Why would you pop pills when there are perfectly good sprays?

There are reasons for using one in detriment of the other. Like rebound congestion.

The pill also help if you are prone to ear infections. They thin everything out up there.

Trivial for anyone who can click "host server" button in a multiplayer game / file sharing program / voice chat?

Maybe they retire early because they are unable to work because they are dying.

If you don't mind, which of them and how?

And describe them in the shortest possible way.

Some other people have mentioned hiring people defensively so they can't compete. I don't know how true that is, but if it is... then making a redundant project means you need to be retained so you don't write clones for anyone else.

I'll press if I think I can't jaywalk in a reasonable timeframe. If I can then no sense holding up traffic.

Most people don't know lockpicking so while you are right in principle this will change things in practice.

It doesn't have to be the artists optimizing. It could be that everyone makes whatever they want but those who happen to make shorter songs are pushed up and those that make longer songs are pushed out.

As someone who was only briefly acquainted with the "buy ugly produce" idea in the first place and thought it sounded vaguely good. I never looked into actually taking action because I couldn't be bothered.

I do think they are being unkind and rude. There were too sides here the "scammers" and the clueless good people who got taken for a ride. Alienating the latter group is a mistake and will just make people avoid you because they will never be good enough for you anyway.

I on the other hand, feel vindicated in my apathy. "Trying to do good is a waste of time, the world is too ungrateful"

They cost money for both parties though so in that sense it's fair.

I agree with the statement "they cost money for both parties" but I disagree with "in that sense it's fair."

Individual consultant: loses 5 hours of interview time (and commute time) or take-home exam. Let's call it $800 for the sake of argument.

Company: loses 5 hours of interview time, plus the time it takes to "quiz" the exam.

Individual loses money that he / she uses to pay their mortgage.

Company loses profit because the time spent interviewing the candidate could have been spent working on feature Y of the application. So shareholders / VC's lose.

So you're saying it's fair that the individual contributor who loses half a day's pay in your interview process is equivalent (you DID use the word "fair" so that's an equivalence argument you made) to a company's loss of a few hours out of the many thousands of man-hours they rely upon? It's a .0001% of their profit, assuming the employers don't work a few hours more to make up for the lost time, because they will (they're salaried!)

Consultants also do not get paid vacation, or paid sick leave. They also don't get any of the benefits that a lot of regular employees get. But that's part of the game, they have to account for all of that which is why they earn much more per hour. A lot of those "customer acquisition" tasks cost time and may not necessarily yield a return, but that's part of the extra risk consultants have to assume and why not everyone is willing to do it.

Maybe all true with regards to cost considerations, but it doesn't support the notion above that a candidate's wasted time and money (vacation time and sick time costs money for an FTE) and a company's wasted time are somehow .. 'equal'.