You can also see this in action with replies. Certain shadowbanned accounts will only show up in threads if you follow them. If you open the thread in an incognito window, certain people disappear.
"Trust and Safety" is just Orwellian newspeak for controlling who gets to hear which opinions.
It is both notable and unsurprising that the Drupal code of conduct [1] makes zero mention of any of the topics in this debate. Nothing about sexuality, nothing about feminism, or equality, ... Yet every discussion about this immediately turns to gender politics. I think this shows the duplicitous nature of COCs: no matter what the letter says, the intent, as understood by nearly everyone, is to apply it to filter by reigning morality, under the threat of public punishment.
When it comes to Drupal, the only gender problem it has is the people who keep manufacturing major incidents out of minor slights, even when the people involved don't mind. Case in point, the Drupal Association member who resigned because he called his friend a pussy, who in turn didn't mind it.
It is disingenuous to uphold a code of respect, diversity and inclusion while simultaneously expecting everyone to conform to the wishes of the most easily offended. More so to act like the only way to be respectful to women is to treat them like fragile flowers. Some people prefer traditional gender roles, in or outside the bedroom, and some are women.
The last thing these inclusion activists want is diversity, it would expose them as the sheltered and privileged upper class they are.
> Nothing about sexuality, nothing about feminism, or equality, [...]
From the DCOC: "The Drupal community and its members treat one another with respect."
> When it comes to Drupal, the only gender problem it has is the people who keep manufacturing major incidents out of minor slights [...]
I don't know for Drupal, but gender is an issue in most computer-science related fields, I doubt that Drupal is immune to this. Free Software has a lower % of women involved than computer science in general. In any case, until there is near parity, there is a gender problem.
I agree that 'we' are pretty bad at handling incidents. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. There's been an evolution in the last 10 years, but clearly more work to be done.
> “The Drupal community and its members treat one another with respect.”
Frankly, the DCOC is vague. If we want to kick out people with a reference to the DCOC, we have to define with mathematical precision what is “respect”, “poor manners”, “people outside the Drupal project”.
> I don't know for Drupal, but gender is an issue in most computer-science related fields, I doubt that Drupal is immune to this. Free Software has a lower % of women involved than computer science in general. In any case, until there is near parity, there is a gender problem.
You can always find an aspect which is underrepresented. Gender, ethnicity, solved tickets, religion, eye colour… Can we just focus on getting things done and being a welcoming toward everyone who would like to donate free time until that person does not restrict others to do so?
Speaking as a Drupalista, I think we are better than the norm in the tech world. I don't think there's been a recent survey but we wre 15-20% women about 4 or 5 years ago. I don't think the numbers have dropped, but that's only based on personal anecdote.
That's a really oppressive patriarchy we live in, when a single blog post with no evidence and only hearsay is enough to spike a massive protest and boycott...
This kind of trolling and the flamewar you started are not acceptable on HN, and we've warned you about it before. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use the site as intended in the future.
From my understanding, Susan is well respected within the SV community, and obviously from Uber's response she struck a nerve. I understand what you're getting at, but I think you're ignoring a lot of context.
> tnones :That's a really oppressive patriarchy we live in, when a single blog post with no evidence and only hearsay is enough to spike a massive protest and boycott...
>
jonathankoren : What was his point?
It's an insinuation that the patriarchy doesn't exist, or is toothless based on the fact that one woman's story sparked a protest against Uber.
Which is of course a stupid point. One swallow doesn't make a summer, one exception doesn't disprove a rule and of course any complex system can have exceptions, contra tendencies and still have a dominant character.
No one said that patriarchy works like a totalitarian state, crushing anything and anyone which doesn't adhere to a strict set of rules.
Just for reference when a credible person stands up and says "this happened to me" that's basically the definition of strong first-person evidence, and by definition not hearsay.
Even those of you that choose to be skeptical have to admit Uber has been developing a history of unethical, asshole behavior almost since its inception.
