I have had to do a decent amount of hiring over the years for my own corner the corporate meat grinder. I personally don’t care about a gap unless the gap is too big. A big gap allows for a lot of rust to build, so it becomes a bit of a calculation of how much rust needs to get knocked off and if it’s fine for this position if it takes longer to get productive. If they’re still pretty sharp then the gap is no issue, and if they’re really rusty then that can be a problem depending.

I interviewed a guy not long ago with a 3-year gap. No fault of his own, the economy sucks, so I didn’t hold it against him. But despite knowing there was a technical interview coming up and knowing what skills we were looking for, the dude didn’t put any effort into studying before my interview and he bombed pretty darn hard. Which is a shame because on paper he would’ve been an amazing candidate otherwise.

Anyways all of that is to say that sometimes a gap brings other stuff too, so a gap to me is a sign to look for that other stuff.

Who said this is even tracked, let alone enforced? Drawing the conclusion that it’s enforced seems like a bit of a leap.

That said, if my boss said that to me it would probably sit poorly with me in the moment purely because I just want to focus on my job and GTFO, I don’t particularly want to pine for outside when I’m stuck anyways. It’s corny and not particularly inspiring, but nothing wrong with it on its face. If somebody was clocking such things that’s a huge “find another corporate wage slave camp to sink your labor into” flag.

In America’s general election you get two choices for president, the bad choice and the worse choice. That’s the undisputable reality. As South Park once elegantly put it, choose between the giant douche and the turd sandwich. Now, often times which candidate is which is a matter of perspective, but sometimes it’s pretty clear to see who the worse choice is.

For instance, so many people got on a high horse against Kamala for supporting Israel, and they weren’t wholly wrong, but her opponent was very well known for being an admirer of Netanyahu and never took a stance against the genocide either. So considering both parties seemed likely to let Israel keep on keeping on it was a very strange thing to get hung up on electorally; there was little to no chance that we’d have an election outcome would have ended well for Palestine regardless, and having lived through Trump’s first term and his attempted coup there was plenty of evidence to suggest that he would be the worse choice.

Now, many people used the argument that politics and ethics are completely inseparable, saw that both candidates would be bad for Palestine, then refused to vote on moral grounds, thereby doing their part in condemning America to its current circumstances of grappling with human rights crises at home. Thousands brutalized by ICE and CBP, shipped to torture centers for crimes the didn’t commit (e.g. El Salvador) children separated from parents (again) and effectively orphaned (again)… Much of this very much predictable given his first term. I’m not seeing this supposed moral high ground.

The act of voting is indeed a political act, and not a moral one. One’s politics and ethics may intertwine, but at the end of the day you only get two choices and chances are that in order to avoid the greater evil you need to ensure the lesser evil prevails. It shouldn’t work this way but sadly it does.

I hate when the information I’m trying to get is trapped in a video. It’s not often that I can’t find text alternatives, but it happens on occasion. Being trapped watching a video whose purpose is only partly to deliver information (the other part to game the algo and appease sponsors), when I could have found the info I needed in 30 seconds if it was text – that’s my idea of torture.

One of the very few legitimately game-changing aspects of AI in my life is video summaries.

Discussion I’ve seen on the subject on Hacker News tends to veer towards MIT being the only license allowed for use in many orgs (with exceptions of course) because license compliance is hard to manage when you’re using a lot of open source and you’re a small org. So many developers release their code with MIT licenses so it gets used more and looks better on the portfolio.

While I can see their perspective I personally agree with your take and would love to see more GPLv3 adoption and fewer stupidly permissive licenses. There’s tooling out there to help with the license compliance challenges, if enough developers moved away from MIT licenses then companies will be forced to deal with it.