Found one real job this year without any problems. Maybe look worldwide? You’re not any longer bound to your city or your county when looking for 100% remote.
I had to shift this attitude myself when I started looking around this year. Was used to only look for jobs nearby to reduce commute… Bullshit. Opened up for worldwide (English is business language nearly everywhere) and now happily work remote 100%.
That’s always been the case though. He’s have always outsourced to other countries but they can’t do it completely because the quality of the work just isn’t there. Because they’re not trained.
One of the vendors I used to deal with had support engineers in 4 different time zones so there would be someone on day shift no matter when they needed to deal with a problem.
Every job I have ever had off LinkedIn has been because somebody contacted me, I just sort of maintain the LinkedIn site just in case somebody decides they want to head hunt me but I don’t really consider it anything other than a passive collector of information. Certainly wouldn’t use it as my primary jump hunting site.
Also Craigslist? Unless you’re looking to be an organ donor I don’t think you’re going to have much look there
If you’re looking for just WFH jobs, check out FlexJobs. There’s a membership fee, but because it’s oriented towards remote work and because the end users pay part of the cost, it filters out a lot of the bullshit jobs.
Man I was I was really excited for this one, given my shitty experience with job hunting in the past (as I’ve mentioned). So today I finally went to the website, filled out their survey… Got one job listing in my results, for a programming gig. Yes seriously, just one single shitty result. I don’t even know how to code. sigh
Thanks for trying but I should have known better than to get my hopes up. Guess I’ll just die.
Try reading the article? They are pointing out that the percentage of people who did at least some work from home did not decrease between 2022 and 2023. This is not even full WFH. So what we see now is probably what it’s going to look like going forward.
I hate to be a dick, but if you’re struggling to find a job, and this is at all representative of your ability to do basic research, you have a glaring weakness that you can work on.
Someone who cannot recognize the sins of their country doesn’t love their country. They just want to worship it.
President Truman, who was himself somewhat racist (though less than many contemporary southerners), received a report post-WW2 on the treatment of Black veterans. He reportedly said, “My God, I had no idea it was as terrible as that. We’ve got to do something.” And so he did. Came out swinging on civil rights. Truman was deeply, DEEPLY imperfect, but even he recognized that a common, basic standard of decency and humanity was being violated by the racist behavior of the nation.
When the racial conditions of a country shock a man who is willing to use the n-word in private and acquiesce to his wife’s desire to keep Jews out of the house, something is well and truly FUCKED.
Our history is great not because it is perfect. It is ugly. It is, oftentimes, evil. Our history is great because we can learn from the sins of the past, and learn from those who fought those sins even at the time.
Why was there a spike in violence in 1919? Krugler argues that black service members’ experience in World War I was one of the catalysts. In many places, demobilized black veterans, having fought for their country, had a diminished tolerance for racial discrimination—and their families, having sacrificed on the homefront, felt the same way. Meanwhile, white civilians resented what they perceived as an excess of pride (what an Army captain, registering his concern with the Military Intelligence Division, called “social aspirations”) in those who had served. Servicemen were allowed to wear their uniforms for three months after being “demobbed.” Georgian Wilbur Little was lynched in April 1919, reportedly for the sin of wearing his after the cutoff date—a crime that suggests how much the vision of black men in uniform threatened the racial regime.
[In line link added for context]
Two - this whole “About Face” comic. I think there is something about being in a war and becoming accustomed to an atmosphere of violence, having to dehumanize people who want to kill you so you can more easily kill them, having rigid structure and routine as the thing that allows you to stay grounded and keep moving forward, etc. - that makes it easier to fall into supremacist movements. Like, we had a noticeable uptick in KKK bullshit after WWI and WWII, and I can’t help but feel like a lot of the shit we see today is our War on Terror adventures coming home to roost in some ways.
e; just to be clear, I don’t mean this as a whole insult against all veterans or anything of the sort, because some of the best people I know irl are vets, and I think that service can absolutely have an opposite effect on a person’s moral reasoning
Heart attack, stroke, seizure, bee sting, wasp, spider bite, snakes, malfunction of the vehicle, vehicle unknowingly damaged, avoiding wildlife, avoiding other drivers, spilled hot coffee, incidental choking, heat exhaustion, dehydration, bald tires, poorly maintained road without proper signage, Maybe someone’s cell phone battery blew up and it startled the driver.