The Fowler incident is the last straw for many people. What is happening right now is decidedly not simply the result of "a single blog post".
I think you've just kicked yourself with your jerking knee.
This is exactly the behaviour you'd expect under a really oppressive system: given a low-risk way to protest the oppression, people take it. Women and those sympathetic to the cause of equality can easily delete their accounts and take alternatives, so they do.
Consider the contra: if this wasn't an oppressive system, if there weren't real causes for complaint, nobody would care-- and so nobody would delete their accounts over the story.
"This is exactly the behaviour you'd expect under a really oppressive system: given a low-risk way to protest the oppression, people take it." Welcome to 2017, where crying wolf has no negative impact on them if proved untrue.
"Women and those sympathetic to the cause" Because by default, all women are automatically part of the cause.
"Consider the contra: if this wasn't an oppressive system, if there weren't real causes for complaint, nobody would care-- and so nobody would delete their accounts over the story." Of course, there's never been a case where a person has been really offended, got loads of people on side only to turn out to be false?
Regardless of her respect in SV, we can only look at the facts. Why is she the only person to leave Uber over this? Why have there not been previous cases of this? What evidence is there that the events unfolded as she suggested? All these things and more should be considered.
> Welcome to 2017, where crying wolf has no negative impact on them if proved untrue.
This smells like underlying bias to me, I'm afraid. Crying wolf in many of these areas has frequent negative impact -- hell, speaking out with good cause has negative impact. Who wants to volunteer to be at the centre of the next ethics in game journalism storm?
But this specific action -- choosing to no longer use the services of a company -- does have few repercussions, which does make it a good way to protest.
> Because by default, all women are automatically part of the cause
This could have been worded more felicitously, sure. Substitute "those negatively affect by the oppression and those sympathetic to them" and the point stands.
> Regardless of her respect in SV, we can only look at the facts.
As others have said, it seems you didn't look at the facts here. But regardless, the original point is not about the author, it's rejecting the idea that people are only able to delete their Uber accounts to protest the patriarchy because the very patriarchy they're protesting doesn't exist.
> This smells like underlying bias to me, I'm afraid. Crying wolf in many of these areas has frequent negative impact -- hell, speaking out with good cause has negative impact.
It said in a mocking sense, but given the benefit of a doubt - it's difficult to read intention.
> Who wants to volunteer to be at the centre of the next ethics in game journalism storm?
Lot's of people. Not everybody of course. There's lot of sociopaths/psychopaths that exist undiagnosed amongst us. I don't think that has any value in the argument as we really don't know this person.
> But this specific action -- choosing to no longer use the services of a company -- does have few repercussions, which does make it a good way to protest.
Ha! PR is one of the most important aspects to a company. Why do you think Google is so successful? Perception often outweighs truth.
> This could have been worded more felicitously, sure. Substitute "those negatively affect by the oppression and those sympathetic to them" and the point stands.
It was just a throwaway point about your default stance. We all have unconscious bias, I'm not holding it against you. My point was that we should all be aware of it.
> As others have said, it seems you didn't look at the facts here.
I've now read a lot of articles regarding this topic (it's interesting isn't it?).
> the original point is not about the author, it's rejecting the idea that people are only able to delete their Uber accounts to protest the patriarchy because the very patriarchy they're protesting doesn't exist.
> This is exactly the behaviour you'd expect under a really oppressive system: given a low-risk way to protest the oppression, people take it. Women and those sympathetic to the cause of equality can easily delete their accounts and take alternatives, so they do.
But this isn't by definition evidence of that structure existing. Simply agreeing or disagreeing with a point of view can lead to the same outcome. And with "a really oppressive system", I would expect to see a much more solid foundation to the accusations.
