What exactly were we talking about again? OP seemed to be saying "cops and the BBC don't care about child abusers, therefore hate speech isn't a real problem," which...seems to be missing several critical links.
I think they're trying to say that "hate speech" was invented by a hypocritical government to control people and it's not a real concern for regular folks, but that's obviously not true; it was born out of civil rights campaigns in the '50s and (eventually) adopted by governments due to popular demand.
Yes, I expected to see something about that. Being from Lincolnshire one of my pet facts is that Lincoln cathedral was the tallest building in the world for over 200 years, until the spire collapsed and wasn't rebuilt.
I want to as well, but annoyingly there are many sites that insist on a "special" character because their strength measure says "low" for the 20 character alphanumeric string I generated %-}
My favorite is when they actually limit what special characters you can use. Must include 1 of x special characters. Why? I always just assume they baked their own password storage and couldn't figure out how to handle the whole set of special characters
Multiple times I've found that this is caused by a web application firewall that is intended to mitigate SQL injection attacks. So they disallow the characters that would commonly be used in those attacks.
On those sites, I generally insert the same fixed uppercase-and-symbol string on my zbase32ed-entropy passwords. Zbase32 tends to produce numbers already, and that combo tends to satisfy the silly sites.
I adopted a retired greyhound about 6 months ago and now walk about 200km a month with her. I used to do a lot of cycling and did lots of thinking on long rides, but after 3 crashes this year I'm now riding a lot less and find myself explaining things out loud to the dog on our walks (particuarly the early morning walk). It helps set me up for the day.
Yes, I think this is how Wordle did the migration to NY Times without losing game history. The original site did a redirect to nytimes.com/something/wordle?data=X where X was the game history. Quite clever, I thought.
I always stick to 2 pages (25 years ~10 jobs) but include the URL of the HTML version of my CV/resume which has the full details of each role. You may need to be creative about how you include the URL... as some recruiters will edit it out if you put it in the header or footer.
Totally agree. The infrastructure is already there. In fact, this is what email was when it was a "program" you ran, rather than a web thing, and all your contacts were real people you knew rather than businesses.
Is there an email client that has or could add social features? Do we need someone to create one?
Maybe try writing a private diary for, say, a year and see what you get. Depending on events you will probably either (a) drift out of the habit after a month or two (b) gain insights into yourself and carry on (c) start to publish selected extracts as a blog/book.
If you become famous then someone will do (c) for you at some point (maybe after you are gone).
I thought the same, but tried it for a month and it didn't work for me. Just as you get two Fridays a week (Tuesday and Friday) it also felt like I had two Mondays (Monday and Thursday). I just ended up hating Thursdays as much or more than Mondays, maybe because I was the only one doing it.
Also, sometimes I need a few days momentum to get something over the line and two days is often not enough. Anyway, just my 2p, more to the point I would totally jump at the chance to have a 4 day week permanently.
In 40 years I have only ever put the start and end year of each item on my resume. I guess this dates to when most jobs / education lasted multiple years. But I've stuck with it and no-one has ever questioned it.
The couple of jobs I have had which were less than one year spanned a year-end so it never looked odd.
When I am reviewing incoming resumes small gaps never bother me. Ocassionally I have seen multi-year gaps on interesting resumes and made enquires which always turned out to be completely legitimate career breaks and never lead to us not making offers.
I also only put years on my resume. 15 years into my career and I have never once been asked to elaborate on the exact timeline of my resume. I've taken breaks, some voluntarily and some not so much.
If I ever take a multi-year break I'll just take occasional freelance clients and list it as "consulting".
Obviously this depends on the job and what someone did that landed them in prison, but that shouldn't be an automatic dealbreaker. If they are applying for a job after being released from prison, then they're trying to reintegrate and should be given a fair shake.
If a criminal record is an insurmountable hurdle for a specific role, then it would come up in a background check (which would almost certainly be a requirement for such a job), and the job posting should be explicit about the required clean criminal history. A gap in someone's resume is a pretty worthless signal for whether they've ever been incarcerated.
The current landlord for my shop has several businesses and mentioned that he specifically hires guys getting out of prison (presumably selectively of course). He said that they tend to be grateful and incredibly loyal. He had one on my site doing some setup construction who was very good, worked very hard (including driving 1.5hrs to get here around other work), and did really good work, so can confirm to the extent of that anecdata. It's enough for me to seriously consider it for some roles. People really do need to get a leg up.
