I don’t see why. I grew up with those systems as well, but Nintendo is actively hostile to videogame culture, so there is no reason for my child to develop a love of Pokémon or Mario. She can be nostalgic over new things.

I’m doing my part by never exposing my kid to Nintendo and capturing all my kid’s friends before they leave tablet gaming and convincing their parents to look into PC gaming and steam decks. It’s an easy sell to their parents once I show steam’s parental controls and how every game isn’t full price all the time. Plus remote play makes the initial cost low if they have a computer. Their kid can just play my kid’s games. I’ve already converted 6 kids. My kid just started first grade, so I expect to convert a lot more.

That is a difference people make in their mind. I don’t see a difference. The criticism is the critism. If you receive enough negative feedback on PRs after being hired, you will be fired for not be good enough.

The only way to take away the stress of an interview is to not care about the outcome. I don’t and interviews are stressful for me. I present myself as I am and if they don’t like it oh well, but that is a confidence I think most people don’t have. I have been like this since I was junior so it’s not the arrogance of experience. It’s not even the confidence of easily being able to get jobs because in my early career it would sometimes take months to get a new job. I’d ask for feedback if I could get it and accept or disregard it. Some feedback amounted to, “this wasn’t the job for you” and that’s okay.

I just don’t think it’s worth worrying about any particular job when hiring is like dating. You can be perfect for one job and an obvious no for another, so it’s not worth worrying about the outcome. They like you or they don’t.

Your post was about stress not anxiety and theu are different things. My point is that these these kind interviews approximate what you will actually do at work. If someone finds them stressful then they should think about if this is the career for them. Feeling anxious is another thing, but you can feel anxious while being confident because anxiety is about fearing and unknown outcome.

My point is that people should fine these interview styles stressful and that has always been my point and what I have been replying to since you never brought up anxiety until now.

The literal point if interviews it to judge. The point is to find people who will work in the environment you have. I have done work on codebases where bad code means people die, by indirect or direct results. This probably biases me. For example, I have coded in front of a group several times. This year in fact. Sometimes a problem involves multiple people thinking through it. That’s probably why I don’t care about panel interviews as well. I have had to explain myself in front of a group several times.

These are things that people find stressful, but they are part of my job and have been at nearly every one of the little over half a dozen jobs I have held. My current job isn’t even doing anything important. No one dies if I make a mistake and I’ve still experienced explaining myself in front of a group and coding with several people onlooking. I just assumed that’s how the job is as my friends in the same field have similar kinds of stories

People can be stressed I guess, but is normal and common events in your job are highly stressful, then I still say that’s a sign that it’s not the career path for you. For all we know, these jobs have these things because it’s common on the job and a candidate should really feel at ease doing it. That’s my opinion anyway. We can only form opinions based on experience and apparently, mine differs from yours.

I don’t agree at all. I’ve definitely been in lair sessions where the other person has been assigned to babysit me to the correct answer. It’s just an experience that mostly happens with juniors. I’ve babysat juniors to the solution myself.

There can also be zero trust between colleagues forced to pair, especially in debug sessions. I have worked a lot of jobs, so maybe it’s just my experience, but I would not say that if categorized every single pair session I’ve had in my entire career anywhere near half involved two colleagues who trusted each other and didn’t judge.

I’ve definitely been judged as a senior for dumb dumb moments and that’s okay. If you care about people’s opinions too personally as a software engineer, I’m not sure this is the career for you. It’s a career that involves a lot of negative feedback even as an experienced professional.

I guess my question why should anyone feel stressed from live coding? There are some jobs where this is legitimately a common occurrence at your job. Some jobs are big on pair programming. And I don’t think I’ve ever had a single job that at least a couple times a year didn’t have me living coding through a problem. It happened way more often when I was a junior and needed a lot of assistance. If you are stressed by being watched while you code, that’s not great because you are going to have to do it regularly or semi-regularly at your job. That’s whether someone is sitting right next to you or they are screensharing. It’s why I personally am comfortable with live coding. It’s literally a thing I do at work, albeit not with toy problems.

The problem with only hiring people you have met personally is that you miss out on a whole world of people who would be great to work with but had no chance of ever meeting you or your network. I agree that network recruiting is the safest route, but having diversity in your employees is great. If you only hire through your networks you’ll see quickly quickly how you only get one kind of person.

