It's not a matter of people who don't want to be doctors, it's the talented people who are deciding what they want to be and have a number of options in front of them.
As one who's spent some time on the other side of the desk, I'd say that list is overblown. If someone seems excessively concerned with salary, promotions, vacations, etc., that's a red flag, but that's happened only once in my ten years of (occasional) interviewing here. We expect questions about money and benefits -- certainly none of us are working here just for the sheer joy of it.
That said, we're a small quirky company with no official HR staff -- I guess there's no reason to think that our attitude is typical.
I'm still slowly working my way through my PS+ freebies. Just finished Machinarium (cute, mildly challenging), close to finishing a second set of three characters in The Cave (funny, not challenging). Started the Battlefield 3 single player campaign, and I'll probably still pick at it but war games aren't my thing. Just tried XCom an hour ago, and I don't think that's my cup of tea either -- too many decisions.
Interesting... decades ago, when I was playing through some post-infocom-era text adventures, I came across a game that was very well done as a sort of interactive short story, except the damn thing was so difficult that it interfered with the art. From that I an idea for a "game" that would really be just about discovery -- as I recall, it involved the protagonist having to clean out a basement and finding fragments of a life story in the various boxes and bags. Of course actually creating something like that was way beyond my level of discipline and probably also way beyond my ability (the advantage of being undisciplined is that my actual ability generally remains untested). Anyway, I'll definitely have to give this one a try.
Mark, yeah, I was making a general statement of principle -- how we determine when that line is reached, what the right remedy is, and how we know when the remedies are no longer necessary are all difficult practical questions that I do my best to avoid.
If a significant number of bakers refused to make cakes for same-sex weddings, it might be necessary to take legal actions. Since in all likelihood it’ll be a small number of bigoted cranks, no one’s harmed by just letting them lose the business.
This is the most sensible take (because it's mine too) -- discrimination for any reason ought to be allowed, except when it creates a significant burden on the excluded group (because of the wide extent of the discrimination or perhaps because the would-be discriminator has a virtual monopoly on a given good or service).
By the way, are these difficult to construct in a way that will make them solvable? I've never tried my hand at it. Presumably getting the divisor, dividend, quotient and final answer to all be words like they do in the magazines is quite challenging...
Hey, you took me up on it. I prefer it this way, because in the normal ones I can't help but do the anagram.
Sebz gur snpg gung gjb qvtvgf ner oebhtug qbja nsgre gur svefg, M = mreb.
Sebz frpbaq fhogenpgvba, frpbaq pbyhza: E < B
Gurersber sebz ynfg pbyhza bs svefg fhogenpgvba, B = 2E
E orgjrra bar & sbhe, B va (gjb, sbhe, fvk, rvtug)
fvapr B vf rira naq B * K raqf va E, E zhfg or rira.
fb E va (gjb, sbhe) naq B va (sbhe, rvtug)
sbe K * B gb raq va E, K zhfg or guerr be rvtug
vs K jrer rvtug, gura ol gur frpbaq zhygvcyvpngvba, F jbhyq unir gb or sbhe. Ohg fvapr rvgure E be B vf sbhe, K zhfg or guerr, naq F vf avar.
sebz svefg pbyhza bs frpbaq fhogenpgvba, L = K - bar, fb L = gjb
Vs L vf gjb, gura E zhfg or sbhe, B zhfg or rvtug
E - F = J, fb J = svir
Sebz 3eq pbyhza bs 1fg fhogenpgvba, (svir - bar) - H = guerr, fb H = bar
Sebz 4gu pbyhza bs 2aq fhogenpgvba, (bar - bar) - I = sbhe, fb I = fvk
G vf nyy gung'f yrsg, fb G = frira
This comes down to a question of exactly what is meant by the original (hypothetical) statement. If it's meant as shorthand for "In the U.S., the percentage of black people who've committed a violent crime is higher than the equivalent percentage for white people", then it's a statement of fact. But as phrased, it sounds like the speaker is claiming that black people are inherently more violent, which is probably why Kazzy reacted the way he did.
But in any case, this is a threadjack -- the specific content of that hypo is not the subject of the post.
I don't think much of the "malice" argument either, at least the way I understand that term -- it's perfectly possible to feel that homosexual acts are Wrong but still not feel malice towards gays and lesbians as people. Under this view, it's sad for them that they are the way they are, and there's no active desire to harm them -- there's just a desire to not have the government sanction what's seen as an immoral act.