There’s 1000 reasons a car accident can happen. We don’t need to assume the worst in people.
I’m all for a little shame if we find out they were hammered listening to bon Jovi with their heads out the window, yeah. But like, chill.
The term “distracted driving” refers specifically to the driver not paying attention when they should have been, and not to them being “distracted” by some event that they have to respond to.
All of those things are possible, but statistically, being distracted is far more likely than any of them… More likely than most of them combined, even.
I disagree completely. I think people can do some work remotely but cannot be remote all the time unfortunately. Else nobody in the company would know them and so interaction would decrease substantially over time after an initial introduction. So unless they do payroll or something where they need minimal interaction, they can’t stay at home. My neighbor works from home all the time so I’ll keep an eye out for when and if he transitions back. However, I’m loving the minimal traffic accidents and reduced traffic. So please please keep demanding work from home! Even I want to work from home every now and then.
Bullshit. I work remote 100%, and we have very good cooperation within my company and with customers. If I want to see my coworkers I simply switch to a videocall :D
At my work, where we don’t make money by just chatting, we need to be there to move the things that screw together into actual products. It’s very hard to remote that. Also for me as a research engineer, it’s very hard to figure out what when wrong with a test if I am not there to set it up and to observe it. Like I said, please keep demanding remote work though. I want to be remote when I can.
You’d be surprised, but there are so many professions in modern world that are fully digital. It’s bizarre to judge everyone based on your very little personal experience. Tune down your arrogance, these people also do actual work and produce actual products, even though they don’t screw anything together.
Virtual meetings, stands, and even just check ins or “coffee talk” sessions happen all the time and we’re 100% remote. Not to mention general chats via Slack or Teams with people posting memes or talking about different subjects (movies, games, etc).
Everywhere I’ve worked since college has had people working in multiple locations, so interaction via chat and voice/video call were common pre-covid anyways. The shift to remote really didn’t have any measurable impact on social stuffs aside from going out to lunch with co-workers, which still happens now, we just schedule it ahead of time.
WfH is very similar to being a contractor in that regard. You just have to recognize that employers (who already see staff as disposable) will be extra cavalier about how they hire and fire you.
Who the hell cares about interaction though. Why do I NEED to go into the office to see Dave from a department that I never need to interact with? As long as I can fulfill my job duties remotely, that’s all that matters. Otherwise interacting over emails / chat or audio meetings is plenty.
Can we avoid, even jokingly, accommodating the Zionists by saying anti-Israel and antiisemitism are the same thing when they absolutely aren’t?
Dr. Franke was not antisemitic and actual antisemitic stuff is happening in the U.S. that gets a lot less attention. Many don’t know about this and many more probably dismissed it. A few even justified it as a protest against Israeli genocide despite many of the graves being of Jews who died before Israel even existed as a nation.
Zionists are helping to normalize that sort of thing by desensitizing people to the concept of antisemitism. The fact is that there are people, sometimes very dangerous people, who hate Jews because they are Jews and that should not be minimized any more than Israeli genocide should be minimized because they are both things that no one should tolerate.
I am in no way doing that. Why are you making such a nonsensical accusation when I explained why I said whst I did in great detail?
Refusing to let them win the propaganda war by policing your language does not in any way do that.
You’re basically accusing me of being a bigot by saying that a word that should describe bigotry is being used to describe things that are not bigoted to support a genocide.
You are promoting that others downplay or outright ignore the importance of what is happening with the word today, because you’re more concerned with a lesser evil meaning of the word being lost.
This is definitely not helped by many of the most vocal anti-israelites also being antisemites (at least from my experiences irl, along with what I’ve heard from family).
One of the many reasons I keep that part of my identity hidden irl. It’s a lot less bad on here, but still an issue.
Zionists want antisemitism. Zionists need antisemitism. The only moral claim to Zionism is that Jews need a safe place in the world. They construct Israel as this place by making Jews everywhere else in the world unsafe.
This is why there is multiple unholy alliances between antisemites and other bigots and Zionists.
I remember like 20 years back when the Israelis managed to smart bomb a UN observation post in Lebanon killing a few UNTSO observers one of whom was Finnish, and the Finnish foreign minister at the time (Tuomioja) remarked something like that he doesn’t understand how someone can manage to accidentally smart bomb a known UN post that’s painted bright white and has “UN” written on the roof in horse-sized letters.
