You do 3 full time jobs simultaneously?

Yep. 3 full time remote Senior/Staff SWE roles and one part time contract.

I don't know what it is about this particular topic that compels people to flood the conversation with egregious strawman fallacies, but anyway: I never suggested any of the shit that you're implying I did, so your argument falls totally flat and completely misses the point.

Probably no one posting in this ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD is arguing that Github broke the damn law. Quit pretending otherwise. TIA.

I mean, it's right in what you quoted! Read it again:

> Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution.

We do, however, have the right to complain about it and take our business elsewhere. I'm not sure why you would see a problem with that.

When people say "freedom of speech" and they're not talking about a government entity, it's a pretty safe bet that they're talking about the principle enshrined in the first amendment, not the first amendment itself.

Considering that The Internet as a whole is basically amounts to a whole lot of interconnected, other people's (back yards/restaurants/other poor analogies for physical spaces), saying "but the first doesn't apply" is both willfully obtuse and missing the point.

> saying "but the first doesn't apply" is both willfully obtuse and missing the point.

It's almost always a response to a person who seems to think that freedom of speech means they shouldn't have to face any consequences for the horrible things they say.

And this itself is a mischaracterization. The problem is that the rubric for "horrible things to say" has been extended so far as to cover usage of the word "retard".

Much like the rubric for "harassment" has been extended to cover simple incivility.

The alternative is to admit the ship is slowly sinking.

Wikipedia content is licensed for redistribution. That isn't scraping.

And as a site that is funded by donations not ad revenue they probably consider this a service.

It filters out the people whose ego won't let them take the test.

And people who don't think tests are a good start to a relationship between an employee and a company.

And people who are getting better offers at better companies.

You'll never know.

You mean it filters out people with too much self respect to jump through hoops to get a shitty start up job.

It is amazing to me to see computer science fundamentals hand-waved away as 'crap' and 'BS'.

I don't think anyone would claim these things are crap or BS, I think it's that these silly problem are irrelevant. These questions are like high school or college coursework, artificial questions designed to reinforce the instruction, but not something that would be encountered in a business setting. Additionally, they tend to gloss over a person's experience. I may not be able to solve your silly little stock trading problem by myself in a short amount of time, but I am sure that within the normal development environment, I could, especially since I would be working with a team. Or could I? Since this question doesn't look into my ability to communicate or work within a team, you don't know. Also, while I may not be able to solve the problem in 45 minutes, maybe I should talk about the time I dove into an application written in a foreign technology and managed to solve a critical production bug before it could cost the company millions of dollar. But again, you don't know that because you're obsessed with my ability to solve a high school computer science problem. Different jobs require different skills. Having the ability to code is important, but not nearly as important as teamwork, communication, and the willingness to learn something new. That's the problem with these questions, they are nothing more than smoke screen.

Wow.

wow

It is exactly like those things.

but Google did not turn up mob handed an picket you house and make threats about you and your family did it.

> threats

Can you please tell me where they threatened? I'm curious to know if they overstepped the boundaries of peaceful protest.

err do I need to "tell" you that being blockaded into my home and having flyers with threatening language abut me handed to my neighbors woudl make me feel threatened - it's perception that matters here.

You have repeated your belief that if you /feel/ threatened then you /are/ threatened. But threatened feelings are not enough to convict. Feelings are not facts.

But, let's suppose you /were/ right for a moment. What conclusions would that lead us to? If you were right and gaius (the poster above) or I felt /threatened/ by google's actions of photographing our houses and slurping our wifi credentials, would that mean that google had indeed threatened us?

After all, he /felt/ threatened. In your words, the perception of being threatened matters, right? So, if you're to be believed, google _has_ threatened /me/, because /I/ feel threatened by their taking pictures in public and slurping my wifi. If this is true, then according to you, what they have done /is/ tantamount to mob rule and harassment, and Google /is/ guilty of same, as it follows all the way back up to Bahamat's post above.

But of course this is not true. Google is not guilty of mob rule and harassment. Or do you believe that Google is guilty of mob rule and harassment?

If there is a threat, there must be evidence of a threat. Above posters and I have requested evidence. Evidence of a crime, not evidence of feelings. To back up the charge of a threat, can you articulate:

1. A statement to inflict pain, injury, damage, etc.

2. The event for which retribution is sought?

If you have those two, you have a threat. Otherwise, I'm very sorry for the feelings you feel, but the protestors have acted no worse than Google. I'm grateful my country allows us to communicate our grievances to one another.

He was addressing "go learn some more (let's say 5) languages and then come back"

He could just have said "I did this previously and...".