Signs this may be false:
- No evidence of communications
- No witnesses to the events have come forward
- No names of the people involved
- No pursuit for legal rights
- Disabled comments on blog
- Uber directly addressing the blog (if they knew they were in the wrong, they would want this to go away)
- HR woman didn't sympathize with her accusations
Signs this may be true:
- Uber had an internal meeting regarding the accusations
- Uber are conducting an internal investigation
- Uber's history of being a tough working environment
Her claim is that Uber is an oppressive system and everyone just buys it at face value. Who has the jerking knee?
I think it takes more work to assume ALL OF THE PEOPLE she was dealing with at Uber were in on some kind of sexist conspiracy against her than to think that maybe her perception's out of alignment. Even worse is to think that all these employees at uber hr can't recognize sexism and deal with it appropriately... it's her word against a bunch of people who I have no reason to think are unreasonable.
Really, it's the assumption that Uber is an oppressive system from the get go that allows people to jump on her bandwagon and start deleting apps.
Do you realise that racism and sexism are not conspiracies? If they were conspiracies, you would be a prime example of a co-conspirator: dismissing one woman's testimony because no men have testified in agreement with her.
Here is now HR takes part in "the conspiracy": they take no action against a man who is in a senior position because they do not want to lose their jobs.
Here is how "all these employees" take part in "the conspiracy": they do not speak up because the issue is not affecting them personally, they don't want to rock the boat, and maybe they feel that the woman in question is just a pain in the arse because she always talks back and challenges assumptions, so why would anyone stand up for her?
Sexism is not a conspiracy, it's a learned behaviour. You can't eliminate sexism by breaking the conspiracy, you have to find ways to adjust institutionalised behaviour.
Consider the classic story about the monkeys and the electrified bananas: monkeys in captivity were shown bananas. If any monkey went to pick up the banana, the entire cage would be electified, shocking all the monkeys. Eventually the monkeys would best up any monkey trying to pick up the bananas.
Then the researchers started replacing the population, and stopped electrocuting the monkeys. The society still best up monkeys trying to get the banana. Long after there were non of the original monkeys in the group, and none of the monkeys had been electrocuted, they still beat up any monkey trying to pick up the banana.
So too, in any institution the new people learn ways and means from the incumbents. They learn that certain people are beyond reproach, long after any remaining incumbents can remember why. They learn that certain issues are smply not discussed, and do not question why.
How do you get that institutionalised behaviour back to normal?
It's a question of who do you give the benefit of the doubt to? The woman who says "things are really bad at Uber for women" (and can point to plummeting diversity figures to back it up) or the company with the dodgy ethical history in many areas of employment law?
And that's also what makes the protest so appealing. The protestors _don't have to justify themselves_ to you; they don't have to meet your arbitrary bar of "yes, this is now real enough for me to consider it as sexism, you are permitted to complain".
They can just decide who they believe, and act accordingly. And have.
What are you saying? That being upset that women are being sexually harassed at the workplace shows that women aren't being sexually harassed at the workplace, or that it isn't a big deal?
Seriously dude. What are you trying to say?
Let's not pretend that these allegations came like a bolt from the blue. They've been floating around Uber for years now. The only thing different here is that someone publically put their name on it.
I've never once heard rumors like these until recently but I've noticed an uptick in people saying that there HAS been, when there hasn't been rumors to begin with.
I lead a team of women doing computational pharmaceutical research. 12 women and 3 males, and 2 female undergrads and 2 male undergrads.
But hey, your narrative is that I'm out of touch with women because I'm not a woman so how could I possibly know, and I wouldn't want to ruin that little victory for you.
I wouldn't call having a woman as a direct report a "close friend." The fact that you immediately reached for your employees as cover, makes me think that you don't have anyone else to use.
I find it doubly absurd to think that your reports would talk to you about these things. First you're in a position of power over them, and we're dealing with a topic that goes hand in glove with abuses of power. Second on a personal note, you appear to be completely dismissive that any such claims could possibly have merit to them. Finally, look at your choice of name. I commend you for not going with "pussypuncher".
