Not having a schedule with the people candidates are supposed to speak with which includes their titles/roles and not introducing yourself to the candidate. Then complain if a candidates makes the wrong assumptions about people’s roles and ignore the right assumptions candidates make when meeting and greeting strangers.
When cops do this it’s entrapment but when a hiring manager does it... it’s good. I guess the police should go out and entrap as many people as they can I’m sure they’ll find a few criminals among the population.
Why not have the CEO role play a custodian with a mop and flip out when candidates make assumptions?
In 15 years of interviewing (both sides of the table) at FAANGs, universities, startups, hedge funds, and the us federal government, I can think of exactly one time I was given an itinerary outlining who I'd speak with, and zero when one of my candidates was provided with one.
No, when cops do what's described, it's called an undercover assignment. Entrapment is when the police encourage the forbidden behavior. In no way shape nor form is having a woman greet you coming near entrapment.
As for having a CEO play custodian, sure, it's a poor use of my time in leadership, but at the end of the day, I don't care who is carrying a mop around the office. I do care about keeping out the shitheads who feel they're entitled to disrespect someone because they're carrying a mop.
I am reminded of an old story from back in the day when banking did not involve the internet. Some guy in paint-spattered work clothes went to the bank and some new hire bank teller was terribly rude to him so he threatened to close his account.
She was all "Feel free" and didn't budge an inch on her awful behavior so he did, in fact, close his account. For which I believe she was fired because he was the owner of a construction company and his accounts were worth millions.
These kinds of tropes are in old movies. The 49er whos struck gold and looks like a vagrant. Tuco in the Good the Bad and the Ugly who mistakes a union soldier for a confederate soldier, etc.
I said make assumptions I didn’t say be a shithead. If they saw you and alerted you to a spill over by the elevator don’t flip out when they made the presumption given you role played a custodian/janitor. If she asked you to go clean her car, sure by all means she’s stupid to do that but not for going for your ruse.
You're not going to filter out people well, the "cons", that way. They are not going to give you tells. You'll get a nice gotcha to brag about from a tired idiot who wasn't on their game that day. Cool, bravo, you win.
The phones are the same price, you know. The carriers don’t literally ‘subsidise’ or give you a ‘free’ phone - it’s built into the contract price. It’s nothing to do with how wealthy you are because it’s the same price!
Yes, and wealthy people are in the position to plunk down that money up front. People who are less privileged frequently have to take advantage of that form of "financing" offered by the carrier.
Remember, by being wealthy, we frequently have to pay a lot less than people who get by month to month. There should be no shock here.
Yes, to your point I was at T Mobile a month or so ago waiting to buy a SIM card in line behind someone who was evaluating their “free” (i.e., carrier-financed) options. They had a choice of a number of Android handsets I’d never heard of.
On the other end of the scale, though, are the subsidies carriers pay to anyone who switches and trades in a quality device. When my partner joined my plan T Mobile paid a $700+ subsidy for his iPhone 11 in exchange for an iPhone 8.
So customers across the entire income scale finance. It’s just a matter of how lucrative that financing is for the customer. At the higher end of the scale where the customer has more choice it’s usually a much better deal.
It absolutely has to do with being wealthy. Where a wealthy person can afford to spend $500 on a phone, someone not as financially comfortable has no other options than to go the "financing" route. Yes, the price ends up being similar, but it is much more possible for modest people to spend $20/mo for 2 years than $500 on the first day.
This is a well studied phenomenon that wealthy people who can afford to pay everything on day 1, buy in bulk and all end up paying less than poorer people.
$500? Top of the line devices in the last few years have crept above $1,000 USD. Not trying to nitpick but the difference there is a sizable chunk of the average person’s annual income.
Chiming in as a low-income person, yes these Flagship phones have been off of our radar for a very very long time. If I wanted to, I could go into Walmart and buy a perfectly capable locked simple mobile phone for $20 or maybe a bit more than that. There is no possible way that I consider spending multiple weeks worth of paycheck on something that could be broken or stolen easily. If I was going to treat myself to a nicer phone there are tons of great options for me to choose in the 100 or $200 range.
No, not really. A reasonable phone can be had for $200 or less, if you're willing to compromise on features. Carriers haven't been carrying good value-for-money phones on good value-for-money plans for at least 10 years in my country, so cutting out the middle man by buying SIM-only with your own phone is the natural thing to do.
Not only were the Maemo/Meego devices based on Linux, but they embraced a lot of desktop standards. Telephony/messaging all went through Telepathy, UI was GTK under Maemo, then QT under Meego. The app store was just an apt/dpkg frontend.
They do if the patch "looks good" to the right people.
In late January I submitted a patch with no prior contributions, and it was pushed to drm-misc-next within an hour. It's now filtered it's way through drm-next and will likely land in 5.13.
Right? It's true that all systems can be gamed and you could no doubt fool the right maintainer to take a patch from a fraudulent source. But the point is that it's not as simple as this grad student just resubmitting work under a different name.
> But your signed-off-by was a correct email address with your real identity, as per
Maybe?
My point with the above comment was more to point out that there is no special '"presumptive good faith" pass' that comes along with a .edu e-mail address, not that it's possible to subvert the system (that's already well known).
Everyone, including some random dude with a Hackers (1995) reference for an e-mail address (myself) gets that "presumptive good faith" pass.
But how will you ever succeed if you don't outsource all but your core competencies while your core competencies simultaneously converge on banking/investment/midde-manning?
Yeah, they definitely should have bailed on the acquisition when the acquiring company asked for proof they weren't using code they didn't have a license to....
