Maybe my consulting firm is atypical since we specialize in non-tech, tricky, bespoke business software and in maintaining difficult codebases, but that has not been my experience. Devops mean the ops team has to waste more time in meetings with devs as they are involved at more steps of the process. Clients that have moved business software to the cloud needed as much or more ops support, some clients are moving those back to on-premise, and while "standard" cloud services like O365 are technically able to force multiply your ops team (less personnel required for same services), the expectations are increased to make up the difference rather than the hours cut. A small company before would not have expected the same services from 5-10 hours/week of an IT ops guy's time than they now do with Office 365.
Though as I said, my experience might be atypical. But in conservative fields outside of tech (manufacturing, agricultural, etc...), people tend to be multiple steps behind in the IT "tech tree". Most of the companies I deal with are in-between the virtualization era of IT operations and the cloud era. Mid to late 00's "tech level". None have reached the level of sophistication to employ tools like orchestration, let alone ops AI. I'm at about the mid-point of my career, so if AI starts eating all the jobs at the bleeding edge, I figure I've probably got time to reach retirement before it eats mine.
I work outside FAANG, sometimes do interviews and am involved in the hiring process and I tend to prefer 1 or 2 pages, with the most relevant information being at the top. Someone at the start of their career probably could do one page. Experience, skills, education.
I'm a (early) millenial. I failed out of college. I got into a decent career in IT ops despite it, including working at some pretty prestigious places. I didn't know a guy, at least not initially. Networking (the socializing kind, not the technical kind) is what got me my bigger breaks.
At the risk of sounding like a boomer, I still think my path would work out. Find a niche that underserved (in my case, it was secretarial support), and then learn how to do the socializing. Young people nowadays seem to expect life to be like train tracks, that it's systems that are keeping them out, that if they do the right thing the wheels will pop on top of the rails and everything will get into place. But ultimately it's all people that you need to convince. Personally, when I interview people, I don't care about education or credentials; everything I need to know, I'll figure out by talking to you.
And here's the blood boiling headline you would have just handed the press: "In a massive blow to Trump and the MAGA movement, even Republicans representatives say they are now turning away from fascism."
can tell that it's bait and that the winning move is to just simply answer in the most straingforward, simple and honest way possible
I don't think that works out either because your answer will be twisted into whatever is most convenient to the person framing it.
"Politician A says he supports position B but he voted for Bill C. We need less dishonest politicians in Washington, we need someone who not only talks the talks, but walks the walks. Vote for Politician D"
As long as there is a Bill C that can be, with the proper framing, made to seem like it's in opposition to position B (and there always is), then answering straightforwardly did nothing to help. Worse, it might make you seem gutless and insufficiently defiant to your base. Trump didn't go from laughing stock political outsider to 2 term POTUS by giving the straightforward, compliant answer to this kind of question, he got there by doubling down on "that's bait, fuck you" every time.
Not being able to see the puck to me is a weird complaint although I guess it might be valid for people not used to hockey. It's not so much that nuh-huh, you can see it, but that with a bit of awareness of the game and a decent sportscast, it's obvious where the puck is whether you see it or not. The player with the puck moves differently, other players move differently with regards to him and the camera usually follows the puck.
You do raise an interesting point that they probably go to restaurants; after all, having a access to all chefs in a city would offer more variety than a single chef would. But the situation I would imagine one would consider a private chef is for those who have a large mansion away from a large city's restaurants.
only literal billionaires have personal chefs
Why though?
I would imagine to hire a good chef that could otherwise have his own restaurant, you'd have to offer a good 6 digit salary; maybe somewhere between 200 000$ and 800 000$ depending on experience and details such as whether it's a live-in, exclusive or flexible position. Is that unattainable for mere multihectomillionaires?
For heterosexual males, the essence of the lesbian fantasy lies in watching two hot, conventionally feminine women with high sex drives have sex with one another.
I think part of the appeal, that has become mostly obsolete with the broadening of the porn offering online and with better handheld cameras, is the "implied threesome". The camera, in "straight lesbian porn", is meant to make you think it's you the viewer, you're there next to these two girls, watching them warm themselves up. You could and will join in at any moment you wish, whenever you're ready your penis is going to be a welcome addition to the fun the two girls are having. They're not gonna go "Ew, what the fuck are you doing in our bedroom naked!?" they'd go "Yay! Penis!"