You've become uncivil and made personal attacks on HN many times. That's not allowed here, even if your cause is 100% right and all of your views are correct. We ban accounts that do this, so please stop doing this.
You've also been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's another abuse of this site, and we ban accounts that do that as well. HN can't both gratify intellectual curiosity and be a battlefield, so please use the site as intended.
I would disagree with your characterization, of "uncivil" and "personal attacks", but I will admit that this has become a flame war.
I will say this, HN's very recent position of trying to remain apolitical when the topic of social and political issues regarding tech companies is completely untenable, and I think the recent discussions about Uber has shown that. You can't bring up the very relevant topics of either diversity or sexual harassment in Silicon Valley, without people coming out of the woodwork and quite loudly declaring that either the accusations are false, or they're not that bad. These positions can not go unchallenged, as they have been shown to be false many times before and with just as many actors, and perpetuate the very problem being highlighted.
So what are we going to do about it? Ignore it? I'm not because I too much about a liberal civil society. Ignoring the ideas doesn't just perpetuate them, but gives them strength and credibility, when they quite frankly they were discredited when I was young.
Since HN has made it a policy to stick its collective head in sand regarding these issues, I think the only option HN is willing to take is clear. Ban me, because I'm not going to stop, because I take these topics very seriously. I don't say that out of some sort of defiance, I say that because I know myself. It will happen again, and again, and again. Either you're going to have to remove all discussions from the front page as soon as these topics come up, or you're going to have to ban accounts including mine to ensure an off topic prosaic comments like "I like the old logo better."
The rule isn't that HN must be apolitical, it's that accounts should not use HN primarily for politics. That's a necessary rule, otherwise the site will drown in flames.
Yes, commenters here show up with all sorts of opinions and competing (often bad) ideas. HN is divided because society is divided. Presumably the same divisions would show up in any large-enough sample. The question is what do we do given these divisions, since we can't eliminate them.
If we stepped back a couple posts and jk had cited the recent, public claims of employees tracking celebs & ex's, Uber self-driving cars exiting SF b/c they are above licensing laws and myriad other slights of rules/regs this discussion could have stayed on point.
Damn, you're right and too late to edit. I was grabbing straws, admittedly not very informed about Uber's goings on. I do recall seeing Uber internal strife claims repeatedly over the last two years. Specific examples do not come to mind at the moment.
Tangentially: Stalking an ex is a perfect example of sexual harassment, albeit not necessarily toward another member in that organization.
The codes of conduct are unfortunately sanctimonious non-sense to beat people over the head with. Those who champion them never apply the rules to themselves, and those who really want to harass pay them no heed. This was already the case with Adria Richards and her dongle joke offense, where she harassed a guy by putting his photo on Twitter and cost him his job, and got lauded for it by gender activists and news articles alike. While citing the code of conduct.
Real harassment is already illegal. Conduct policies can only serve in the gray area where people do not want to get police involved, but still want to exact some form of retribution and punishment, often by playing the politics game. It empowers the wrong people for the wrong reasons. It also creates the illusion that tech is particularly nasty, when the exact opposite is true: despite what activists claim, it is far more meritocratic than most industries, and far more reliant on tools and methods that emphasize work over personality and identity.
The propositioning, this is a fact of life: men propose, women dispose, and it's creepy unless he's attractive. Fact is, people like to date people with similar interests, they meet in all sorts of contexts, and some are more tactful about it than others. That doesn't mean it's automatically harassment to be flirted with outside of a dating site or bar night, or that it's never welcome.
One asshole manager is just one asshole manager, and such crudeness is the exception, not the norm.