Overall, for me hiring, I never considered a resume gap to be a problem, and think that employers who do are literally stupid (sadly, nothing prevents such stupidity). At most, it is a potentially interesting interlude for a person's life and career - what did they do with it?
For OP, I'd definitely recommend rearranging your work situation so you are not so exploited and pressured. Either get your employer to hire more people so you can work on something other than a constant firefighting basis, or leave. It very much looks like the main reason you have not yet "come up with a solution from scratch of my own and provide any value" is because you aren't given a moment to breathe (and your assessment of not adding value is wrong - you are obviously adding value, it's just that you can see some left on the table).
Seems what you need, at almost any cost, is to get perspective.
Good that you see it and here's to your future success!
>they're trying to reintegrate and should be given a fair shake.
Agree. Things were different in the 90s, think peak crime and crime bill. Also, everything wasn't categorized as a felony back then, it seems like felony was limited to much more severe crimes (except drugs crimes), unlike today.
>it would come up in a background check (which would almost certainly be a requirement for such a job)
It would, but background checks cost money and I'm guessing it was a pre-screen method to save. I'm not defending it, I'm just repeating what I was told back then.
>A gap in someone's resume is a pretty worthless signal for whether they've ever been incarcerated.
Unfortunately, people have been doing stupid filters on hiring for decades. It's not a new phenomenon.
Hang on, you are going to penalise someone for taking time off to get clean... presumably on the basis that it's better they come to work hiding the fact that they are high, than that they get help?
Companies do not like risk. That kind of time off has high potential recidivism. If there are 2 candidates then lower risk one wins. Years ago I had HR decline a candidate because of a messy divorce because of perceived risk that I still don't understand.
Yet companies turn a blind eye towards people who abuse alcohol, even throwing parties where people are encouraged to drink alcohol. If your chosen substance is alcohol, you can even be an alcoholic and still keep your job if it doesn't affect performance.
Every hire is full of risks. Nobody knows whether they'll get into a car crash, get cancer, or get shot, or become a substance abuser. Whether they admit their medical history or not. That's because they are human beings. Humans are inherently risky. If you want to eliminate risk, then hiring humans is not for you.
All you do by punishing people who are honest about their history, is to encourage even more people to lie in interviews. Those people are only the tip of the iceberg, and a significant number of people companies hire already have such history but they just keep their mouths shut.
That decline, was that in the public sector, where the security clearance process necessarily digs up that kind of dirt? Or did a private sector company actually investigate a candidate to the terms of their divorce?
Drug tests are pretty common. If they pass that, there's no reason to prevent hiring. It could even be illegal since it's a health condition.
This comment makes me sad. It seems illegal biases in hiring and management practices are rampant. Worker protections seem to be a joke when they're blatantly ignored.
Well... I don't hire people so don't take my comment as proof that any illegal biases are rampant. I was just stating one possible issue an employer might have with career breaks.
> And if they are clean and they presumably have a greater chance of a relapse than other random candidates.
That's skirting uncomfortably close to discriminating based on medical history or a disability, which may be illegal depending on where the employer is located. Cancer survivors have a much higher chance of recurrence than others do of developing cancer for the first time, but most would probably balk at denying a job to someone whose cancer was in remission because there's a higher chance they'd need extended medical leave in the future.
This question applies to all employees. You don't, because it's none of your business if it doesn't affect their work performance. It is entirely possible, and probably likely that some your current employees use drugs. And almost 100% sure that some of them use alcohol, which is stronger and more problematic than many illicit substances. Many companies even throw parties where they give out free booze to the employees! How's that for a double standard?
People have always used drugs, and always will. Pretending to care about substance abuse only when you come across someone who openly admits their history is insane. You are treating the honest people worse than the people who hide their problems from you.
I'm imagining a scenario where a candidate explicitly says that they just had a career break that was due to drug abuse, I think it would be hard to stay objective after that. I don't hire people but that would affect a lot of employers.
The only reason you should care is if you're employing someone in a position where it's dangerous to themselves or others _on the job_ if they're intoxicated, or if it's legally required.
If you're worried about a criminal history, do a background check.
This heuristic would miss people who lie about "consulting" during the time they were in jail and would incorrectly catch someone who was falsely accused and then exonerated.