Now though, with the explosion of the internet, amateur porn and amateur-inspired professional porn (stuff like camera in hand POV "gonzo" porn), you can find a lot actual threesomes which on top of the same things you see in lesbian porn and straight porn will also include acts like double blowjobs. It's not like threesomes were impossible before, but you have to take into account the difficulties of filming porn in a professional way were only increased by adding another person.
the level and pace of play actually makes it more watchable than the men's
I've been unable to watch it because I'm used to men's hockey, but I guess it might be a good on-ramp for people not already into hockey. It is overall the world's best professional sport for spectators, but the fact that somehow other sports are more popular show that there might be an issue of easing people into it. It's fast, it's strategic, it's robust, it highlights personal courage and grit, it requires its athletes to be complete well-rounded athletes instead of min-maxxing specific traits, it's exciting with games (at the pro level, not as much in the Olympics) usually ending with a close score. It hits the perfect balance of personal and team effort in success. Goals are neither infrequent (soccer) nor too frequent (basketball). The flow of the game feels mostly natural, less artificial stop and go (football, baseball). The only thing I'll grant other sports over hockey is that hockey is perhaps less relatable especially in places with less ice rinks; any kid on the planet can play pickup soccer, you just need a ball and a big enough field. Basketball you just need a ball and a court. Hockey needs a bit more than that.
More like the other way around, the bulk of the gameplay is the action RPG, so it's simplified anime MMORPG with a Factorio layer. It tries to be an "everything" game with some of the side activities. You get puzzle gameplay (nonogram/picross inspired), market trading, tower defense, relationship management/courting (giving gifts to your waifus)...
I arrived at the end of the first batch of main quest content of Arknights Endfield and while I didn't quite reach max level/endgame content yet, I think I can say that the game has been generous enough that I could make the team I wanted without having to pay anything and I'm pretty certain I'll be able to reach endgame content with that team. I did put in a lot of hours. The monetization seems well balanced in that, if I really really want to get a specific 6 star, I probably will be able to accumulate enough banner pulls to do so, but not often. However, it's less balanced in that from what I understand, one wouldn't be able to guarantee one without spending way more money than I can ever imagine spending on a virtual waifu for a game. I think it comes to about 2$ per pull, 80 pulls for a guarantee to get a 6 star that will in 50% of times be the banner one, 120 pulls for guarantee to get the banner 6 star. Maybe it'd work if you only need a bit of a boost to get your guarantee for a specific banner, but I can't imagine paying that much ever.
Not that I'd need to, the game gives you 2 pretty good 6 stars for free (Endmin and Ardelia) and playing the content over the first month I ended up with 4 extra 6 stars on top of the two they give you, and that's not counting that I got at least two duplicates in those. And even then, I could have built a team of 4 and 5 stars, they're not necessarily inferior to 6 stars, they just tend to have less dramatic designs.
The factory gameplay is addictive and creates reasons to log in every day, but I'm looking forward for more stuff to be unlocked in the 2nd region, as the game is hinting at more content for the factory that isn't quite there yet. There's factory-related concepts I've barely started interacting with. Some of the side content is less fun, though thankfully can mostly be ignored for now. The tower defense stuff isn't very well implemented to my taste.
The main gameplay itself is fine, it's a like a more action oriented, simplified MMORPG. What is really next level for this game though are the production values. I don't know how much other games in this genre (single player, action RPG gacha games, like Genshin Impact) made but the company behind Endfield clearly believes they can make a lot of money because this is not a cheap cash grab. Almost everything is voiced, and that's a lot of voiced lines... Like, a LOT. Over I think 4 languages? And it's pretty good voice acting too, I was surprised to hear the people in the 2nd region, which is "china themed" have the very distinctive accent that native chinese speakers who speak good english end up having. Animation are lush and high quality. Graphics are as good as they could be while maintaining the ability to be played on either computer or mobile.
