Using the same logic, shouldn't a proclaimed top-notch company be able to embrace engineers w/ less than stellar skills? Who may have some "messiness" in how they work?
While I get why asking to view a codebase could come across as sounding like someone only wants to work on neat and tidy solutions, I don't hear it this way.
It's very normal and human to have preferences. It's OK for a prospective employee to ask questions about the working environment. There are a number of valid reasons to try and gain more in-depth signal on technical aspects of the company that don't mean someone is a snowflake.
There are a lot of ways to gauge this kind of signal without viewing a proprietary codebase, as others have mentioned in this thread. The questions posed in the comment you replied to are some great examples of how to do this - I think these get to the core of the matter more effectively than looking at code.
> shouldn't a proclaimed top-notch company be able to embrace engineers w/ less than stellar skills?
The relationship is that the employee works for the company, not the other way around. The company isn't obligated to employ anyone who doesn't meet their needs.
And is a worker obligated to work at a company that doesn't meet their (the worker's) needs?
I do not see the employer-employee relationship as a one-way street and would refuse to work at a company with this kind of orientation. It has never been a problem to find organizations with a different orientation.
There exists no axiom that says an employee is obligated to work at a company. For workers at a sufficient level of skill, resources, and privileges, the working relationship at a core level is centralized on the needs for both entities; there is a mutuality in regards to getting needs met.
Of course there are organizations that basically exploit and abuse their employees; many of us have the privilege and experience to be discerning such that we can completely avoid companies like that. For lesser-paying jobs, a worker's needs are still completely valid and almost always taken into consideration by both parties.
For instance, we usually require a paycheck, and we often have well-defined, quantitative needs around this. I am not going to work somewhere that pays me $0.15 per hour, to use an extreme edge case.
Some other common employee needs:
* to work somewhere with a good work-life balance.
* challenging and non-tedious work
* to be around people who aren't sociopaths.
* to work at an organization that isn't paralyzed by micro-managing pseudoprocesses.
* to work at place that doesn't require the installation of spyware or middle-managementware on our devices.
The list goes on.
How about you? Do you not have any needs in regards to where and how you are employed?
While I completely agree with the point about exploring psychedelic medicine with support, I need to counter by naming that a lot of medical professionals may not be well informed and many are categorically mis-informed.
Please find a guide or therapist who has been formally trained in working with psychedelics, and who works closely with medical doctor if you have any medical concerns or questions. Or work directly with an MD if and only if that MD has had formal training with psychedelics.
The conventional career tracks in western mental health (MFT, Psy.D, licensed psychiatrist or psychologist) do not give someone authority about psychedelic therapy. These backgrounds can be a part of a facilitators work, but they also need formal training in psychedelic therapy.
These people exist and our numbers are growing steadily.
there’s absolutely no reason, for example, as to why unitive consciousness as described in some Hindu philosophies would be in contradiction with our experience of cognition originating entirely within a chemical framework of understanding reality.
Its rather surprising to me that you're asking this in a thread about the strongest evidence we have for cognition being biochemical.
The evidence is that action of psychoactive drugs, especially psychedelics and anaesthetics. We have compounds that we have studied that actions of and they act on neurons and their networks to alter or eliminate cognition.
I understand there is data that supports this theory; I wasn’t aware that it is definitive nor how easily it could be reproduced.
Before it was edited, your original statement framed certainty about cognition originating in chemistry as a personal belief. Which isn’t a scientific statement.
I don't believe I edited the comment that you're replying to.
Edit: as a side note, general anesthesia is used hundreds or thousands of times daily and it always eliminates or reduces cognition. That's literally the whole purpose of using it
everything on my apple computer is also backed up in the cloud. if something untoward were to happen to the machine, I would also be up and running in 5 mins or so after purchasing a new one. so I am not personally sure what you mean by saying that google shines in this dept. I don’t see any difference.
also, not sure if you meant this literally — would you please consider taking any destroyed computers to electronics recycling instead of throwing in the trash, if at all possible based on your location? these things contain stuff that’s not really desirable to go into landfills - heavy metals, batteries, etc
closed eye fractals can happen with either MDMA or ketamine alone, and they synergize with each other to create stronger effects.
so the presence of closed eye visuals on a mixture containing at least MDMA and ketamine would not in any way suggest that it necessarily contains any 2C-B.
This is very likely false; a myth perpetuated from the war on drugs combined with people taking unknown, untested substances in recreational settings.
If they experienced serotonin syndrome it was quite easy to just point at the reported seratonergic substance that had been ingested (and which also may not have been present at all, depending on the source).
The worst cases are likely from interplay with other medications or simply overheating.
However, the same is repeated in literature about plain methamphetamine, not just methylene-dioxy-methamphetamine, so I would not entirely trust the current state of science on this.
It’s repeated for lots of medications where it could never happen. SS is widely misunderstood even in the medical community.
I trust specific doctors who specialize in psychedelic medicine and psychiatry who have deep understanding of the metabolic pathways and pharmacokinetics of these substances.
While I get why asking to view a codebase could come across as sounding like someone only wants to work on neat and tidy solutions, I don't hear it this way.
It's very normal and human to have preferences. It's OK for a prospective employee to ask questions about the working environment. There are a number of valid reasons to try and gain more in-depth signal on technical aspects of the company that don't mean someone is a snowflake.
There are a lot of ways to gauge this kind of signal without viewing a proprietary codebase, as others have mentioned in this thread. The questions posed in the comment you replied to are some great examples of how to do this - I think these get to the core of the matter more effectively than looking at code.