That's us! Only it's become a quite extended visit.
Our kids (now grown, sort of) were born and raised here in CT, and it's been quite distressing to see them adopt some of the local speech oddities. We try to remind them that they're really Californians and so they should be true to their heritage and speak properly. The results have been mixed, but at least we managed to keep them from using a glottal stop in words like "button", "kitten", etc. (although they pull that out when they want to irritate us).
As far as I know, using "the" with highway numbers is just a SoCal thing -- everywhere else I've gone, I've gotten curious looks when I do that (except in the Bay Area, where I got hostile stares, having thereby outed myself as an Angeleno).
I use it that way too, and for the same reason. But even though I don't drawl, people are wondering why I'm talking Southern. Then I have to explain that I'm clearly not using it in the Southern way, because in that case I would've said "all y'all".
I think the bolded word needs to be fleshed out a little more. Required in what way? Required in order to have a certain standard of living, perhaps, but in most cases I'd guess it's not required simply to provide the true basic needs. I recall reading an op-ed piece in the NYT a few years ago detailing how little money you actually need, as long as you're willing to give up many of the conveniences that we now treat as standard (but that we didn't a few decades ago, or that weren't even available).
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Sex-ed, Lies, & Protection”
@glyph, I think you're being extra-sensitive about this.
On “Clinics Here, Clinics There”
It's not a matter of people who don't want to be doctors, it's the talented people who are deciding what they want to be and have a number of options in front of them.
On “Employer Entitlement (Know Your Place)”
Whoa, wait -- you're saying you actually read the article before commenting on it? Dude, what the hell's wrong with you??
On “Saturday!”
Yeah, that's definitely the sort of thing I would've put in my game. It would've been awesome if I'd ever finished it. Or even started it.
This seems like "interactive fiction" in the more literal sense, rather than as a fancy term for a story/puzzle game.
On “Employer Entitlement (Know Your Place)”
As one who's spent some time on the other side of the desk, I'd say that list is overblown. If someone seems excessively concerned with salary, promotions, vacations, etc., that's a red flag, but that's happened only once in my ten years of (occasional) interviewing here. We expect questions about money and benefits -- certainly none of us are working here just for the sheer joy of it.
That said, we're a small quirky company with no official HR staff -- I guess there's no reason to think that our attitude is typical.
On “Saturday!”
I'm still slowly working my way through my PS+ freebies. Just finished Machinarium (cute, mildly challenging), close to finishing a second set of three characters in The Cave (funny, not challenging). Started the Battlefield 3 single player campaign, and I'll probably still pick at it but war games aren't my thing. Just tried XCom an hour ago, and I don't think that's my cup of tea either -- too many decisions.
"
Interesting... decades ago, when I was playing through some post-infocom-era text adventures, I came across a game that was very well done as a sort of interactive short story, except the damn thing was so difficult that it interfered with the art. From that I an idea for a "game" that would really be just about discovery -- as I recall, it involved the protagonist having to clean out a basement and finding fragments of a life story in the various boxes and bags. Of course actually creating something like that was way beyond my level of discipline and probably also way beyond my ability (the advantage of being undisciplined is that my actual ability generally remains untested). Anyway, I'll definitely have to give this one a try.
On “Extreme Party Makeovers”
I believe Trende's point was that Taft was the "makeover" candidate and Eisenhower the status quo candidate.
On “The Armchair CEO”
. Once I sat down for a game and wrote predictions for each play and how things actually turned out,
Out of curiosity, how did you do this without knowing what play had been called ahead of time?
On “Monday Trivia, No. 126 [Mo and Michael Cain win!]”
Google provides a possible answer -- since that's cheating, I'll rot13 it...
Qbrf gur nafjre unir fbzrguvat gb qb jvgu gur Znqerna Fxl Vfynaqf?
On “The Armchair CEO”
More related reading.
On “Naming Rights”
Etymology is not meaning. These days, "messiah" is often used synonymously with "savior" -- e.g. see definition #3 here.
On “The Benefits of Air Steerage”
The key is for all of us to use the "@" sign liberally -- @jesus, @michael-drew
On “Religious Liberty Means Religious Privilege”
Mark, yeah, I was making a general statement of principle -- how we determine when that line is reached, what the right remedy is, and how we know when the remedies are no longer necessary are all difficult practical questions that I do my best to avoid.