Genuinely shocking and disgusting. What is Microsoft’s problem with people just trying to live their lives? They absolutely need a class action lawsuit over this. I’m so glad I just switched to Ubuntu as my default and now really don’t want to give this sh*thole company another cent.
Media is trying to create drama around the election as there isn’t anything interesting going on. Republicans are feeding into it ahead of Trump sentencing in the NY case.
They hide under residential neighborhoods, storing their weapons in miles of tunnels and in houses, mosques, sofas — even a child’s bedroom — blurring the boundary between civilians and combatants.
So they fight like US revolutionaries, the insurgents who fought back against nazi invaders in WWII, and pretty much every population that is being overwhelmed by superior numbers during wartime.
Why is that a bad thing when defending against invaders? Like yeah, it would be pretty shitty for invaders to do that, but pretty reasonable as a defensive tactic.
How insightful… I can vividly remember the allies releasing statements saying how they wanted to kill an entire group of people based solely on ethnoreligious identity…
Hamas showed off most of these approaches in an extensive eight-minute video released on its social media channels in early April.
The video appears to show fighters carrying out a multistage ambush that is said to take place in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza.
The video seems to show Hamas fighters, their faces blurred, sitting on patterned mats as they plan the attack. They use pen, paper and a digital tablet to draw simplistic maps detailing where they want to plant a set of roadside mines.
“We ask, O Lord, for the ambush to achieve its goals — let us kill your enemies, the Jews,” the narrator says.
Almost like employing guerilla warfare doesn’t simply equate Hamas to those fighting Nazis. I see many more differences between the two and their tactics. This comparison is unfounded.
Additionally, I don’t recall anyone claiming the allies used human shields during their guerilla warfare tactics…
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.
The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.
Funny enough your comparison falls flat on it’s head when confronted with:
During World War II, the Allies bombed Nazi trains carrying ammunition even though they were aware that civilian prisoners were being used to shield the trains from aerial attacks. Indeed, immediately following the war, at the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, German armed forces were accused of human shielding. In Vietnam, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians spurred international legal debates (on the eve of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions) about the status of civilian populations in wartime and their use as shields. And, in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein’s and Slobodan Milosevic’s use of human shields garnered considerable media attention.
There isn’t a legitimate way to equate the two, and history demonstrates the differences. You present one paragraph from the article depicting how Hamas blurs the line between combatant and civilian, and offer absolutely no evidence suggesting in the slightest that your comparisons hold any weight. I’m somehow obligated to provide sources for my claims, yet you’re not. This is not the kind of discussion I think is worthwhile in this sub, and lazy at that.
Edit: here’s a novel thought… Instead of down voting factual information, perhaps someone can do the above user’s homework and get them some sources. If I were a mod, I would view this as misinformation attempting to equate Hamas and the allies in WW2 (I’m not spending all the time to disprove every other comparison when this user is not required to back up their statements in any form). I recommend the mods discuss whether this is the kind of commentary they want in their sub, and how it may unfairly impact users who go through the work of sourcing their claims.
Almost like employing guerilla warfare doesn’t simply equate Hamas to those fighting Nazis. I see many more differences between the two and their tactics.
I was talking only about the tactics and that guerilla warfare is not automatically a negative thing. Maybe learn some reading comprehension and stop putting words in other people’s mouths.
You quoted the article saying Hamas blurs the lines between civilians and combatants, and used that to compare the allies in WW2 to Hamas. You make no mention of this only involving guerilla warfare in such a narrow way, and you did not restrict your comparison to that alone in your comment. The quote (and article) clearly encompasses a wider view of the tactics in that sense, and in my opinion is not doing any justice to the comparison you’re making now.
Thank you for your concern with my reading comprehension, but based on your words, I feel my response is appropriate. Now that you have clarified your position, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not attempting to characterize the allies were fighting like Hamas as the article further elaborates, but in a much more narrow, less obvious and in my opinion less meaningful sense since I haven’t read any article criticizing Hamas simply of employing guerilla warfare in the way you’re using it, but in that this is a deliberate use of human shielding and prolonging of Palestinian suffering, as I’ve cited.
You make no mention of this only involving guerilla warfare in such a narrow way, and you did not restrict your comparison to that alone in your comment.
I didn’t clearly say my comment wasn’t about every other possible thing? It wasn’t about child labor laws or women’s suffrage either.
I onky stated it in a narrow way and you read things into it that weren’t there. That is on you.