I have seem this happen a lot in smaller companies. It’s also the story of how I’m typically the sole woman in the department. I by happenstance happen to seed my professional network from college with a lot of men (because I accidentally picked a college that like 80% men). I’m a unicorn because many men’s networks include so few women since in IT they tend to be non-traditional and/or generally excluded from younger men’s social groups.

I get tapped via my network all the time. But if the company basically only does referral based hiring me and perhaps one other woman is there for the whole engineering department. It’s way more balanced at 20%-30% of the department at companies that don’t do this. There is some value in shotgun hiring even if it has a higher fail rate than referral hiring. Different kinds of people can bring fresh perspectives and considerations.

If my kid thinks that being less than perfect is a personal failing then I have failed as a parent. That’s the point of challenge my kid. To teach her that she doesn’t have to be perfect. That’s a B is okay. Doing your best is okay. Hell, doing what you feel like is okay as long as you hit that minimum standard which is a C.

I don’t intend to make my kid struggle for a B, but As should not be effortless. If my kid isn’t putting in the work then I don’t think they should get an A. I think it’s okay not to have an A. I was always a solid B student even in college and I was and still am okay with that. It made me a chiller kid in college and it gave me space to learn how to expand my capacity because I was so shocked by how “poorly” I did.

I think learning to be happy with a B is an important skill. I don’t believe that As should be effortless. If an A is effortless, then that means the kid wasn’t in a challenging enough class. In real life the only reward for hard work is more work. Leaning when they want to push for the A and when they want to be content with a B is an important think for them to decide. Perfection should never be the goal. That’s how kids burn out at the college level.

This is basically why I believe that effortless As in grade school are a failure state for kids. People tell me that mu standards are too high for my kid, but I cannot express to them that now is the time for my kid to build up the ability to struggle and persevere. It’s not that I have high standards. I just think that a perfect score is a sign that the task wasn’t hard enough.

I saw way too many kids burn out in college because they’d never seem a grade below an A before, let alone the C they just scored. Since I was used to being pushed to my limit in grade school (not by my mother, but by teachers), I was fully prepared to work hard to barely make a B sometimes.

Here’s the thing: as a parent you had a high amount of control over what your children consume. Yes, there is peer pressure, but you can just decide to make your kid uncool or weird or quirky. My child basically doesn’t see ads. She travels with her own tablet and hotspot with ad-free services and ad-free mobile games. Tiktok and YouTube shorts is almost totally banned in my house, but she may watch a few videos specifically on my devices under my supervision if she wants to see something her friends send her. I don’t really have a problem with tiktok per se, more how it zombifies kids with constant dopemine hits. Youtube is a whitelist since don’t trust that algorithm at all.

You get the picture. I won’t say that my kid is watching things wholly appropriate for her at all times, but my mission as it stands is to keep her attention span solid and teach her moderation, so some games get banned before she ever get to play them (roblox), some get banned after me seeing the impact on her cousin (fortnite) and some get banned for impact on her (mobile games are evil). The fall out can be severe, but in this respect I’m an authoritatian parent. My word is law. Your feelings don’t matter. You’ll thank me later. Or not. You have a long adulthood play videogames.

Do we though? Alcohol the most commonly used addictive drugs is allowed for adults and even children in many states as long as the adults approve and do it in in private residences.

Parents need to be better about paying attention to games. I remember telling my aunt about a game my 10 year old cousin wanted. She was horrified and said absolutely not. She bought it for him when he asked when they were in the store because she doesn’t take any time to pay attention to game They’re for kids. Even though games are clearly marked with any objectionable material. She “blindsided” by what was in the game when her son booted it up dispite the game be rated as mature, marking objectionable things and me giving her a play by play.

There are a lot of additive things that we expect parents to use their judgment on. Sugar for example. Until someone is talking to me about how we need a bad on soda and BS like that because parents can’t be expected to parent their kids about it, I don’t really care about the most optional of activities that is games. Children have extremely limited access if their parents don’t allow it. Theu buy the phones/tables/game consoles and robust parental controls have existed for a while.

Kids can be addicted to all sorts of things and it’s still on the parents. Because it’s technology we for some reason stop believing parents can do a thing. Oh however would the person who controls the internet ans the devices control their child’s access to social media (another one I see whining about) and video games. As a parent myself, I’m just under the impression that at least watching in my circle, the parents who don’t aren’t paying attention or don’t actually care that much, they just don’t like the outcome judgment.

That’s because someone can easily track your address via a phone number. This is why I have a burner VoIP number to give out until I trust people.

