HighResolutionSleep
No bio...
User ID: 172
HighResolutionSleep
13d ago
As someone who has gotten a first-hand glimpse into certain hiring pipelines, I'm not at all convinced this is the case. Resume stuffing and spamming seems to be a serious issue, one that has even managed to waste some of my non-HR time, and while I didn't get to see what it was like before, it's difficult to imagine that GPT et al hasn't made it worse. I think hiring agents are turning to AI bots for a reason.
I can buy that things have gotten worse faster for job seekers, but I think that ultimately only delays the inevitable. Like any market, while the buyer and seller have a large adversarial component to their relationship, it's ultimate a cooperative exercise because they both want the deal to close. If one party is so disadvantaged that they begin to drop out, both parties lose.
But sure, that doesn't mean that whatever new equilibrium asserts itself has to be a good one. Perhaps the endgame really is AI agents screeching at each other, producing a barely functional market with a large, profiteering new middle man. Maybe that reality is already here, and I'm an old man who needs to get with the times.
I've considered feeding Claude an omnibus resume with all reasonably delineated units of experience on it, and asking to to pare that down for individual listings. But I'm honestly afraid that might be too honest for today's meta, and I'm nowhere near desperate enough for new employment for change that radical.
HighResolutionSleep
13d ago
I suppose that things could get worse than I could (or would want to) imagine before they get better, but at some point things get so pathological that they outright stop working. There are a lot of very powerful parties that have a strong interest in things actually working (both employers and employees alike) and I don't see a whole lot of strong beneficiaries of dysfunction that could resist such motion. It's just that the two major parties who have an interest in the system working well have a typically adversarial relationship, and the problem hasn't yet gotten big enough for them to set aside their differences.
But eventually it will.
If it was mine, I deleted it because on second read I didn't feel like it added a whole lot to the conversation and was essentially navel-gazing. Here it was, just in case:
Need a quick vibe check on this. I don't know if I was reverse Born in Le Wrong Generation, but I feel like the world has always been like this. Or, rather, this is the only world I have ever known. But I'm saying this as someone who came of age in the late 2000s, and am what would be probably considered an oldhead by most youth.
Was I ahead of the awfulness curve? Or does intergenerational understanding really take decades to percolate upward?
It's funny, as I make this post I got an e-mail response from a job application telling me in automated corpospeak that, yes, my resume is being reviewed by an AI bot and yes, I will be ghosted if she doesn't like it.
I applied to this job not because I really need it, but because I am essentially a perfect fit that checks 14/15 boxes on their Preferred Qualifications wish list. Funny to think their unicorn candidate might not even get a screening call because they are too lazy to review resumes.
Or maybe it isn't that. Maybe they won't reach me because they are flooded with resumes that look just like mine, not because there are so many people like me out there, but because so many are using their own AI bot to generate the perfect resume for every job in a 100 mile radius and aren't particularly concerned if they're full of lies.
What a horrifying tragedy of the commons. While it's always been horrible, I'll agree that things have clearly gotten worse. Somethings gotta give. Regulation, or something. In the meantime, maybe this is a good indicator that it's time to abandon any remaining vestige of K-selected application strategy, no matter how promising the outlook.
HighResolutionSleep
13d ago
Well, given that the US has never seemed to have any luck imposing its will over its "vassals", it isn't clear to me that the American empire is or ever was.
HighResolutionSleep
13d ago
If nobody is holding up their end of the agreement, what exactly is the problem? If Europe doesn't want to help the US with its egg shortage, what's the big deal if the US doesn't want to help Europe with their artillery shortage?
What's there to be upset about when everyone's abandoning an unspoken agreement that seemingly never existed to begin with? What exactly is being abandoned and why should I care?
HighResolutionSleep
13d ago
Worse, they often don't even disappear. Sometimes that job keeps getting re-posted every week for another year.
You ring the doorbell and absolutely nothing happens. Nobody answers. The door just continues floating there.
HighResolutionSleep
14d ago
It's not obvious to me that the European states are, or to my knowledge ever were, interested in behaving like good vassals to the American empire.