Some people would love to receive just an ounce of affection and appreciation just for merely showing up, so being able to complain about it is the luxury of the desirable. Especially when, as I've often seen, it's paired with exasperated stories of how so-and-so just won't take the endless "clear hints" that have been made, but a polite but firm "sorry, flattered but not interested" is never actually provided. We are told we must be more empathetic, but the empathy for the socially awkward or the lonely, those who are bad at reading social cues, that's never on the table. All this talk of "safe spaces" seems to vanish once it's the real nerds and geeks, the 'losers' who need consideration.
Just keep in mind, HR is mostly a female-staffed endeavour, and the passive aggressive and underhanded interaction described is certainly not typical of male interaction styles. If it's a poster child for how not to behave, I don't think those griping about techbros and misogyny are quite thinking through the implications here.
I don't think tech is more meritocratic then other jobs. Various signalings and posturings and confidencw often count so much more then merit. We don't even know how to define merit and never ever talk about what merit is.
Also, if she reported you to hr, then you should consider it hint clearest possible. We are not even talking about subtle misunderstandings here, he invited new employee to have sex.
Stop blaming douchebaghery on geekiness or nerdiness, most geeks are not like that.
Also, there is little direct about male keeping business info away from competitor or
retroactively lowering her review scores to keep her. The politics there was ugly as fuck and had zero to do with merit.
The code of conduct also implies (male) visitors of conferences are rapists unless told otherwise. I personally find it very off putting if a conference of meetup has such a code of conduct. Not because I want to rape or harass (I don't), but because it is insulting.
I think if you organize an event, you should be allowed to assume your target group are good people. For people who nevertheless step over the line, the normal standards of decency apply and they can be dealt with, CoC or no.
You've only graduated 2.5 years ago, so trying to push yourself as a Product Designer is probably out of your reach, and comes across as unrealistic. This is a senior-level role where experience is more important than ticking off skills. In combination with the breadth you listed this doesn't make you seem like a genius, it makes you seem like a generalist who lacks focus and probably has a touch of ADHD.
Personally your website also doesn't impress me, nor do any of the projects shown. They all have the same blank slate look of plain sans-serif fonts on white backgrounds with little or no colors and virtually no iconography. That might be good to sell consumer goods, but it doesn't demonstrate your skill and it contradicts that you're "passionate about all things visual". There are no illustrations, no flourishes, the artistry and aesthetics are absent.
In fact, what seems to be your "showpiece" for product design is IMO a self-sabotaging demo. Instead of showing off the creative process and focusing on the creative possibility space, it's a long-winded and visually dull story of navel gazing about details, interspersed with random code screenshots and programmer art. The end result, buried at the very bottom instead of pulled out at the start, is an ugly neon monospace table view with only an out of place Mario coin for graphics.
The golden rule is show, don't tell, and to not force people to do the heavy lifting for you. Also, drop phrases like wanting to work "at your cool startup", it screams try-hard. You don't want to join the startup because _it_ is cool, you want the startup to hire you because _you_ are cool.
Don't talk about writing witty copy or designing mesmerizing colors and dazzling typography, just make me laugh, mesmerize me, dazzle me.
I read this comment and was ready to jump to the OPs defense and chide you for being overly-negative but then I looked at the website...
None of the products look like something I'd expect from a "Product Designer" and even less so from someone who is "passionate about all things visual". I am not a designer but I've worked with a number of highly talented designers and none of these designs really impress me, in fact almost all of them nibble at something in the back of my head proclaiming them as slightly "off". I can't exactly put my finger on it but they just look out of place for some reason. I can get past the style of the main website (though I think it's in the style of a programmer and less of designer) but the things the OP has worked on just don't seem that... good. The "quirky equipment" with text inputs is confusing on a number of levels: What is this trying to show? Why is it listed at all? How is this innovative/interesting/or even cool? A tiny bit of JS strung together with some CSS animations doesn't strike me as worth sharing. Lastly, and a tiny thing at that, o23.io works find for a dev/designer name Olivier that is 23 years old but.... Did he buy o24.io-o100.io as well? Just seems like an odd choice of domain.
