> me: It's more of a "I can't believe you're asking me that."
> interviewer: Great, we find that candidates who can't get this right don't do well here.
> me: ...
Shit attitude from that candidate, considering the interviewer is completely correct. I wouldn't hire them since they are obviously a problem employee.
For those that don't know, Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test. That's why this candidate failed and didn't get the job.
> Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test
The amount of (highly credentialed) interviewees that can't 0-shot a correct and fully functional fizzbuzz is also way higher than a lot of people would think. That's where the attitude part also comes in.
"turn into" is referring to the mask off nature of it all. Before, they might be a little embarrassed or pretend they still stand for those principles. But all I've seen are conservatives explaining why it might be technically allowed or straight up cheering it on.
Direct File did have a lot of limitations, so I assume when they say “eligible taxpayers” that’s the total number of people that could have used Direct File, which is much less than 100% of taxpayers. Even then, I’d assume more than 10 million people in the U.S. have very simple tax returns.
Yes, and also, there's a difference between Free File and Direct File, and the article kind of switches between referring to the two.
Free file: government partners with private companies to offer free tax returns through their software for low income people. It's suspected a lot of people don't know about it, and just use the paid versions of filing software because you have to start the process on IRS.gov and dark patterns were employed by the snakes at Intuit et al. Hence "just 3%". Been around for decades.
Direct file: New program (since 2024) for eligible people to file directly for free with the IRS, no third party tax software middleman. Only half the states are eligible, income criteria, simple taxes only. 300,000 touted as a bigger number because it's a very new program.
A corporation, without government, cannot imprison you or conduct violence so it is infinitely better in that scenario.
If it’s not obvious to you, you have been extremely privileged to be part of the a few percentage who haven’t had to live under horrible governments and their worst experience is having to deal with Comcast.
A corporation in the absence of a strong government absolutely can imprison you and use violence, because nobody would be there to stop them. The richest corporations would be the ones who could afford the most weapons, and they would therefore be able to do whatever they want. Even if you imagine this weak government to still somehow maintain a monopoly on violence, a small weak government would be easily corrupted by the richer corporations.
A big government can also be corrupted by big corporations bigly too. Not at all clear there's a correlation there or which way there is. In fact there's more incentive and larger attack vector to corrupt a big and powerful government. It appears that is a separate matter entirely.
There is a big difference still. For a corporation to become rich and powerful in an anarchical environment as you describe, they have to provide good and services that people voluntarily choose to pay for, so they have to appease the people, or at least a large subset of them, directly to retain the power. For a big evil government that is not the case at all. Look at all the Communist/Socialist/Islamist disasters. They are impossible to vote out.
Corrupting a big government is much more expensive. Giving power from the government to the corporations just shifts the incentive from corrupting governments to corrupting other corporations. Want tariffs on goods you produce? Bribe a few top people from the biggest shipping companies (or even just buy that as a service, they'd probably sell it). I'd say that's much easier than corrupting a democratic government that has to be at least somewhat transparent in its decisions.
> so they have to appease the people, or at least a large subset of them, directly to retain the power.
The biggest corporations would not operate in an industry with a lot of competition, the biggest companies are the ones that can get a near monopoly on some good. Without a strong government to break up monopolies, it wouldn't matter what people think about the companies, they'd still have to buy. Even if that doesn't work, a simple rebranding and a purchase of a propaganda campaign from the biggest media corps will do the trick. Even if the corps in control change occasionally, the people behind them probably don't change as much. The same group of the wealthiest people would likely own many of the corps, so it wouldn't matter to them which one is in control, as they all serve their interests.
Right, a corporation becomes a contractor to government and _then_ they imprison you, cut corners on the contract, and pocket the difference. If it's unclear what I mean, look up the prison-industrial complex.
Exactly this, every time I see kafka or similar its a web of 10M microprocesses that take more time in invocation alone than if you just ran the program in one go.
reply