My mental model of 'vassalage in all but name' is the Warsaw pact. If the USSR asked one of its satellites for eggs, then my understanding is that you'd damn well better have sent them some eggs.
I also can't imagine that the Soviet empire would have tolerated its vassals becoming any shade of friendly with capitalist states.
HighResolutionSleep
19d ago
I would love for women's sexual and reproductive decisions to be none of my business. Unfortunately, I live in a civilization that insists quite forcefully that they are.
HighResolutionSleep
20d ago
It's against my direct interest but I'm curious what a 20% red day would look like in the age of tiktok
we've a good half a generation that's never experienced a major downturn
HighResolutionSleep
22d ago
How's The Motte feel about the coming US recession everyone is assuring me will start this year?
Yes, I know the internet has predicted 25 of the last 1 recessions, and if I search youtube I'll find videos of indicators that have never been wrong predicting a recession within the next six months for the past six years, but it feels like the volume is starting to heat up.
Anyone else getting this or is it just my own personal algonoise? Are we feeling bearish? Should I start stacking cash?
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
For me, it was The Zoe Post. Before GamerGate, The Quinnspiracy, the Five Guys Saga, this is was the event that engaged my now dead and putrefying hobby horse.
People largely don't even remember it anymore, but this guy Erin Gjoni came out exposing Quinn as essentially a serial abuser with receipts. How did our good feminist SJW community react?
They sauntered over to the bookshelf and pulled out the How to Gaslight and Re-traumatize an Abuse Victim Field Manual and threw the whole fucking thing at him. Oh my god, it was absolutely everything and the kitchen sink. It was:
- You're only doing this for attention.
- You're only doing this because you're jealous of her success.
- Don't pretend you didn't enjoy it you little whore.
- You were never in a relationship with her.
- You hate women.
- And so much more!
Erin's biggest mistake was hearing all the rhetoric his community put out about holding abusers accountable and failing to read between the lines that none of it was for men. He's been living in exile from his people ever since.
My biggest mistake was believing anyone would give a shit about this part of the story, or that it would even be remembered. If I was paying closer attention I could have realized this then rather than a decade later. But I guess all of us have things we have to learn the hard way.
Fantasies of gendericide notwithstanding, I think he's talking about the bioterrorism part, which is the part that left me less than sympathetic.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
Yes, I understand how this shell game works. The processes and procedures have been set up such that if I see a gross mismatch of funds and priorities and I get mad, I'm an ignorant rube that doesn't understand how government works. Pretty cool, huh?
Which if you are remotely concerned about fiscal prudence, you don't want FEMA to be able to do.
It seems that the funding and command structure of this government organ has already failed spectacularly. I don't know, I'm pretty stupid, so maybe I'm seeing things.
Here's an idea generated from my simpleton brain: how about we amputate FEMA as government organ and create in its place an organization with a budget and command structure so that when funds are squandered there's someone to hold responsible. Maybe there's reasons beyond my understanding why this isn't possible.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
No, I get it. We've set up the system of procedures such that when something like this happens we're not allowed to get mad at or fire anyone. The only lever we have is a binary vote on election year where candidates can say either yes or no to all government spending or none.
I'm reminded of the edit someone made where it says "A COMPUTER CAN NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR A MANAGEMENT DECISION, PRETTY COOL HUH?" except it's government budgets.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
Alright, so I suppose the answer is actually theoretically infinite. It's possible that we could endlessly shovel money into FEMA, and there could still be no money for hurricanes depending on the charge codes. There is no amount of money that one could see going into FEMA that one could feel safe knowing there's enough for actual natural disasters.
The organization has reached the point where responsibility for budgetary decisions is sufficiently diffused that when something like this happens, it isn't anyone's fault in particular and nobody can be fired because everyone was following orders/procedures. Well, I suppose we can get mad at republicans for not authorizing the right charge code as a part of some monster monster omnibus bill.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
What I'm asking is how much money do we need to shovel into this organization before it starts having enough left over after migrant expenses for hurricane response. The money we're allocating now isn't enough for the hurricane budget after other expenses. How much more money do we need to give before there's enough?
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
How much money does the Federal Emergency Management Agency need to be allocated before it starts having some left over with which to manage federal emergencies?