I read your quote, along with the entire article, which is the subject of discussion. Choose a better quote next time, one that maybe expresses what you’re trying to say. What you failed to do was specify what you meant by how they’re fighting, and after reading the article (which I trust you also did) and the quote (introductory paragraph of the article) you chose to back up what you meant, I would find little reason to think that you’re referencing any other form of warfare than what is described in the article.
Wait wait wait… You’re saying disguising combatants as civilians and using civilians as shields is bad because it directly results in a huge increase in civilian casualties? But that means you see how Israel might not be gratuitously committing genocide but rather it being an unfortunate side effect of the terrorist’s strategy!
So the French Resistance in WWII, where they hid weapons of war in their homes and businesses to blend in with the population while hiding from nazis were just terrorists trying to increase civilian casualties? Would you consider their fellow citizens to be human shields?
Maybe Isreal’s narrative about ‘human shields’ is bullshit. Especially after they got caught strapping Palestinian prisoners to the hoods of IDF vehicles.
The difference ofc being that the French Resistance didn’t cry for sympathy when a Tiger tank plowed through their building. They knew and accepted the risks. Also, they didn’t start the war. Also also they hid the equipment in THEIR buildings and homes and not every school/hospital/nursery they could find.
Them fighting back by any means does not contradict they Israel today has gone from merely oppressing and murdering innocent people on a whim to actively trying to destroy every bit of medical aid, sanitation, food supply, etc to wipe out the Palestinian people.
No, it doesn’t contradict anything about the genocide.
Israel didn’t need to completely destroy infrastructure and also deny foreign aid because of how Hamas fights. How Hamas fights doesn’t justify the IDF killing reporters, or the unarmed children being gunned in the streets, or strapping injured Palestinians to hoods, or atracking aid workers that the IDF knew were coming through, or the most likely true reports of torture. We know all of this is intentional by how Israel acts, and they are using the excuse that civilian casualties are happening despite the IDF being careful, but they keep killing dozens of civilians and getting caught lying about things which is why they are not trustworthy.
Plus Israeli senior leadership has made and keeps making statements consistent with genocide that align with their actions. All of that would still be genocide even if Hamas fought some other ‘acceptsble’ way.
So let me ask you this, Do you think Abdalla Aljamali the “innocent” journalist would still be dead and all his children and family given they wouldnt have held Israeli hostages IN THEIR FUCKING HOUSE with their children separated only by carpet and sheets?
I think he would have, and all his family and children would have lived today.
The attack on the central kitchen convoy was a horrible mistake. The government itself said they were sorry. I personally feel ashamed of that incident.
Not sure about the first one.
I dont see though how these two contradict what I said or take any blame from hammas fighting within civilian population on purpuse. It can indeed explain that because of how hammas fights the IDF is on the edge and mistakes are bound to happen.
Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on wording and story selection that moderately favors the left. They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting. (5/18/2016) Update (M. Huitsing 04/19/2022)
In return, Duranty won rare interviews with Stalin and wrote glowingly about Stalin and his plans. The Pulitzer board cited his "dispassionate interpretive reporting" in awarding him a prize in 1932 for a series of reports the previous year. The first was a front-page article that started with the line: "Russia today cannot be judged by Western standards or interpreted in Western terms."
In 2003, public pressure led the Times and the Pulitzer Prize Board to conduct parallel reviews of Duranty's work and the prize. The board found no "clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception." It decided against withdrawing his award.
Duranty example shows that editors at NYT will permit political/ideological bias to shape coverage even if it is to cover up a genocide.
Now today's example is hard to cover up, but NYT is not here on Palestinians team, never has been. Their coverage is there to make liberal American to accept the situation as is, nothing can be done, Israel is not doing a genocide but if they are, Gaza residents had it coming anyway.
I provide a historical fact where NYT was instrumental of covering up a genocide in 1930s and I suggested that they are a bad faith actor here too, which is my opinion.
conspiratorial misinformation
You not liking another person's opinion does not make their opinion a conspiracy btw
I could be wrong, clearly another poster feels similar though.
But the bottom line is that NYT already did this before, that is a fact. Time will tell what role they played here, it took 70 years for truth to come for the last "trick"
I’m not going to continue this with you. How absolutely absurd that you’re attempting to discredit this article due to something that happened nearly a century ago. Mbfc’s analysis of nyt now strikingly doesn’t include your aforementioned concern, perhaps your should update them with this insight and see if it moves their needle? :)
You’re absolutely right, but not in the way you mean.