What is a “pointless pursuit”? History and any marginalized population by the list. So apparently when the government makes a plan for how to invigorate an area, they don’t need to know anything about it’s culture and history? We don’t need people who understand things like that. Every citizen is the same obviously any thing the government demands is correct and will work out for all populations.

Also why does the state even fund PhDs? PhDs don’t enter industry and spin that economy baby, so that worthless. Doctors and lawyers can just take out more loans. It’s fine. Looking at that why fund programs for most master’s degrees? What companies require one anyway?

I’m being flippang here because even as a STEM major, I’ve gotten so much mileage out of the “useless” part of my degree. Being exposed to those “pointless pursuits” allowed me to build things that people actually needed and avoid the pitfalls before we exposed people to them.

When I was in school, I wondered why the state was forcing me to take these stupid humanities classes at an engineering university at that, but I see it now. Mine was a school where humanities students had to learn to code a bit, and engineers had to learn do media analysis and probably take more history than they wanted, but getting out into the world, I’ve found that the engineers who got that exposure are just better because they know there is a whole class of problem involving people and they know when it’s time to ask for help or when it’s time to do research.

Has the state been funding schools though? Because state funding has been falling across the board and if the state has an interest in being lean then they should focus on out of prop salaries of administration and sports spending. After all what interest does the state have in sports? By this line of reasons colleges should have to fund that themselves.

This is of course setting aside that humanities does help society and is in the vested interest of the state. I’m saying this as someone who was a STEM major. Giving context to the world and giving people a greater understanding is useful for every major. It allows them to understand their world and make better decisions from their station in life.

To take the stance that the state has an interest in funding “useful” degrees then no one should be allowed to do anything outside their education, which is aburd. People with different points of view and knowledge enhance professions, not destroy them. That’s what happens when a profession only has one allowable perspective to deal with infinite possibilities of the world.

Unless you are actively for killing people once they hit a certain age, demographic collapse is a real problem. You cannot care for the elderly with nothing but robots. Elders need healthcare. They need people in general and unlike young people they don’t move from dead rotting towns. In demographic collapse they don’t even have anyone to make them because they don’t have kids.

See Japan for how demographic collapse is working out. Young people are being crushed by the weight of what it takes to care for too many old people. And the cycle is only getting worse because of course young people don’t have kids when very stressed. Japan has whole towns going to rot. They’re economy is experiencing negative effects from not having the expected amount of workers for what they need.

You really want a gradually declining population. You want your birth rate to be about 2. 2.1 is the replacement rate. Currently the US is the only developed country doing this and mostly by accident due to immigration. The US is experiencing a much less pronounced pension crisis than other developed nations. Instead we can focus exclusively on our fascist regime bid for power. That’s our of population decline as well, but we get to fight against it since the US is fairly balanced in demographics (for now. It remains to be seen how the millennial generation will handle being dominant generation in a decade or so)

There’s a middle ground. I’m in a true small city of 10K and I love it. The city is all of 10 miles square. It has all the basics movie theater, most chains, etc. The city isn’t walkable, but it is bikeable and I’ve found that to be good enough. I grew up in a city like this and I wanted that for my kid. We still drive into the local metro maybe once a month, but I don’t ever need to go into the metro for basics.

But I’m not talking about moving fuck all no where. I’m talking about expanding the range impact of cities. We got this way because people all moved to cities. If people spread like a wave away from cities, then the power impact decreases. My town is went from a Christian stronghold where you couldn’t drink and everything was closed on Sunday to a place where a Republicans have to battle for local spots and most highly religious laws have been repealed.

Im halfway between 2 major cities. One is the major metro and the other a mid-size city. It used to be very red going 30 minutes away from either, but now we have a sea of purple. And areas are only getting bluer.

Everywhere in GA outside of like 4 cities is bumbfuck, but being I proximity of cities and growing small towns into midsized cities is the way to win. When I was a kid my hometown was bumfuck, GA. Now it’s a major city (for GA. I mean it’s sub-1 million by a lot) and solidly blue when it used to be very red.

We won’t see an AOC type for a long time, but a moderate republican (not a Manchin type) is a way better platform than any republican.

Public school? You mean that place that children are mandated to be? Also you forgot government. It was a whole thing. So if you’re a Muslim and you want to be a part of the French government, then I hope you don’t have any attachment to those head scarves. There are other religions ornamentation, but the head scarves one was the last one I saw. And whether school or a DMV clerk, it’s dumb.

Also noticed I used two different labels for France rather than China. I think China is fascist with what they’re doing. France is xenophobic with what they’re doing.