I believe you guys are being overly harsh and strict, you probably don't realize it but to me you sound like you're criticizing for the next Jony Ive position.
I find OP's work impressive and his design skills are great, he handles minimalism with grace, and that's not something a programmer could achieve without previous design principles.
His website's concept is exactly what it should be (being a T shaped professional), his grasp on typography is very good (a far better skill to have than the ability of making a million animations to impress), his Skyler app is extremely well designed and overly his work is above average in every way.
I'm not sure why OP is having trouble finding work, but it certainly is not his skills. Perhaps it's the way he presents himself, or sounding needy, or he aims for positions that require much greater experience.
He is absolutely fit for a junior to mid level front end developer or UI engineer job in my books.
Edit: His name is Olivier, just goes to show how much attention you paid when reviewing his work. (edit 2: parent edited their post where they originally referred to OP as "she" and "Olivia")
In general, I'd agree with you, but here's the sad truth...
Olivier is having difficulty finding a job, despite applying for 'millions' of positions. That screams that there is something wrong. At this point, we could pat him on the head and tell him that everything will be fine, or we can put our critical hats on and try to find things that be blocking his dreams.
I'll agree that some of the feedback has been harsh, but the poor man ended his plea with the word 'help'. Sometimes the most helpful advice is the hardest to hear.
He says he needs help, he doesn't need everyone telling him how disapointing his entire resume is.
He needs people to let him know what they like and dislike about his profile. But that does also include mentioning what is attractive about his resume. Otherwise we might as well tell him "yo bro, tech isn't for you honestly" if there's nothing likable about what he's done.
He needs to find where his profile adds value and concentrate on that. Conversely, he needs people to let him know about what they think is his profile's weaker points so he can adapt. But asking for help and having everyone tell him the same thing that his interviewers have told him isn't what he's asking for. Is it ?
Some answers have been very helpful it seems (as simple as "well maybe you're applying for senior positions instead of junior ones" or "maybe it's your personality rather than your achievements"). But saying "yeah man; I'm sorry but none of your projects impress me, they're all at best avg" does seem kinda harsh to me. To the point where it might be detrimental to OP's motivation.
Back to the main question:
I think your resume is great, you clearly have valuable skills. Assuming you're applying to entry level positions (you're only 23), I would guess that it's everything besides your resume that isn't working out. Maybe it's your cover letter, it might not be transmitting what people want to read. You should be able to get interviews with your resume, I'm surprised you're not. Have you tried to contact people directly ? I mean as opposed to responding to job ads ?
Also, little tip, rather than saying you're the best at what you do and that's why someone should employ you, I would also add to my cover letter why you want to work for who ever you're applying it. Is it because you're in love with drones, with sports, with lingerie, with whatever you're gonna be working on if you get the job. Because employers are looking for devs that love the product they're coding. I'd rather code with someone avg but passionate about what he does than someone super good but that doesn't give a shit.
Anyway, don't give up bro, you're young and you're clearly not dumb, so it'll work out. Good luck !
Well, although I don't want to be harsh and strict on someone who just asks us for some advice, I must be honest that my opinion of his design skills match more closely to the posts above than to yours.
The designs shown are not compelling enough for me to recommend, hire or work with OP if it were for his design skills. And somehow that is in fact what he communicates as his biggest skills.
Then again, maybe my opinion, or the amount of attention I paid when reviewing his work, is not representative of (even a part of) the companies OP is applying to.
I think the OP's design skills are great for a developer, but not necessarily for a product designer. He should market himself as a web developer instead of a product designer.
yea i read these comments and was ready for a terrible site, but it's totally fine. whenever HN has a 'show your personal website thread' the designs are all awful '65 year old combinatorics professor' designs. these old fucks would probably have a hernia if they looked at brutalistwebsites.com
> In combination with the breadth you listed this doesn't make you seem like a genius, it makes you seem like a generalist who lacks focus and probably has a touch of ADHD.