FYI, MBFC is not itself reliable. It’s the hobby of one conservative Zionist named Dave, masquerading as an authority on reliability and bias.
Hell, the very summary you quote completely glosses over the Screams without words debacle, which was poorly constructed Hasbara co-written by a former IDF official with no reporting experience and a gigantic anti-Palestinian chip on her shoulder, basedfact unreliable testimony from inherently biased sources.
There are countless other examples, but that the NYT published that gigantic pile of fateful journalistic malpractice and stand by it to this day is in itself enough to disqualify them as a reliable source when it comes to anything regarding Israel.
Likewise, that MBFC completely ignores that in their review, claiming that the NYT has not failed ANY news reporting fact checks in recent years is proof positive that MBFC can’t be trusted to judge the reliability and bias of the NYT, if any outlet at all.
MBFC has a team of multiple writers and researchers - hardly a one-person “hobby.” They are highly rated by other organizations like Snopes, Newsguard, NPR, Reuters Fact Chek, etc.
MBFC has a team of multiple writers and researchers - hardly a one-person “hobby.”
It’s one guy who sometimes has the help of volunteers and paid freelancers, with no transparency as to who writes and researches what and as evidenced by their thoroughly negligent
They are highly rated by other organizations like Snopes, Newsguard, NPR, Reuters Fact Chek, etc.
That’s probably more to do with collegial courtesy/not wanting beef with Dave than all of his competitors (and NPR, whose own standards have been slipping perilously in recent decades) actually thinking that he’s great at it.
Or it could not even be that. Your implicit trust in the Hasbara along with you completely ignoring the substantive parts of my comment implies that you may have just made up their trust in Dave from whole cloth 🤷
Thank you for motivating me to research this - I learned that MBFC is actually far more reliable and trusted by the news industry and scientific community than I realized.
A perfect score full of obvious errors isn’t worth much.
MBFC Dave is actually far more reliable and trusted propped up by the [main stream] news industry and scientific community commercial fact guessers than I realized
Fixed that for you.
Dave and his site are only slightly more reliable on matters pertaining to Israel than the spokesperson for the IDF.
This is a pretty misleading article. They cite the BBC “investigation” as a source, but if you go to the BBC article you’ll quickly see it’s not an investigation or anything near that. It’s just a reporting of the anecdotes of 3 individuals who happen to be Palestinians living abroad. You can’t establish any type of conclusions on a sample size that small.
This isn’t a study, it’s not a survey, it’s not a poll, it doesn’t prove that Microsoft is intentionally making these bans, it doesn’t track down the actual reasons for the bans, or anything really. The BBC article is fine for what it is, just a reporting of a mildly interesting event, but this windoscentral article is just bad bait.
The BBC article was subsequently edited down to remove key information while no comment or retraction was made. This isn’t surprising as many journalist who work for the BBC have accused their editors of bias.
wait so you’re telling me in addition to checking the cited material, I have to now check if the cited material was edited? no one fuckin told me that what the hell
While that is a good catch, the only two differences between the original article and the edited one is that they removed the statement where they mentioned they’ve spoken to 20 Palestinians living abroad and added a little paragraph that mentions the number of causalities that were caused by the war. The contents of the article are still largely the same. The original article still isn’t an investigation like the windowscentral article claims. It’s just a reporting of the experiences of the 20 or so individuals they’ve spoken to, where again, only 3 individuals are highlighted. I don’t see anything wrong with the BBC article, my issue is with the way that windowscentral framed the BBC article.
Also for the record, while the BBC has it’s biases, Al Jazeera is a Qatari state owned propaganda outlet. They’re not credible on most things, but especially when it comes to anything relating to the middle east. Take anything they say with a tub of salt.
While that can be a fun technical joke in other contexts, this is not a situation where jokes like that are considered appropriate. As an Autistic person myself, I had to learn stuff like this the hard way too.
The reason this joke is bad is because it’s punching down. The subject of the joke is the victim of horrible atrocities. They should not be the core of the jokes punchline. If the joke made the perpetrators the butt of the joke, it would have worked.
It makes fun of the fact that 1898 was before WWI, that DNA testing wasn’t a thing in 1898, and that the people massacring others in a different town in 1898 probably weren’t interested in having justice for their victims.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.