Yes, but that's not what ultimately matters. The Fremen victory in Dune is not secured by fighting men in the field, it's secured by long term plans and a superior understanding of the ecology (Paul realising that the Fremen held the spice cycle hostage with the water they had been stockpiling all that time). The fighting men only had to win until Paul could expose their actual victory to all the other actors. Without that, the long-term prospects of the Fremen are dim, even if they can keep winning fights in the desert.
everything that had a movie very loosely based on
That is a lot of stories though. PKD might be one of, if not the, most adapted writer of the 20th century.
*EDIT: Ok, checked and he's nowhere near Stephen King in how many works he has had adapted.
Second Variety has been adapted in a movie, if you enjoyed that. The movie is good cheap 90s sci-fi jank, called Screamers.
I would say I enjoy watching most Olympic sports, and most sports in general, in a limited fashion. Really following a sport is a time consuming, brain capacity consuming proposition, personally I have only limited space in my life for it so I chose to follow the best one (hockey). Following a sport adds a layer of enjoyment to the spectacle, you get to enjoy the "storylines" of it, but there is still, to me at least, the raw enjoyment of the game itself. That has its limitations, without the context the enjoyment fades, so I have it in me to watch one or two american/canadian football games a year, or Olympic sports once every two years, but it's not just hype, the sports are genuinely mildly enjoyable to watch to me.
What's wrong with publication order? "The Cage", TOS, TAS, the first six movies, TNG, DS9, VOY, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, Nemesis, Galaxy Quest, done.
Outside of missing ENT which I quite enjoy, I don't think this would have worked for me. I came back to it later and I love it all now, but when I was a pre-teen/teen in the 90s, there was reruns of all of the Star Trek show playing all the time on TV, and TOS, TNG and DS9 never had much interest for me. TOS because it looked stupid: the action is robotic and looked stupid, and the plots basically all felt like they boiled down to sufficiently advanced aliens act like gods, until Kirk says "nope" and somehow he'd end up clumsily wrestling with a goofy looking alien somewhere along the way. I know it hit different for kids in the 60s and 70s, but you'd need a kid with a specific interest in "retro" shows to enjoy TOS on its own now, which I would guess isn't too common unless you live in a bunker and have deprived them of modern media. TNG and DS9 didn't interest me because it seemed like non stop politics and relied on too much built up lore that I didn't care about.
Now I am curious. Denizens of the Motte: How many of you see children between the ages of 8-12 out and about without a parent in your day-to-day life?
Rarely, but I'm not sure whether it's because kids are not trusted to be on their own or because his schedule is kept full by his parents. Comparing my nephew at any age to myself at that age I certainly had way less structured activities scheduled to keep myself busy. All my free time would basically be either me playing on the computer/watching TV on my own or playing outside unsupervised (or very loosely supervised) with friends. Sometimes I guess I was also being an annoying little brother watching whatever my brother was doing. By contrast, my nephew is driven from sports training to playdates every weekend.
How does that compare with the freedom you or your parents had when they were children (if they were born before 1990?)
I was born before the 90s, and went on my own walking to and from my elementary school every day, at 6 years old. It was considered a normal thing back then.
I like to think I turned out fine, but I'm conflicted as to how I will want to raise kids if I have them, because my own upbringing goes against both "old" and "new" rules. I was allowed to be on my own and wasn't really "kept busy" by my parents the way kids nowaday are, but also I was an early "screen junkie". My parents had barely any control over the time I would spend on the computer, and I certainly could go on full-day binges.
13ish is fine, but a sharp younger kid might like it earlier.
I have three suggestions for starting points.
As you suggested, Wrath of Khan is a good one to start with. the TOS movies, from two onwards (the first one might confuse as to why these characters coming out of retirement is a big deal), are detached enough from the series that they won't feel like you're missing half the plot if you just watch them on their own. They have enough action to keep a child's attention. The action is modern enough that it doesn't look goofy the way the action from the 60's does.
For my second suggestion, I'll go very much against the grain and suggest maybe the most divisive series as a starting point: Voyager. It is "my Trek" in the sense it's the one that introduced me properly to the series, and I posit it's a good starting point, because its concept inherently reduces the requirement of knowing the lore that was built up on, without discarding it wholesale either. Yes, it's "lesser" in that it's not as good an example of the virtues you would hope the show would demonstrate to the kids, but those virtues are still there. Janeway is not the greatest role model, but in most episodes she's a decent one. Sometimes she does a cheeky little war crime, but what Starfleet captain hasn't?
