Risky. If I interview somebody and their resume is inflated or wrong, at best as a candidate you wasted my time reviewing your resume and scheduling interviews and what not, and now you're starting from a disadvantage because my first impression of you is one of being misled. We're a high-trust organization and anything that causes doubt on your integrity puts you at a disadvantage. If I'm interviewing you, it's because I considered you against the torrent of other applicants, and I likely excluded one that is more qualified than you based on your misrepresentation. That also doesn't work in your favor.
If you are a truly exceptional dev in your previous field and can convince me of that, along with an up-front and transparent explanation of why you lied to me as our first interaction, it is possible to overcome this. However, that is a pretty small pool of people.
Definitely fair but for the candidate considering this, it's a numbers game. They're just looking to get their foot in the door for a new career path. You care, and you're right to care, but there will be others who don't.
Then next time, it's no longer a lie and they can (in theory) get by on merit
Mac only but if you want a local only version of this (which has been mentioned in other comments), Dayflow[1] looks decent. I think I'd actually love something like this but can't quite bring myself to run it.. even with local models
Yes but many of us also complain about the lack of quality journalism. We can’t encourage good (presumably) people leave the industry and also want the standard of reporting to improve
If the system is broken in way that disempowers the people who are good and apparently getting screwed over, it's kind of selfish to ask them to stick around and shoulder the burden to fix it for our own external benefit.
Eh, it's not entirely that simple. In the same way teachers are, some people are just compelled towards it because it's what feels "right" to them.
And, just, don't forget that a lot of the people who are "sticking around" went to j-school and now have a significant amount of debt. So leaving journalism isn't exactly the cleanest option for them.
If honest journalists are “sticking around” that would mean loaning those shady editors with ulterior motives some of their credibility, thus helping to prop the latter up.
Interpret it this way please: I'm unable to understand the collection of words in your post because you're using overloaded words to describe a simplified scenario that doesn't match the reality of the world I've seen. Could you please clarify your point so that I can provide a more substantial response? Tyty.
I’m using Monal and it’s decent. Agree reactions are a big thing missing, but notifications etc have been flawless which was a harder requirement for me
If you're a normal person in a country that Cloudflare considers "scammy" - your internet experience is very different from someone based in the US. Your personal online behaviour is irrelevant
Because money is the priority for those people. If they can make more money by operating in a different regime then they will, the moral or political stance of that regime isn’t really relevant
I feel like you're maybe dismissing "moral or political stance" as something almost aesthetic here, some like this, some like that.
But we're talking about what you can trust a government to do here. It matters even if you're indifferent to morality or politics. It's very much relevant to making money, too.
