This is what I was looking for, in the article as well as comments. Lemon juice has also worked for me, especially in combination with the sealed plastic wrap, but I was not scientific about it and was hoping for some mention of testing this in the article!
The ascorbic acid in lemon juice is doing the work here. If you’d like read up on the science as to why it works the terms you need are polyphenol oxidase, which are the enzymes primarily responsible for browning in fruit and veg. Then also look into the Fenton chain reaction and how’s it’s interfered by ascorbic acid binding to quinones. It’ll probably be easier to find this if you focus on wine science, more so than fruit and veg in general.
I am in the US, but otherwise your situation highly resonates with me, and I feel your description could be used to describe my own search.
I've been looking, applying, and interviewing (though not as often as I would like nor expect from my volume of applications) for 8 months. After some recent disappointing news, I am looking to be moving away from software development and systems-at-scale roles, and spending more time and effort at IT support / system administration roles in the future as I can't help but feel the industry just isn't interested in any desire to grow and develop professionally, they just want the perfect applicant that has already used the technologies they need for 2-5 years and won't waste time on anyone else.
It doesn't help my own confidence that I have "FAANG" experience (I'll leave it to the reader to decide which FAANG belongs in quotes), and it hasn't helped my response rate or evaluations.
In any case, it's disapointing, and I feel your struggles. I wish you the best, and hopefully your newfound perspective separating the CV and the interview will help you spend less time and anguish over the less important parts
Appreciate the support jechamt. Good luck on your own journey.
It's undeniable that practice makes for better interviewing - I tend to index way to much on researching the company and industry, and not enough on the tricky art of impressing them by emitting words in the right way!
I have “FAANG” too but as a contractor and I feel like it’s hurt me more than it’s helped because everyone wants to give me super rigorous coding assessments or questions my few month gap.
> Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit
Leaders are obligated to respectfully challenge decisions when they disagree, even when doing so is uncomfortable or exhausting. Leaders have conviction and are tenacious. They do not compromise for the sake of social cohesion. Once a decision is determined, they commit wholly.
In this context, “leaders” is (at least) aspirational, and meant to include all employees. I have a good deal of experience with the LPs, though I can’t claim to be an expert in evaluating the merits of their various applications. Particularly with this one, as it appears to be sort of encouraging situations that are more likely lead to discord and conflict.
I would venture that, in my experience, this one is one of the more highly prone to differing interpretations among individuals. The times I have seen it used, or examples broadcast of its value, it is used in the spirit of starting or engaging in a good faith discussion, and at some point concluding a time box to the discussion by one party asking another to disagree and commit.
In other words, two well-intentioned parties that both have meaningful contributions to the discussion (and represent that they understand the other party also has meaningful contributions) reach an impasse and know they need to get past it. By invoking disagree and commit, they both agree to commit their full energy and attention to the same concluded direction, work to see the success of that path, and (usually) discuss as an after action lessons learned, so that future disagreements of a similar nature can point to the data / conclusions to make better decisions.
Again, I don’t know I have the best understanding of this LP, and it has not come up often for me personally, so I welcome feedback here from others with experience.
This is completely independent from my opinion on this particular issue, which I will omit. It does differ somewhat from the representation in the reporting:
> In other words, once any company decision is made, workers are expected to fall in line, even if they disagree with it
First time posting an archive / access link. If this link doesn’t work for anyone, feel free to hide this post. I’ll monitor and delete if it’s failing / not helpful.
I don’t doubt any of the reporting I have read thus far from either theverge or variety, but the sequence of events seems utterly disconnected and difficult or impossible to reason about. Standing out to me:
> in response to “feedback from the filmmaking team that wanted the actor’s remarks to be centered on the movie.”
the idea that someone could make edits to the text that will go to the teleprompter and thus favorably control what a human being will say, after being surprised on stage with edits to what they certainly planned and practiced, strikes me as phenomenally absurd and disconnected from reality.
It is even more striking that included in the cut speech (which the reader sort of must take for granted was part of an alternative, planned speech) is an impassioned description of the pervasiveness of lies and efforts to present alternative/revisionist histories.
It recalls comedy scenarios like a scene from Anchorman, or more acutely, that someone made decisions thinking people will actually behave this way.