HighResolutionSleep
6mo ago
This is an interesting way to consider the problem of arguing to normies why socialism/communism is bad. While I agree that whipping out a supply-demand curve probably isn't the best way of doing it, I'm not sure that offering an alternative to capitalism is right either. I think it's more about knocking out a few load-bearing beliefs about how the capitalist world actually works and what it would looks like with the ultra wealthy gone, starting with the the basic premise of your statement:
-
The rich, not even the uber wealthy, "horde wealth" in any way that actually matters. If Jeff Bezos has $100 billion in calculated net worth, that does not mean that he's sitting on a hundred billion-dollar vaults full of gold, cars, cures for cancer, and unobtanium. If you ate the rich, you wouldn't get any of these things—you'd get a millionth owning stake in a yacht. How does this change your life? If you got rid of all those private jets, the commercial ones, the one that proletarians like you or I fly on, will still be producing a lion's share of transport emissions.
-
Those CEOs don't really make all that much money. If you ate them all, the workers under them might see their wages increase by a few cents per hour. Who is going to make the choices now? Imagine just how dumb the people you've worked alongside have been, and those are (ostensibly) the people some would like to see in charge. For every boneheaded decision some suit makes, how much worse do you think it could get with that moron Joey lead cashier in charge? Susan from the Department of Agriculture?
-
Capitalism doesn't actually say anything about who gets to consume how much. You can do all kinds of wonderful and terrible consumptive redistribution schemes and as long as the capital remains privately owned, it's still capitalism. You don't have to have factories and farms ran by state bureaucrats or line workers to do MMT and give everyone free money. These approaches have the same costs and problems regardless if who is ultimately in charge of organizing production. During COVID we gave a bunch of money to everyone in perhaps the most direct way possible and it made you poorer. How would this change if the state were in charge of the factories?
-
Capitalism isn't when the government doesn't do things, and the less things it does, the more capitalister it is. The government can still do stuff under capitalism, but because capital is almost always being used near to its maximum extent at any given time (this isn't a feature unique to capitalism, but history suggest that it does it better), the way the government does stuff almost always takes the form of redirecting consumption into production. It can do this through taxes, and it can also do this by printing money. Since the wealthy actually have a pretty tiny overall consumptive footprint, there's actually very little consumption that can be redirected away from them. So it actually winds up getting largely redirected away from you, because you outnumber the wealthy. Getting you to use paper instead of plastic actually does help the environment more than stopping a short-haul private flight because it's compounded by ten million.
-
Capitalism isn't when private companies get to do whatever they want, and the more people they kill, the more capitalism it is. In fact, some famous capitalists have even argued that capitalism simply cannot be done without a state setting the stage for a market to operate such as setting basic rules and enforcing contracts. It may be possible to run a small scale food market when your brother could avenge your death if you were sold tainted bread, but could be difficult to imagine a global food market without quality controls. Capitalism doesn't say you can't regulate negative externalities, and some would even say you can't really do capitalism without it.
-
Your job doesn't suck to make fat cats rich. The reason your job sucks is because it was optimized to suck the life out of you in order to deliver maximum value to the customer, who does not care how much your job sucks. When you go to the grocery store, which scrapes about 2% off the total cost of the prices you complain about, you do not care how badly those jobs suck to keep the prices low enough to keep you coming back. You do not care how much the farmer's job sucks, or the truck driver's job sucks, or the grocer's job sucks, and they don't care how much yours sucks. Rich suits get rewarded only for coming up with new and innovative ways for you to not care how much other people's jobs suck, and you always reward their ingenuity.
You'd probably have to adjust the verbiage to your audience, but I think the basic arguments above attack some of the basic perceptions about how the world works that underpin normie anti-capitalist sentiment. Advanced anti-capitalist sentiment is almost always a very different creature and would need to be contended with very differently.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
They stupidly believed the lie that nobody would change their sex just for practical reasons. They will find out soon enough that human opportunism knows no bounds, and they'll eventually abolish sex-based privileges too.
