I had the pleasure of interviewing several engineers from Boeing with PhDs and almost the worst interviews ever. Very awkward interviews and possibly the worst in person interview ever.
How can a PhD engineer fail an interview among barely junior engineers? And fail it so badly that it officially became our worse interview ever?
This person also had the audacity to call back and several times to demand to be interviewed again. During the interview I would ask simple engineering questions like “can you elaborate on F=ma” and the guy, instead of giving a straight answer “it’s the relationship between the force applied to a mass and the acceleration achieved” he would go in these crazy ass rants about stuff I can’t repeat and can’t remember. You know the stuff very well…like when your wife, husband or life partner starts talking to you about your mom and you love your mom so you shut down the listening port on your brain. Just ehem and uhumed the rest of the interview. It was bad. It was so bad that the junior engineers told me it was bad. Usually they hold judgment out of respect.
Reminds me of my worst interview, though the candidate wasn’t phd. It was a recent bachelor’s grad doing a remote interview and he obviously had someone helping him (we could hear them whispering). Funny part was neither of them had a clue so the guy cheated but still gave among the worst responses.
I can only assume he cheated his way to graduation, too.
Would be funny if they tried, considering all the stuff that he knows and that he is legally represented by the former Director of National Intelligence.
Not that I’m not relieved that they make rape exceptions (when they even do), but from their perspective, a rape exception also makes no sense. Abortion is murder and every life is precious unless it’s conceived in a rape?
This line of critique is wrongheaded and empowers Tucker. Putin already commands a platform far above Tucker’s, a media figure cannot provide a bigger platform for Putin than the one he already has. Many liberal journalists have interviewed Putin without facing this critique, it’s applied here because Tucker is a reactionary shithead.
The better critique is that you have for-profit entertainment companies capitalizing on this, and how that affects the content.
What liberal media journalists have managed to interview Putin since he began his invasion of Ukraine in 2022? I thought Carlson was the first Western person to manage that.
He did his best to show what an idiot Tucker was though, which is fun:
At another juncture, Carlson asked Putin if he saw God’s design in world political affairs. With a bored look that seemed to imply he was talking to someone with a below average IQ, Putin merely said “no” before explaining that international laws governed world events, not a deity.
Adding the qualifier of “since 2022” seems to presume there’s an unspoken taboo between western liberal media that Putin shan’t be interviewed, rather than Putin being more restrictive than he already was and seeing an opportunity in Tucker. Lionel Barber is probably the closest a “real” US journalist could have been to Putin and writes about the increasing difficulty of this in 2020. This includes psychological tricks like being made to wait excessively long to weaken his cognition before the meeting. He has a good piece on Tucker’s interview about how Putin ran the show and used him.
The reason why Putin chose this interview is because Tucker is a locus of division in US politics. Tucker isn’t raising Putin’s platform, Putin is raising Tucker’s platform. This imbues Tucker’s reactionary politics with more legitimacy, which benefits Putin.
I dunno if we want to see a 142 year old Charles. We saw how decrepit Phillip looked by the 2000s, and then in 2021. Imagine what another 40 years will do on top of that.
The Catholic Church has protected pedophiles among their ranks for as long as the Catholic Church has been around.
It is documented and undeniable that there have been such figures in the church, but it is my opinion that this specific pope has been trying to bring the church in a different direction, both on this specific issue, but also generally more progressive, if you want.
Yeah, a real leader among leaders.
Thanks for sharing this article, I’ve read it and tried to do more reaserch on the topic (turns out the wikipedia page on the matter is pretty dense and source-full, while the NYT wrote just has a couple lines written quickly). I will answer with this article from the guardian
“Despite recent measures to root out abuse by priests and increase transparency, some victims say the Vatican still has not gone far enough to protect children even in the West, where intense media coverage of paedophile priests has led to greater scrutiny of church practices.”
Francis has been in power for over a decade now, and that quote (from your link) was written years ago. Nothing has really changed.
The bulk of the difference between operating income and net income in a research driven company is the R&D. They are running at 11% just under $1 billion per year. A publically traded company can’t really hide their research costs, only obscure it for the uniformed.
Their net income is 37% of revenue. So they are paying for over 4 years of research for every year (3 past years plus current gear). So their argument they need the high prices to cover past research costs is pure bullshit. I’d give them the current year and one past year. But 4 years?
This is pure price gouging for profit over people’s lives. Invalidating their patent is fully justified.
This will be every well known Democrat in the US if Trump wins in 2024. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc. If you’ve heard their name they’ll be in a labor camp before the end of 2025 if Trump wins.
bbc.co.uk
Top