It depends where. Under skills seems silly, but under interests seems reasonable.
I have a single line on my resume with interests. I don’t list chess, but list cryptography. Because I’m interested in it.
I just have that line to help with chitchat during the interview. If some interviewer interpreted that to mean I was a professional cryptographer and that I sucked at it, that would be dumb of them.
I also list an interest in kayaking, even though I suck at it.
It's becoming less socially acceptable to be bad at a hobby. I kind of like football but wouldn't dream of calling myself a football fan in more knowledgable company.
I suppose we run in different social circles. I’m not sure what “bad at a hobby” means as the reason I hobbies is because they are fun to me.
I list kayaking as a hobby not because I’m competitive and awesome but because I think it’s fun to float down a river. I suppose if a company expected me to be good at my hobby and judged me because of it, I wouldn’t want to work with them because their culture probably has other stupid parts to it too.
I agree that there are some downsides, but regarding the conservative party leadership contests, it's probably fairly likely that the "who?" response would've happened under FPTP.
2017, likely that Bernier would've won, but I'm not convinced that he was more well-known than Scheer. Happy to be proven wrong here.
The 2020 result would likely have been the same as it is now. A small contingent of Sloan/Lewis supporters strategically voting would have tipped it to O'Toole.
This is a little disingenuous, isn't it? I'm no cheerleader for mainstream media and agree that they can/often manipulate facts or selectively report certain things, but I'm not sure if QAnon is that thing.
Is it realistic to say that QAnon is being covered instead of "COVID or the economic collapse or civil unrest in 100's of cities"? I think these topics still take center stage in reporting currently.
And QAnon is not merely some small internet thing -- many QAnon followers have won primaries, so assuming that in aggregate these candidates have some chance at winning (they do; see GA-14 for example) it's also weird to dismiss them as powerless when they are likely to hold elected office.
> Could you explain the Kurt Cobain statement? Not being snarky, just unfamiliar with what you're referencing.
I believe they are saying that Cobain's work (and the popularity of Grunge generally) brought new life to the Rock music scene, leading to an uptick in garage bands forming (and therefore demand for music lessons?) as a second order effect.