Slightly off topic, but is being a generalist considered a bad thing?
I would argue that having a general knowledge of the related fields is a very positive thing. That said, if the knowledge is at a fairly basic level, it'd be hard to find much more than a junior role. Senior roles generally require more advanced knowledge/understanding, and that's a lot easier to achieve by focusing on one specific skill/niche.
Most senior people I've worked with are the archetype T-shape: a good general knowledge of a number of related fields, and a deep speciality in one area.
Wikipedia has an interesting (although uncited) comparison of Versatilist (T-shape) vs Generalist [1]:
Think of a person having some level of knowledge/experience in 15 knowledge areas.
That person may have a very high competency (score 5) in 3 areas,
a medium level of competency (score 3) in 5 areas,
an introductory level of competency (score 1) in 4 areas,
and no competency (score 0) in 3 areas.
This creates an area under the curve of 34.
This is different from a generalist who may score a 1 or 3 in every area.
Being generalist is a good thing in the sense that is good to have many skills at a reasonable level. Unless you're truly exceptional, it simply doesn't happen without lots of experience. At 20 years of experience, you can have e.g. 5 "secondary" skills (in addition to whatever key specialization you might have) where you have a reasonable knowledge and "exposure" from having applied them multiple times.
At 3 years of work experience, most people have just started to understand 1-2 things. It may be that you have gotten a great, wide experience at a young age, because you started to do hard things really early - if a junior person claims that they "know" many diverse skills, maybe they truly are a generalist, but it is so much more likely that this simply shows a so big gap in knowledge/understanding that they don't even understand how little they know about all these 'secondary' skills.
This is true at least personally - there are certain skills where 15 years ago I believed that I had them, however now I know that I don't and never did so, simply because now I have seen people who actually do have that skill and can evaluate my knowledge in appropriate context.
No, but you do need to focus your resume to the job you're trying to get. If you're a Product Designer then your resume should focus on that, and if you want a junior developer position, your resume should reflect that.
And it should go without saying, but if you're applying for both jobs, for heaven's sake - have 2 different versions of your resume...
Generalists don't get hired to traditional "jobs" within orgs. Being a generalist is great if you're starting projects or companies yourself, or have personal connections to people who start such things and are looking for 1-3 generalist types when they first start hiring.
Don't take this guys negative position to heart - personally, I think he's basically wrong.
Your portfolio is actually pretty decent - especially for someone so young.
You're only 2.5 years out of school and you clearly are a multi-skilled individual with a solid ability to 'get things done' (the best skill ever) - especially wherein you've clearly required a number of different skills.
I'd suggest that being young and wanting to work remotely, or go to 'a foreign country' is hard. Immigration laws are real, and they are a barrier.
Try searching for something closer to home, or facilitating your career by getting some kind of 'status' in the US so that employers there can hire you. (Easier said than done, I know).
Keep your chin up, I would hire you in an instant if I had a role for you.
Most of the criticism of Yarvin is by those unable to distinguish between descriptive and normative ideas. His writing is a giant "what if" that mainly rejects the provincial notion that only today's common views are the most sound.
I'd bet that the adjacent commenter's idea of "[his racist advocacy] is well documented" comes from Twitter and Tumblr quotes taken out of context, cyclically retweeted in outrage.
Despite their protestations, I get the feeling that journalists are some of the most prolific consumers of social media, using it more and more as a source for their scoops and discussion topics. If so, it seems pretty disingenuous for them to blame the readership for what they click on, when they themselves seem unable to turn away and go find some real material.
The griping about the overuse of "fake news" displays a lack of self-awareness too. It isn't just Alex Jones adherents who call the New York Times, Washington Post and BBC fake news. All these major outlets have been caught with their pants down posting untruths, often with an obvious political agenda masked with under the thinnest veneer of objectivity. Corrections and retractions are lost in the maelstrom of the attention economy, and opinion pieces compete on equal footing with 'real' reporting, as the front page is no longer the main source of traffic. The response to the obvious and baited ire from the readership is to double down, censor any comments that contradict the story as being uncivil and harassing, and get ever more offended the plebs aren't eating up what you're serving, seeking out alternate sources in their 'ignorance'.
