Nvidia didn't succeed because of their hardware manufacturing. They succeeded because they were dirty and ruthless on the market, and to this day will buy or sue the living fuck out of anything that could threaten their dominance.
Yeah the post seems to confound two mostly unrelated issues. I agree with not reinventing the wheel for relational databases, SQL is fine.
But for other domains, the query languages arose out of need, not because someone felt like it. SQL is hot garbage for for non-trivial logic. I can't even imagine what splunk would look like if you had to query it with SQL.
If anything, SPL (or rather the piped operators approach) would make a lot more sense as the groundwork for a universal query language that works across many domains.
> For people that are "too good for this process" - well, in my experience those are the ones that aren't a good fit for most organizations
If the process is patronizing, good people will simply opt out and pick another of the many options available to them. The more senior the applicant or the higher the demand for the particular role, the more people you will lose.
If your hiring process is unilateral or asymmetric in terms of time investment, you are almost certainly not going to get the best talent.
I'm not talking about a "process" in the abstract. I'm talking about the specific process that was outlined in the Triplebyte post. 1 or 2 phone calls. 1 onsite.
Speaking against a particular brand of feminism does not make one a misogynist. From watching his videos, it's pretty clear that he isn't prejudiced against women. He just calls out bullshit claims by the likes of Anita Sarkeesian, who is on record stating that video games are a 'male sex fantasy' and whose only credential is being a perpetual victim. People like Phil Mason and Stephen Fry are a desperately needed public voice against bullshit disguised as feminism or social justice.
If Anita Sarkeesian went unchecked, games like GTA would be banned by now and reclassified as rape simulators.
This attitude of blindly dismissing people's arguments or entire credentials just because you bought into an agenda, this refusal to engage in civil debate and discuss matters on their merit. I think this is one of the factors destroying democracies around the world today. Everything must be polarizing, everyone expressing views you disagree with must be shunned. Any attempts to debate established status quo must be shouted down.
She is all of those things by virtue of playing public victim. She was a no name vlogger with a handful of subscribers. Her entire 'career', if you can call it that, began when the internet overwhelmed her kickstarter to fund a bunch of videos about how misogynistic video games are. She's the Kim Kardashian of feminism and an insult to 2nd and 3rd wave feminists who fought to improve society through intelligent discourse.
Watch this and tell me that you think she is making an intelligent argument about anything. And while you're at it, have a think about why the comments and votes might be disabled on those videos.
I'm aware of who Anita is, and I have no expectation of changing your mind about her.
That said, I think she was "all of those things" when people contributed over 100k to her Kickstarter, which was before the Gamergate harassment started. So she was earning her keep well before she was made the "public victim," as you say.
Of course the comments are disabled for her videos. Normal YouTube comments are toxic enough. She literally got bomb threats over scheduled appearances on conference panels – do you think comments on her videos are productive? If your Twitter was filled by anonymous users threatening to rape you, and kill your parents, etc., then you'd disable comments on your videos too.
> Speaking against a particular brand of feminism does not make one a misogynist. From watching his videos, it's pretty clear that he isn't prejudiced against women.
I have an issue with naming of those videos. It's great to call out people who misinterpret some labels and are harmful to others. But calling that "facts vs feminism" isn't helping. His other videos manage to call out specific things like solar highway, rather than being called "tech vs facts". Why imply that feminism is bad if you're going to talk about one specific person's idea? (that's not generally accepted)
He doesn't talk about just one person's idea though. Have you actually watched any of those videos? They're not ideally named and they're not his best content, but to pass that off as misogynistic is just beyond disingenuous.
I'm not saying they are or aren't misogynistic. Just that they're really badly named to be clickbaits and feed on the existing hostility against a bigger community. I've seen a few fragments and honestly they don't make me interested in analysing the whole thing. What they don't seem to do though is help any cause beyond getting more popular and setting up us-vs-them ideas.
