Still pretty happy to be rid of her. Be careful out there...
and yet:
Still pretty happy to be rid of her.
You sure about that? Maybe they wanted an easy way to tell people no. Maybe that 1/20 requirement was very heavily weighted compared to the other 19. Maybe they didn't really want to hire anyone at all or wanted to hire a specific person, but had to make a job posting for political/legal/policy reasons...
Either way -- in tech (and for some reason more so than in other industries) -- when it comes to hiring, it's head games all up and down. And generally to an extent far more than can really be called "necessary".
Or in a broader sense: "De-regulated money transfer of any kind" -- for which the costs and risks of a cryptocurrency transaction are an acceptable tradeoff.
But for vanilla payments -- apparently they aren't (and never will be).
for example the central european bank deciding to devalue the euro, making us all 20% poorer in a few short months of 2016
not that bitcoin solves the fluctuation issue, but it's one of the issues that having a central bank gives us the people in our microeconomics when the politicians go all in on macroeconomics
And your answer is: "Well, problem Y. Except it doesn't solve it."
Or am I missing something?
- Expects workers to work compensated overtime during a busy period
- Tracks worker performance
- Expects people to take only their scheduled breaks, and writes them up if they're MIA for 30+ minutes
- Requires workers to show up and work during their scheduled work hours
The humanity! And this poor guy, working a non-specialized manager position attainable with just a high school degree, was only paid a meager $80,000 a year!
More seriously though: the caterwauling over Amazon's cruel and unusual work conditions is getting a little long in the tooth. I had more sympathy when it's peeing in bottles and passing out from heat exhaustion, but if the above is extent of the complaints now...get over it?
It seems we were reading different articles, then. In any case your synopsis provides a very skewed representation of what the article actually said.
Edit: thanks for the feedback
Nothing of the sort. Hopefully you'll stick to your guns.
I assume this myth has been around much longer. Perhaps people know what was being said or written in 90s, 80s, 70s and 60s.
But in spite of all this, in spite of temporary slow downs and slight blips, the broader market just becomes more and more expensive. Numbers that seem to make no sense, or seemed absurd even 5 years ago get blown past.
I don't know what the reason is, but I would love to read a truly satisfactory explanation for this.
There's too many of us. And most of the good land has been taken and/or ruined.