Indeed it illustrates how much we don't need human resource workers.
I have a reasonable amount of experience with scripted questions for phone calls and face to face conversations.
It of course should be "foundation of" not "foundations for" but that aside...("..." for a short breathing break) your first question has a slash in it? The whole point of preparing questions is to not have such things. After a very tiny number of interviews one would chose between the 2.
I would smile at the second question and politely explain why I thought the job was interesting in well prepared words, then ask "Why do I want to work here? How long have you worked here? Why do you work here?"
I would totally expect an answer (only) to the second question. To which I would respond by asking if they enjoyed it.
By that time the vc question will seem alien to the context of the conversation. If you bring it up again I will ask if you ever applied for jobs while working there.
Then I will openly mock you by arguing it would be interesting just to see what kind of questions they ask.
After "I have other interviews to do today" to crank some urgency into the conversation, I will explain why I thought this job was more interesting than the others (same as before only more contrasting than generic), how it fits with what I know, my expectations for further development of these skills and what interests me about the product.
If nothing serious comes out in response I will leave "expecting to hear from you soon".
Out of sheer curiosity I had a go at manually enhancing the Roundhay Garden Scene by dramatically enlarging the frames, stacking them, aligning them, erasing the most blurred ones and the obvious artifacts.
The funniest part was that the resolution really goes up if you make 1 px into 40 and align the frames accurately (then adjust opacity to the level of blur)
The crime television thing would be possible if you have enough frames of the gangster.
As noted before, in Europe, the greatest union in the world GOD BLESS US</sarcasm> governments do a lot of the stuff that people in the US expect from charities.
In theory, passionate empathic people should be able to outperform government projects 100:1 and no doubt many do to some extend, even without any formal organization.
If you live next door the just being there for people is priceless. Its not like government will see you rebuilding your house and bring you a hot cup of tea when you look worn out while for a private citizen that would be a minimum effort.
The obvious question is why haven't US law makers moved in for the kill with so many for-profit-non-profits? I think the answer is probably as obvious as the question.
All that means is that there are many worse charities.
I tried to look into it one time and find things written by people who watched from up close. It made me physically ill long before I looked at any substantial number of them.
I think the usual formula is to "pay" the CEO 200 k and spending the rest on ever larger promotion cycles.
What is needed in the west is a huge tax on charities and other non-profits to be entirely used to monitor their activities. Then we need to write draconian laws forcing them to insure and guarantee delivery.
Any sign of failure should result in persecution and the entire staff replaced - since we have plenty of volunteers.
We need to raise the standards like that to the point where government can safely pump funds into the mechanism when a situation calls for it.
I don't want to be called, receive letters and fill out paper work. I have better things to do. I'd much rather spend 50 bucks in [extra] tax for aid than suffering 2 hours of promotion to fund promotion every year.
When is gates going to provide drinking water to the entire world? Never? Then lets put him in prison and salvage the fund.
> What is needed in the west is a huge tax on charities and other non-profits to be entirely used to monitor their activities.
Nah. Just remove charitable donations from being tax-exempts, and then it's no longer a problem for the government when charities don't deliver, but a private problem of their donors.
You would think text documents work wonderfully but weirdest parts of html [to me] are...
1) the rendering of things outside the viewport. The way wrapping of divs and lines works it seems impossible to make it render the way pdf did from day 1(?) I don't even know if there is a maximum length for pdf but in html you really should try to stay under 20 000 lines. I know, it seems like I'm splitting hairs here, but before the early 90's you could easily scroll though the entire memory of the system as if it was a single document. The amount of code was kind of a lot smaller than the infinite scroll web page requesting pre-cut chunks of xml or json where you get to manually measure the size of elements then get to do crazy calculations with the scroll offset if a new element needs to be inserted above the stuff the user is looking at.
And 2) not having a nice way of doing a reference section summarizing the stuff linked in a text kind of ruins the joy of having links in the text. One ends up building a kind of disposable experience if the text is long enough.
Combined, it's like having a pile of pages that are all the entry point. This is lovely for short reads but far from what books use to be.
I suppose the ultimate creation is one such article that promises everyone a fire breathing pony with laser eyes in the soon to follow up.
When you write one, be sure to rage at the thing everyone loves and to suggest abolishing it - to be replaced by that pony you will get in the next episode!
I for one am all ready to be disappointed by this holy grail of subscribe baiting.
"the market distribution of wealth patently does not reward in proportion to how hard-working people are, or how much of a contribution they make to society."
I've always wondered why we collectively defend this unproductive distribution.
The best example to me are jobs where few serve many thousands of people making it so that charging 2 or 3 cents extra would add up to a relative enormous salary. But in stead people are paid minimum wage while almost no one thinks it is idiotic.
Would you ask the consumer for a raise so that the pack of cookies would cost 1.02 in stead of 99 cents I think few wold protest. I would have a hard time taking those who do seriously and their % would would have us completely ignore them in the decision making.
