Not just Asian! I live in Melbourne, Victoria. Until we had three children and sent them to a private school, rent and later mortgage was our largest cost by a long margin.
The feedback was the trigger. Basically the point is it’s worth asking whether the downside of giving feedback and having it go poorly is worth it. A much more common experience is to give feedback, and have the job candidate challenge your feedback and/or share a sob story about how they really needed the job. Trade offs and all that.
Caveats: this is in Australia, and I believe we've had legal advice a few times encouraging us to stop, because it could expose us to litigation
The situation in the EU is the exact opposite. As any company can be compelled to disclose electronic records, and all recruitment is done that way now, good companies get ahead of GDPR requests by proactively providing feedback.
Source: recent experience on both sides of the table. Location: South Wales.
The EU situation sounds much better. To be super clear, we ignored the legal advice, because we considered that it was much fairer to provide the best feedback possible to clients who asked.
> Do you believe it's possible to work for Facebook without at least indirectly benefiting the company as a whole?
No, probably not. But I still draw that distinction.
I'm not a strict consequentialist. I think that people's intents matter and that their inner lives have moral significance.
So, for me, that outcome (Facebook benefiting) is only one factor in the moral calculus. In the case of the people I know (and likely John Carmack, though I don't know him), it isn't the dominating factor.
And the early colonies had their problems too. IIRC at least one colony enacted capital punishment for anyone caught abandoning the colony to join the native American tribes.
I hadn't heard that one, but the freedom-loving Pilgrims executed Quakers for proselytizing in Massachusetts. Not really an environment founded on respect for individual autonomy or other ethical considerations.
My personal theory is it's some mix of imposter syndrome and fear of missing out. If you don't keep up with the latest tech then sooner or later you'll be found out and ejected from the pack, never to draw another sv paycheck again.
Can you elaborate, for the non-linguists? His prescription seems sensible:
i. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
... but I'm well aware of how sensible an asinine prescription can seem to a layperson.
For example, "the passive" is rarely defined in a coherent way, or matches the actual definition of "passive voice". Worse, though, is that it is very bad advice. What are called passive senses are tools to correctly place emphasis which, done well, aids clarity.
Often a long word captures a nuance the short version can't. Its presence, by itself, calls the careful reader's attention to the distinction between it and the shorter word it displaced, without belaboring it.
Metaphors, similes, and figures of speech are the furniture of language. Most words, standing alone, embody one. Orwell certainly did not obey this stricture, or he would have been mute.
A word that could have been cut, but wasn't, calls attention to the choice made not to cut it, inviting curiosity why it wasn't, which you may then answer.
Foreign, technical, and jargon words tell the reader about your context. Substituting a word unfamiliar in that context generates confusion, and questions about what distinction you are trying to make by avoiding the usual word. Sometimes you are, in fact, making such a distinction.
Careful readers learn to recognize when writers are making their choices judiciously, and draw extra meaning from them.
So, better advice would tell you to put each such choice to work on the hard job of communicating.
I assume so, and it's a lot less hilarious if you have a large family.
I'm not from the Middle East but my nuclear family is brushing up against the limit, and I have relatives whose families exceed it.
It just seems so ridiculously arbitrary for Google (on any Product Manager) to declare that, as far as their products are concerned, a family contains at most six people.
Well Google and Apple could turn on Location and IP tracking to make sure the family is in one household, and allow additional payment to increase family members. But than the world would cry foul and some how break the privacy rule ( which seems to mean a different thing to different people )
In fairness, my lack of trust for Cisco products pre-dated the Snowden revelations, and were based on the products themselves.
Nothing I've seen since has caused me to change my opinion.
https://hub.packtpub.com/cisco-merely-blacklisted-a-curl-ins...