The Animated Series might also be a good starting point, especially if you want to start him earlier than 13. It's simpler, introduces to the universe, and while it hasn't aged all that well, I think it probably aged better than TOS has visually. Or maybe I just forgave it because I had different expectations of cartoons back then.
Does it really need to be spelled out why the "average school shooting" is not covered? Because the "average school shooting" are gang bangers doing everyday gang banger shit, and not what people actually think about when "school shooting" is invoked.
Is there an opposite to non-central fallacy, where the fallacy is taking a non-central event as central in order to inflate the impression of frequency of the non-central event?
Some of the commentators on TV here outright stated it for at least one of the competitors, that they moved to Georgia to be able to compete in the Olympics.
Makes sense, tbf, these young people have invested the majority of their teens and early adulthood into getting ready for this event. The Olympics are, for sports that don't have popular professional leagues, the only sports competition that give you validation from people who don't follow your sport, and especially for figure skating, the window where you are competitive is short; one or two Winter olympics in the more competitive brackets. Having it ruined due to geopolitical event that you have no control over feels like bullshit, and I don't blame them for trying to find a way around it.
Yeah. I imagine people would say russian roulette (or any unhealthy, high-stakes gambling) is exhilarating, but that doesn't mean a gambler is not being true to themselves if they decide to drop the unhealthy habit.
That said, I can easily understand a steady girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband being insecure about the idea that maybe the unhealthiness is not inherent to the hotness, and that the person they see as their soulmate is gonna drop them when they find someone that's both exhilarating to be with AND not destructive.
I think it's just teasing out some emotions out of them. Men, and teens, don't like to share their emotions. Women are the opposite on that. A well-adjusted teen typically won't share much with his mother, but early romantic/sexual experiences are a uniquely vulnerable point for men. It might even serve a societal function, maybe an attentive mother might uncover a psycopathic tendancy if the reaction from her son is unusually muted or violent.
We don't arrest people for being 'likely' to commit a crime.
Sentence, ideally no. Arrest, yes, though the bar is high. Suspect/investigate, all the time.
- Prev
- Next

Looking at your resume, I see someone I'd invite to an interview for a tech or junior sysadmin role, if we had one open (we don't right now, but we had recently, twice in the last year).
I'll ask you the three questions I always ask in interviews, maybe it will help understand how the hiring process looks like from the other side of the table:
A user is unable to login to their computer, list as many possible reasons as you can think of this could happen.
Describe to me the process you go through to troubleshoot an issue you're never encountered before.
A piece of software on Windows crashes during a common operation, but there is no error message that pops up. Where do you go look to find more information.
Question one is an open-ended experience yardstick. Everyone who's worked operations has encountered login issues, they exist at every support "level", how many come to mind will tell me exactly how much shit you've seen. It can be as simple as "user is not entering the password correctly" and the slightly trickier "caps lock was on", then harder ones like AD account issues (lockouts) or the user might be trying to log on to an AD-joined computer with uncached credentials on a computer that isn't able to talk to a DC, the list really goes on and on... At your level, I would expect the easy "user error" ones and at least a few trickier ones.
Question two is to make sure you work in a structured way. I honestly don't really care what the process specifically is, as long as you DO have a way to untangle an issue you've never seen. I've had to work with juniors who did not have a process, and it was really annoying as they would either end up asking me every single thing or just spin their wheels making fruitless google searches with generic error messages or behaviors, before they even tried isolating the issue, eliminating possibilities, etc... If you tell me that you try to find error messages or logs that are unique to the issue, so that you can narrow your searches, that's good.
Question three, as long as it's not completely entry level, I expect you to at least go looking for log files, and ideally you'd mention the Event Viewer by name. If it's a linux position, log files and JournalD.
If I were sitting in an interview with you, if you got these three right, you'd get the thumbs up from me. If there are multiple candidates that got the thumbs up from me, then it comes down to whether I feel like you'd make our users/clients feel confident, etc...
More options
Context Copy link