"
This is the most sensible take (because it's mine too) -- discrimination for any reason ought to be allowed, except when it creates a significant burden on the excluded group (because of the wide extent of the discrimination or perhaps because the would-be discriminator has a virtual monopoly on a given good or service).
On “Fundraising Drive (July 2013)”
If you really want to rake in the cash, you should let the highest donor have the option of blackballing the commenter of his/her choice for a month.
On “Division!”
Woohoo! Good thing I stayed up late tonight.
By the way, are these difficult to construct in a way that will make them solvable? I've never tried my hand at it. Presumably getting the divisor, dividend, quotient and final answer to all be words like they do in the magazines is quite challenging...
"
Hey, you took me up on it. I prefer it this way, because in the normal ones I can't help but do the anagram.
Sebz gur snpg gung gjb qvtvgf ner oebhtug qbja nsgre gur svefg, M = mreb.
Sebz frpbaq fhogenpgvba, frpbaq pbyhza: E < B
Gurersber sebz ynfg pbyhza bs svefg fhogenpgvba, B = 2E
E orgjrra bar & sbhe, B va (gjb, sbhe, fvk, rvtug)
fvapr B vf rira naq B * K raqf va E, E zhfg or rira.
fb E va (gjb, sbhe) naq B va (sbhe, rvtug)
sbe K * B gb raq va E, K zhfg or guerr be rvtug
vs K jrer rvtug, gura ol gur frpbaq zhygvcyvpngvba, F jbhyq unir gb or sbhe. Ohg fvapr rvgure E be B vf sbhe, K zhfg or guerr, naq F vf avar.
sebz svefg pbyhza bs frpbaq fhogenpgvba, L = K - bar, fb L = gjb
Vs L vf gjb, gura E zhfg or sbhe, B zhfg or rvtug
E - F = J, fb J = svir
Sebz 3eq pbyhza bs 1fg fhogenpgvba, (svir - bar) - H = guerr, fb H = bar
Sebz 4gu pbyhza bs 2aq fhogenpgvba, (bar - bar) - I = sbhe, fb I = fvk
G vf nyy gung'f yrsg, fb G = frira
Va beqre sebz mreb gb avar:
MHLKEJIGBF
On “Ask Kazzy #2”
This comes down to a question of exactly what is meant by the original (hypothetical) statement. If it's meant as shorthand for "In the U.S., the percentage of black people who've committed a violent crime is higher than the equivalent percentage for white people", then it's a statement of fact. But as phrased, it sounds like the speaker is claiming that black people are inherently more violent, which is probably why Kazzy reacted the way he did.
But in any case, this is a threadjack -- the specific content of that hypo is not the subject of the post.
On “The Best Video Game Ever: “Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord””
Planet Miners?
On “No, Justice Kennedy Didn’t Just Call a Bunch of People Bigots”
I don't think much of the "malice" argument either, at least the way I understand that term -- it's perfectly possible to feel that homosexual acts are Wrong but still not feel malice towards gays and lesbians as people. Under this view, it's sad for them that they are the way they are, and there's no active desire to harm them -- there's just a desire to not have the government sanction what's seen as an immoral act.
On “Pronunciation Nation”
That's us! Only it's become a quite extended visit.
Our kids (now grown, sort of) were born and raised here in CT, and it's been quite distressing to see them adopt some of the local speech oddities. We try to remind them that they're really Californians and so they should be true to their heritage and speak properly. The results have been mixed, but at least we managed to keep them from using a glottal stop in words like "button", "kitten", etc. (although they pull that out when they want to irritate us).
"
As far as I know, using "the" with highway numbers is just a SoCal thing -- everywhere else I've gone, I've gotten curious looks when I do that (except in the Bay Area, where I got hostile stares, having thereby outed myself as an Angeleno).
"
I use it that way too, and for the same reason. But even though I don't drawl, people are wondering why I'm talking Southern. Then I have to explain that I'm clearly not using it in the Southern way, because in that case I would've said "all y'all".
On “Compensating for Care of the Family”
I think the bolded word needs to be fleshed out a little more. Required in what way? Required in order to have a certain standard of living, perhaps, but in most cases I'd guess it's not required simply to provide the true basic needs. I recall reading an op-ed piece in the NYT a few years ago detailing how little money you actually need, as long as you're willing to give up many of the conveniences that we now treat as standard (but that we didn't a few decades ago, or that weren't even available).
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.