FrostBlazer

They are romanticized and have lots of history for many Americans. The French helped us break away from Britain all those years ago and many of us never forgot that. They even gifted us the Statue of Liberty which has become a National Treasure many aspire to see for those living here. Not to mention the Eiffel Tower which has been a strong symbol of romance here for a long time. Notre Dame as well is something that invokes images of something awe inspiring.

Britain meanwhile become a close ally over WW2 and English speaking Americans are curious of life across the pond where people speak the same as we do but sound quite different. I think there’s a bit of fantasy at play with the mystique of Britain, but the welcoming and lively people living there add to the fun.

Italy is well known for its beauty and delicious food, as well as its Roman history and art. Given the American government is modeled on certain parts of the English and Roman model, I believe there is a sense of connection to these pillars that led to our own society. Not to mention many Italian Americans are some that hold on the most to their Italian heritage, it makes you a little curious to how nice Italy is. Many American tourists speak highly of visiting Italy, often more so than France or even Britain for some.

I think what we’re familiar with is often what we are interested in. If there’s not a compelling reason or story to bring me to some place it would likely take more to sway me to go to that place. I personally haven’t visited Britain, France, or Italy but they are higher on my travel list than many places.

2025 feels like the year of Linux to me; I’m glad to see more Linux and SteamOS support.

They can’t have it both ways imo. If they’re reaping the benefits of it, then they should acknowledge it’s good and should be in place. That’s blatantly not the case though.

I personally would prefer if we continue to support these people since plenty of the people living in those states are not voting against their own self-interest. Imo, caring people living in the deep red or deep blue states should move to more purple districts in purple states to help move the country as a whole to be more caring politically.

I think blue states should also move to implement more safety nets on their own instead of waiting for a blue supermajority federally. If people see how their state and local government can work for them, they’d be more likely to want those policies in their own states. States by that same token should be willing to go into debt to fund long running infrastructure and policies that will be value adds to the state and residents living there.

I don’t know if it’s winning force so much as it’s being spread by bots and bad actors, although the result is more or less the same. Flooding the zone with their rhetoric makes it look like it’s well supported, which in turns convinces some people that it might not be nonsense.

Of course! Most companies deserve to ghosted imo. It should not take weeks for them to assess if a candidate could be a good fit, and they should be prepared to discuss your starting salary then and there.

Many companies will not pay you what you’re worth initially and still won’t after you negotiate for more, as they don’t really fully commit themselves to a candidate until they’ve proved themselves a little over the first 90 days. If you’re blowing their expectations out of the water, you can usually negotiate for more after the 90 day starting period.

Really, anything other than FPTP is fine. RCV only has the same outcome as FPTP, where the least liked candidate can win, in ~10% of outcomes which is fairly uncommon. Really we should be okay with promoting most of the alternatives since they can be modified down the line as well. I personally promote Ranked Robin, STAR, and Score more but RCV is always worth supporting if it’s on your local ballot vs FPTP. Most people are more familiar and accepting of RCV if they have heard of some of these alternatives.

If we keep growing interest locally, people will become more familiar with the alternatives. The more cities and counties that use alternative voting systems, the easier it gets to pass these alternative systems statewide.

While many state lawmakers are determined to push back against alternative voting systems, there is always the possibility of flipping the rules back down the line, especially if more states in general flip blue, progressive, or independent.

I believe there are downsides only if you are drinking too much caffeine or if it is in conflict with one of your medications or existing health conditions, afaik.

Healthline weighs the pros and very few cons of caffeine.

Do you drink any coffees or teas? I don’t really touch caffeinated sodas these days, but I believe coffee and tea with caffeine are great since the caffeine is a stimulant which can help with focusing. The most important thing is consuming caffeine in moderation and at the right time, I believe. Drinking coffee only really helps in the first hour or so of waking up for instance or before a twenty minute nap.

I feel that Healthline does a pretty decent job of weighing the pros and cons.

I believe the job market dictates some of it. It depends a lot on your company’s structure here in the USA for if this is the standard or not as well. Plus different states have more protections for hired on workers which could further complicate how picky organizations get.

If it’s a mid to large size employer this becomes more common practice to do multiple interviews, I believe.

There could be time conflicts for organizing an interview, such as the need to hire someone during a busy season vs slow season, or when different key decision makers are out on PTO. The company could also be having a difficult time making a final choice between two or more candidates so they are trying to find anything to help weed some of them out. I think that last one is pretty pathetic though since it is wasting everyone’s time if can’t make that determination from the initial interview.

From my experience it’s usually because management doesn’t want to meet the applicants until person A, B, and C have all individually thought the candidate is worth the upper management team’s time.

Corporations don’t care unless they are regulated to care, but it’s also mixed with some corporations getting lots of flakes for the interviews. A hour wasted of upper management time spent studying up on someone that doesn’t show up for the interview could be a few hundred or a thousand dollars down the drain in “missed productivity”. Still, if they cared about the candidates they would do a team interview, and bring the executive team in right after if they thought the candidate was solid.

"That was the turning point. Since that day, I've lived a lie. The lie of living. My name too was a lie. My personal history, a lie. Nothing but lies. I was sick to death of a world that couldn't be changed. But even in my lies, I refused to give up in despair. But now this incredible power... it's mine... Well, then..."