protected from exploitation that hurts EVERYONE, not just them.

Some people will say that amnesty isn't "fair" to the people who came here through sanctioned means, but I think that it is. People who came here legally are able to go to the police if they are threatened, are able to partake in civic life, are able to live without having to constantly fear deportation - they are free. People who came here illegally pay a different price, and I think it balances out.

With regards to this administration - I think some may be xenophobic, as certainly the president has said some xenophobic stuff and many of his supporters cheered him on. My gut tells me it's more craven pandering to get votes than outright malevolence. I think the bigger problem with this administration in regards to immigration is that they're looking for quick fixes - they want to be seen as doing something/having some wins - and as a result they're advocating short-sighted policy initiatives that won't solve the existing problem and are causing even more problems down the line.

But sure, if you want, you can say that the entire sum of my argument boils down to 'OAMG the administration hatez the dreamers!!!111!!one!!'

Specify in your cover letter that you have to give samples because the back-end stuff, where you were able to follow best practices, is owned by your company and your front end code wound up going through a process that pretty much turned it into garbage. Give them links to the stuff you worked on that is live, but also the samples, and you'll be on your way.

If you're any good - I mean, literally, if you have a pulse and don't scream and hurl feces during your interview and demonstrate that you know at least how to slap at the keyboard and make something that works - you'll find a job.

I don't hate people who smoke - I hate people who smoke and are assholes about it. Smoke yourself silly when I don't have to smell it, fine by me. Smoke when it affects me, or make a mess that I have to deal with - no, that's not acceptable.

BTW, I also grew up when smoking was cool and smoked for decades and quit as well - climb off your fucking cross.

A baggie will still let you swipe, no problem, and doesn't cost $30.

I use 'em on my kindle, phone and tablet when I want to use them and soak in the tub or float in the pool.

Or a Paperwhite and a $.02 ziplock baggie...

Bzzt, wrong answer.

A friend of mine does public health work, specifically around cancer and outcomes, with a number of hospitals directly and with data from a great many more.

One of the interesting things they've found is that outcomes are greatly influenced by one's socio-economic status even when people are able to get the same treatment. Why?

Because having cancer - actually dealing with it, getting treatment for it - is complicated. Keeping on top of myriad appointments, following through on issues with insurance, basically just working with the system, is hard for people who a) have a fundamental distrust of a system that hasn't worked well for them and b) don't know enough about this particular system to navigate through it. Patients from poorer backgrounds were less likely to advocate for themselves than patients from more affluent backgrounds, and would ultimately lead to an increased mortality or worse outcomes for people in the less affluent group.

In one hospital, they addressed the problem by getting volunteers who had been through the process (either as a survivor or partner of someone who had cancer) to help them navigate through this complex process and let the patient focus instead on getting well. Lo and behold, outcomes improved - not to the same level (there were factors outside of treatment that impacted survival - such as stress), but substantially.

To say that the difference is purely biological is frankly uninformed. Sorry, chum, but when you're dealing with science that is heavily human involved, politics in fact are important considerations. And, based on the improvements in outcomes (and resultant policy changes to try and provide more assistance), I'd say in this case that politics has HELPED rather than hindered.

"Politics" is EXTREMELY relevant to medical outcome, and the fact that you were voted 5 for your comment just makes it it clear that there are a great number of people who have no idea what they're talking about, to the detriment of others.