Saying something obviously fake like “it’s always been my dream to work here” is a bad idea, unless it’s a prestigious company where that could be true. The question is actually a good opportunity for the candidate to show off something if they want to, without being too awkward if they don’t.

You can say you’ve done research into the company online and are impressed by the work-life balance/leadership/worker loyalty/innovation. Sincere interest is not only flattering, it also makes you look thorough and driven. You can say you were recommended to apply by someone you know who has a connection. You can also give them some idea of what you are expecting, which can potentially save time if it’s not actually what they are offering. I had a friend get redirected to applying to a better position than what had been listed like this.

And if you truly are not a good fit, you can actually address that your previous experience doesn’t directly apply by saying something like “I’m looking for a change” rather than trying to dance around it for the entire interview. If your interviewer has any familiarity with the role, you won’t be able to trick them into thinking unrelated experience makes you well-qualified. And when that’s the case, acknowledging it early makes it much less awkward by establishing expectations appropriately. Basically, you have to be careful to limit your lies to things you can actually sell.

I read a book a while back called “The Courage to be Disliked”. That title could be used for some manosphere nonsense but it was instead an overall positive book about determining your self-worth based on your own honest evaluation of yourself, with the goal of improving things that you otherwise make excuses for. It was helpful to me as someone who’s been a people pleaser with low confidence. Hearing that mantra reminds me of it. I think it’s certainly not universally applicable, but it can be good advice for the right person.

Unfortunately very true. The hungry judge effect demonstrates how people tend to be more considerate after a meal.

Anne Frank left out that night from the diary

Humans lack many sharp teeth and have unimpressive jaw strength. It’s a much more beautiful show of trust with my dog.

The AI is the summary software. How else do you think the summary happens?

It doesn’t sound like AI is being used for either. It’s just summarizing the encounter at the end as a note, and not storing any data to train on.

I’m ok with people being British, just not in front of children.

Instead of the popular social media sites, I use one called Lemmy. It’s kinda underground. You probably haven’t heard of it.

Covid definitely had a strong immediate negative impact on kids’ education, but the trend of children struggling more in school over time is older than that. Until recent decades, there was an observed increase in children’s IQ over later generations, called the Flynn effect. Children were on average expected to be 3-5 points higher in measured IQ than those born a decade earlier. But we have reversed that trend after peaking somewhere around the 80s. There are likely a lot of contributing factors, but they should all be environmental rather than genetic. So hopefully later generations will be able to reverse the trend again and support their kids’ development in ways their own parents had neglected.

That’s rough. I hope you are able to find something more flexible.

I’m a software developer, so there’s a lot of WFH positions at least compared to other fields. But unless you have particularly good connections you would probably need to get a related degree if you wanted a job at most places. I’ve also heard it’s not a good time to be applying unfortunately. You might be able to try for some WFH consulting work related to your current job. Big software companies will hire contractors for temporary work too I guess, but they would probably still want experienced candidates. For me, this was just a position I applied to a few years ago and was lucky enough to get an offer. I don’t think there’s a secret to it, sorry.

Yes. I have worked at both and I feel much more comfortable at home. It gives you a level of flexibility that is hard to describe. I can start my day early, take a break for an hour, and resume it when I feel I can give it the proper level of attention. When I was in office, there was a pressure to look like you’re working all the time. It felt hard to concentrate when the expectation was on dedicating the expected time to work rather than getting something done. With WFH, it’s more about getting your tasks done and generally no one cares when you do it. And I can slouch and prop my feet up and have videos/music/audiobooks playing and whatever else I want without anyone knowing, let alone caring. I don’t need to worry about a commute, and all my food and comforts are available when I want them. I can easily handle things like being at home for a package delivery or a technician repairing something or walking the dog or just doing laundry.

That being said, I will admit it is considerably harder to get help with a task in office. You can’t just have someone pop by to look at something for example. You can still do a call or message, but it’s a bigger barrier to overcome. With WFH, collusion for a group more often needs to be scheduled, and you don’t have an analogue for water cooler talk.