My best guess is that De Niro is involving Apple in his blame because the movie (that he was receiving the awards for that night) was produced by Apple Studios and distributed by Apple Original Films. So he probably assumed that the decision to edit the speech “to be centered on the movie” came from above aka Apple.
Regardless, it is a conflict that is simply about whether the final edit of the speech was approved between De Niro and the producer of the movie, and it just so happens that the producer here was Apple Studios. None of this controversy is related to Apple as a tech company or their products.
I beg to differ. If Apple the production company is embroiled in a series of high profile censorship missteps then it DEFINITELY impacts Apple the tech company. Their devices and software are not dumb platforms. Their APP store, their DRM and media distribution, and their ability to remotely control your technology devices are all major escalating factors when it comes to discussing censorship.
The opaque nature of how this decision was made, the opaque nature of how any decision at Apple gets made, is also a contributing factor.
There is a long and problematic history of Apple censoring content, maintaining tight control and hooks into their technology products.
If their censorship in one area is becoming more draconian we have no way to predict how it will impact other areas of the business.
Your dismissal, that these are totally unrelated smacks of damage control, spin, and I think you know that is EXACTLY the opposite of what is going on here. People ARE going to assume this will impact the media and control they have over the technology they buy from Apple. People will respond by not buying those products out of fear.
Your casual assumptions and assurances don't really mean anything.
> If Apple the production company is embroiled in a series of high profile censorship missteps then it DEFINITELY impacts Apple the tech company.
Would you say that a controversy around something as high-profile as a Spidermman movie production have any impact on Sony the tech company, rather than just Sony Pictures Studios? Or, an even better example, would that be attributable to Sony the tech company in any way? Is it Kenichiro Yoshida (the current CEO) or the high-up Sony corporate pulling the strings whenever there is a conflict on a movie set of Sony Pictures Studios?
> The opaque nature of how this decision was made, the opaque nature of how any decision at Apple gets made, is also a contributing factor.
It is a movie production. It is a specific movie production crew having an argument with an actor working on the same movie over whether he approved the final draft of his speech or not. It wasn’t something coming from Apple the tech company (unless there is any evidence to the contrary, which I am yet to see).
Also, De Niro read his original unedited speech anyway, it was broadcasted just fine, and he faced no consequences for it (as he shouldn’t have). This kind of tells that none of this was about censorship and more of just about the movie production team disagreement over who approved which edit.
"At the end of the study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 14 participants."
I wondered something similar while reading, but recognized the choices of explicit gender and detailed inquiry inclusion while intentionally changing the names. These pointed me to the likelihood this was in-house/controlled research. I believe that is the case from the quote above, though I don't see any additional details about how the study was conducted.
It well might be an in-house research, but I have no doubt that my credit-card is linked with what I've typed in chatgpt. The immense amount of intel gathering capabilities over the chat bots is insane.
> this is for Windows-specific features, so it would require them to think through an open, stable & forever-supported API
seems to directly disagree with the author's analysis:
> These special links only exist to force users into using Microsoft Edge. They serve no other purpose than to circumvent the user’s default browser preference to promote a Microsoft product.
Why do you suggest these are for Windows-specific features?
It's not an analysis, it's an opinion. There is no possible analysis: there is a behavior, you choose how to interpret it. It's not like you decompile the code and the machine code spells out "screw you".
Now that the medium post and this HN response (and possibly others) have gained traction, the author and other similarly affected parties may be interested to communicate this shift in momentum to investors, conveniently listed on kitsplit's website: https://angel.co/company/kitsplit/jobs
Mostly individuals (and perhaps this is not the complete picture) through AngelList, perhaps AngelList (angel.co) itself might be interested to know in more detail the actual policies and communications of one of its listed companies.
Deciding to not cover this claim and claims like it seems to be a short-sighted and heavily financially-motivated decision. Perhaps if the financial stakes of that decision were more clear, the author could pursue a different result.
Perhaps, though, this momentum has come too late. Food for thought as I haven't seen it discussed here so far.
I fully agree with you and I came here to post this.
On the other side, I would never click on a headline like this from another source, but it being here on HN provides some benefit of the doubt. Yahoo news reveals its consistent character, as usual, but at least this is balanced by the always insightful comments toward the material subject matter of the article (my own comment here notwithstanding).
