The comment was UP TO 40%.

And that comment is incorrect. Unless we are going with Comcast’s ‘up to 1000mbps’ numbers.

Various studies range from 2 to 40%.

No, they don’t range to 40%, and I detailed why. Don’t repeat 40%, it’s demonstrably false.

That is a wild statistic!

It’s a demonstrably inaccurate number. The study was vague enough that yelling at a partner was included, and much more damning they included the officer even if they were the victim in the situation. It literally paints the victims as domestic abusers!

“40% of law enforcement self identify as domestic abusers” is demonstrably false and is not something that should be repeated.

Ok, breaking this into a separate post:

Have a friend who does hiring for his team. He told me a story of an interview for an entry level IT position. Obviously the interviewee is not expected to have strong skills for the job, it being entry-level. However, the interviewee had worked as an assistant studying wildlife issues, so my friend asked him various things about that. Unfortunately, the interviewee was unable to share what he did there in any real detail, as if he didn’t fully grasp it himself. That lost him the job, because it was clear he wasn’t able to pick up and retain information.

I ask a bunch of questions about the company, working environment, etc and essentially make them pitch the job to me instead of me pitching myself as an employee.

This is a pretty big deal. It’s a sign you are taking it seriously and intend to stay longer than a year when you find out x thing isn’t what you wanted, because you never bothered to ask.

There is also a social side of this, the other participant feels better about you the more they talk. That isn’t an interview-specific thing, simply a ‘how humans work’ thing. But it’s quite pronounced in interviews because very often the interviewer is doing very little talking.

I have also had good experience asking the interviewer at the very end what I could have done better. I don’t think they get asked that question often as they are normally taken aback a bit, and tend to give very solid feedback, which is critical to improving.

One change I made: I put a skill on my resume I’m only somewhat knowledgeable in, a skill that was only tangential to the job. However, the interviewer happened to be knowledgeable on that and naturally focused on it. When it quickly became obvious I wasn’t terribly knowledgeable on that side thing, it resulted in that lack of knowledge being generalized to everything else. I took that side skill off my resume, and only mention it in passing during the interview to make it more clear that everything on the resume is something I’m solid on, but also I have some side skills which are helpful.

At no point didn’t anyone ever say that it was “criminally worse” it has the same sentence

The article very explicitly says exactly that. Murdering someone due to their sex is very explicitly treated differently now, depending on the sex of the victim.

If someone murdered a male due to their sex, would you treat that any differently than someone murdering a female due to their sex?

Then we wrap back around to the start.

Correct. Murdering a male should be just as illegal as murdering a female.

How is it sexist?

Murdering someone due to their sex is not illegal under this law, if the victim is a male. Murdering a male due to their sex should be no less illegal.

If someone murdered a male due to their sex, would you treat that any differently than someone murdering a female due to their sex?

If perpetrators happen to be of one sex more often, then it means the rates of being charged with the relevant crime will be higher for that sex.

A crime must be treated equally, regardless of sex. The law treating one differently based on their sex is itself sexist. As I stated before, this should have been something that applies to all: ‘murdering someone due to their sex is now a hate crime’.

Exactly. This should have been something that applies to all: ‘murdering someone due to their sex is now a hate crime’.

Having the law give more consideration to one sex over another, particularly with something like murder, is quite sexist.

I’m glad we are backing away from that retarded ‘peace plan’.

I’m not an expert on this, but I know it’s common to use things like tranquilizers intended for farm animals.

Is there a source on this?

China barely pays their workers. Hell, they don’t even let you use services in the city you live in unless you were born there. Lots of people travel to the cities seasonally since they are prevented from doing anything reasonable where they work.

It’s not surprising they don’t want to spend, China has engineered an economy where huge portions of the domestic population have no spending power or even a stable place to live.