Many places that offer work from home also have an office somewhere, so I would recommend new employees go in while learning the ropes, then switch as they become more independent. And some people like having different locations to help switch between work and relaxation mentalities. And it can be nice to get out of the house too. But overall, WFH is much better for me.

The poverty line is for the nation overall. Using some of the highest cost of living areas to set it doesn’t make sense. Why would you say a family making considerably more than most of their peers is poor because they would struggle to afford living somewhere else entirely?

Well said. To be clear, I agree with your outlook on human nature, but I try to check myself on not being optimistic to the point of ignoring people’s history. People do change, but we can’t presume in which direction that will be. We must remember improvement is a hope and a genuine possibility, but not an expectation. On the other hand, Orwell is regarded as insightful for good reason but of course he is also very cynical about people and the future.

A catspaw is just a term for someone who is used as a tool of another to their detriment. It comes from a French fable where a monkey convinces a cat to grab some roasting chestnuts for them to eat, but the monkey eats them all while the cat ends up burning its paw.

Edit: This is the fable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey_and_the_Cat

People tend to approve of their own representatives, and blame others in Congress for unsolved issues. We have become good at identifying problems while minimizing our own contributions to them. And in general, as a country we are very divided on the way things should be changing.

For presidential candidates especially, I’ve found people tend to latch on to reasons to dislike someone and ignore positive things, except perhaps for their favorite candidate. It’s a form of tribalism. But from what I remember Trump and Hilary were both considered distinctly weak candidates at the time.

Yeah, I view them as catspaws. They are assisting someone working against their interests without understanding how they are being used. You can show sympathy for them while nonetheless opposing them.

And you’re right that everyone should have the humility to accept they also sabotage themselves sometimes. But electing who will lead the country is high stakes and some accountability is fair.

He doubled down on it when it wasn’t really acknowledged. After he said he wasn’t paying, she responded with an explanation for why her friend was coming. I mean she did say ok, but that might be agreement or just a way to move on the conversation. Like, “Ok, but what if I told you…”

It’s not clear if the new explanation was meant to change his mind, but the only change between that and the fake explanation before is his statement that he wasn’t paying under the first situation. So it may have been a negotiation tactic. Either way, if this was real she should explicitly agree that he isn’t expected to pay for her friend and he should obviously not be so crass about it.

I haven’t heard of hiring life coaches for poor people but I agree that would be an example of inefficient spending. I meant things like healthcare. The US spends more on healthcare than any other country, and so when a government program like Medicare or Medicaid covers a bill that means a very large subsidy. College is likewise exceptionally expensive, so need-based scholarships become a big expense.

If there was more of a focus on making these affordable in the first place, the cost for each covered individual would go down for taxpayers. This would free up the budget to expand coverage and offer more quality assistance in other places. Instead, it’s just a reactive policy of paying whatever the bill is when someone does qualify. This creates pressure to restrict who qualifies and what’s covered to keep prices down, while hospitals and colleges get away with charging absurd amounts since the beneficiary doesn’t feel the cost individually.

About 6 in 10 Americans say personal choices are a “major factor” in why people remain in poverty, while just under half say unfair systems are a major factor and about 4 in 10 blame lack of government support.

I think a lot of people in the comments are acting as if there is only one cause, and individual choices cannot be it because it doesn’t account for everything. Admittedly, the headline does frame it as if people believe it is the sole cause, rather than just the most popular. Personally, I would say both personal choices and unfair systems are major factors.

For lack of Government support, I am not sure how I would answer. The government actually does spend a lot on assistance for the poor relative to other countries, but I believe it is not done so efficiently to lift people out of poverty. It is very reactive and focuses on treating symptoms of core issues, so you end up with a lot of people in a constant state of being just barely able to keep their head above the water. It’s largely half measures that end up with worse outcomes and being more expensive in the long run than proper investment into making things better would be.