The emerging problem with this is the inevitable backlash. The Culture style gender equality can't happen, because if too many men take up the offer to become women because they are treated better it will be declared not fair and do over.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
I confident you would be just as horrified if I said that men should also be stoned if they say they'd be fine with another kid and then dipped out when one actually happened.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
Wait, so if she is on birth control but gets pregnant anyway and decides not to have an abortion, I should still hate her?
If that's what she said she'd do in the event of an unexpected pregnancy, yep. Stone her. The common blue tribe position is that partners need to communicate on this issues, but it's also a common blue tribe position that women can change their minds about these things whenever they want, especially when a pregnancy actually happens. Communications mean nothing if they don't bind.
In the event nothing was said beforehand, I'm willing to call them both morons and move on. She's the bigger moron considering she has the power, but if it ever came to pass that this were the biggest injustice in the way we adjudicate these matters I'd consider that a virtually unconditional win for any semblance of balance between men and women.
Why is it so important to you that we make this a black and white issue where she is pure evil and deserves no compassion at all?
Because if we're going to offer men cultural and social protection in lieu of legal protection from the abuse of women's reproductive power, these protections need to bite. It can't just be like, well you shouldn't do it, but if you do it nothing bad happens to you, oh well.
I am trying to understand your position. You keep changing the terms
Please highlight where I have "changed the terms" in such a way that gave you the impression that I want to force women to have abortions like some kind of deranged psychopath.
You really do seem to basically want to punish women for having the final say in reproductive decisions.
I want to punish women for abusing this final say like we punish cheaters.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
If you're talking about a woman who deliberately goes off birth control despite knowing her husband doesn't want a baby, I agree, that sucks, and he's be justified in considering that a betrayal and leaving her
Ok cool, that's way more than most would offer, but it also needs to be the case where the pregnancy is a true accident, and all other cases sans the truly exotic. Not only in the most egregious and difficult to prove case.
I would certainly sympathize with him more than with her in that case, though I wouldn't join in the public shaming and stoning you seem to want.
You shouldn't sympathize with her at all, and the social stoning is the point. People should be socially deterred from cheating on their spouses and bringing children into that family that aren't fully wanted.
you haven't described a "cultural problem" other than that you think it's unfair that men can't either force or forbid women to have abortions.
This bad faith interpretation of my words can talk to my hand. You're welcome to bring a real objection to my position forward if you'd like.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
By "abuse of power" are you talking about a woman who baby-traps an unwilling man with a surprise pregnancy
Any time a woman in a marriage decides to go and have a baby without mutual consent. Sure, for reasons of bodily autonomy or whatever she can still choose to betray the privileged trust of marriage and stab him in the back, but the cultural and social consequences for exercising this choice need to be dire.
As for your edge cases, no, the most extreme and unlikely scenarios you can imagine are not societal problems.
Let's keep things on rails: I said that the broader reaction to it is a cultural problem, which is anything but an "edge case". Not the anomalous event itself.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
I can't say I have seen your scenario often enough to say who's right about frequency of reactions
I'm willing to agree to disagree on this point. Your reaction provides a good enough working example.
my opinion if an otherwise stable marriage ended because she suddenly decided she wants a child and he doesn't would be "I'm sorry, that sucks" to both parties.
Right, and I'm saying that's not good enough and proves you're unserious about protecting men from women's disproportionate reproductive power. Your reaction to this abuse of power needs to not be "oopsies, oh well shit happens", but rather, "you suck, fuck you".
As for risk and choice, it's obviously a risk for both parties.
No, it is a choice for women. A baby does not fall out of a woman's uterus immediately after sex. It is the finished product of a long and in this day and age deliberate process, that only one party has any official control over. This reality simply cannot be rhetorically smoothed over and ignored.
(And if "he said no to the sex" - are you talking about a man being raped by a woman and having to pay child support? I guess that has happened a time or two. About as often as a woman having a rapist's baby and having to share custody, perhaps.)
Sure, and notice how that the cavalry arrived for one of these people and not the other. This is a cultural problem.
My memory of this is that the general feeling was that, yeah, things are really bad right now because of the financial crisis, but things will recover and go back to normal. Then they never did.
More options
Context Copy link