Respect and credibility are earned, not given. If contemporary journalists want to raise the bar and bring their audience back to them, the solution isn't a war on information, it's a war on their own delusions of grandeur and their inability to step aside to let real domain experts speak. Those who are in it for the job rather than the agenda and attention left the scene long ago, and Gell Mann amnesia remains as true as ever.
>you are a frigging master of the computer universe.
Strange because this is exactly why I love OS X. Because it's empowering and gets out of the way.
For instance, it's the only OS where multi-touch gestures for desktop/window management works instantly and controls everything as I'm doing it. A common thing to do is to select some objects on one desktop, click and drag them with the trackpad, then swipe with 3 additional fingers to move to another desktop, before dropping. It just works.
The browser works like a tablet and I can zoom and pan and navigate back easily. The OS is smart enough to reposition all my windows to their previous location when I unplug and replug an external monitor, instead of giving me a bunch of cropped apps in the corner. Renaming or moving a file makes apps pay attention and save to the new location. Preferences apply just by changing them, labels and controls everywhere update to track underlying changes, every listing is live. I can instantly preview anything with a spacebar tap, without losing keyboard focus on the finder window I was working with. Even the little icon in the titlebar of a document window is interactive, letting me drag a file I have open to a new place without making me go find it again, or right click it to get a dropdown menu to all parent paths.
Plugging in devices and drives, managing audio inputs and outputs, managing network interfaces and VPNs, backing up to external devices, it's all right there and instantly accessible, without 3 layers of legacy control panels or a bunch of config files to go dive through.
All of these things preserve my flow state by letting me manipulate the objects and the state of my desktop without having to make a chore out of it, by acting exactly like the natural and traditional objects around me. When I turn on the light, I don't open the "light preferences", click a checkbox and hit "Ok", I don't go edit /etc/light.conf, I just switch on the light. Why "professionals" think it should be any other way keeps amazing me, but then, I recall a study a while back that said that when it takes a lot of small steps to perform a particular task, it seems faster, even if it actually isn't.
I understand the author's frustrations. Open source is lovely when it works, and communities can be fun when you're part of them. But I understand the other side too. Most people don't care, and they shouldn't have to care, yet they are told to regardless.
The flipside to all this griping about entitlement is that most open source ecosystems are set up as an explicit groupthink and infrastructure to which you must defer. You can't just grab something and keep playing by yourself, no, you must keep moving in lockstep with everyone else, or things will break. That's why people get frustrated and angry, and that's why they barge into issue queues feeling miffed. They gave up too much control to too big an entity, and it bit them in the ass. Angular 1 should be a big lesson here: people abandoned the entire framework in droves simply because the _promise_ of future updates was taken away. The beautiful carriage turned back into the pumpkin it always was, and now the rot was starting to set in.
Even something like node.js with its fractally versioned npm packages has this problem. Drop-in compatibility is only true as long as you're in the sweet spot of doing what most other people do, on the version most widely installed. Not too bleeding edge that you can't expect StackOverflow to have gotten there before you, but not too far behind that you lose compatibility with the important dependencies.
The author concludes "If we focus on solutions, focus on helping others, focus on sharing ideas, we’ll be in a better place." I disagree, because too much sharing is what got us into this mess. The answer is more self-sufficiency, with enough affordances for going at it by yourself if you want to. Alas, that doesn't jibe with the latest fad of inclusiveness, so I'm afraid the same people griping about civility are the ones doomed to recruit more ineffective members into their congregation.
"Trust and Safety" is just Orwellian newspeak for controlling who gets to hear which opinions.