As a person who experienced both the symptoms and the treatment in the US I can assure you that it’s better to receive band-aid treatment than nothing at all.
Treatments could be—and should be—better, but comparing US to countries where psychological issues are being ignored and stigmatized is not to the benefit of the latter.
To my knowledge all VST plugins can be used on Linux (via Wine). Is that not the case? Here is a page that describes the process of using a single Wine instance to wrap all VSTs in the system: https://z-uo.medium.com/vst-and-vst3-on-linux-mint-20-with-l...
There could possibly be a clearer name for this effort, since both Reaper and Bitwig run on Linux natively and are top notch DAWs (actual DAWs, not VST plugins). Plus VCV Rack, which is not technically a DAW but close.
Linux native VST plugins is a way more precise description. DAW is a very specific software category. It's like calling Prettier extension for VSCode an IDE.
Edit: seems like both linuxvst.com and linuxvst.org are available.
It should be already packaged in some Linux distros, but building and installation are straightforward. Basically it installs some libraries and an executable which once called will convert a Windows plugin in .dll form to a Linux+WINE loadable .so library.
You install a windows plugin through WINE the usual way: setup.exe etc (or just drop the dll if that's the way it is distributed), then once it is installed, call yabridgectl adding the path of the new plugin dll, then call yabridgectl again but this time adding the option to convert plugins (going from memory, can't test it here), then you'll have the Linux loadable .so library in the same path of the windows one. now just add the same place to your Linux DAW plugins path and it will automatically see and load the converted plugins. If you install a new windows plugin, just repeat the two above steps.
One nice and often overlooked feature of loading plugins through the WINE compatibility layer is that many 15+ years old still great plugins that stopped working on Windows ages ago now are perfectly usable again on Linux, with the only problem of having to work with a much smaller GUI since they were created when 1024x768 or smaller desktops were a thing, so they can appear stamp sized on today's monitors, but size aside they work fine.
Honestly, at this point I stopped making strong conclusions about candidates based on a single interview. I won't recommend to hire but also won't judge their abilities overall. Interviews can be very stressful, candidates overthink and often get fixated on a random solution they think the interviewer expects, etc.
I had several odd experiences myself in the past, as a candidate. The funniest one was when I interviewed at a prestigious company I thought was hiring only top talent. I spent an hour trying to come up with the most efficient Sudoku solver, got completely stuck on some arbitrary algorithm that I came up with on the spot. It wasn't a "circle pattern" but close to that. Wanted to impress the interviewer and also did not sleep the night before overthinking the process.
I have the same experience. Interviews are very time consuming (prep 30 min, interview 1h, fill out the feedback form 30m-1h), and having several interviews each week means I spend ~1 day weekly on something that's not going to benefit me directly in any way (excluding the benefit of potentially working with good engineers I helped hiring).
So unless the incentives change, I don't see this process improving in big tech.
Yes exactly, the interview itself is a bit less than half of the work surprisingly and then you do need a real break after all of that very intense concentration anyways. 1 interview = roughly half a day gone, that's what I've experienced.
And then it's indeed never valued inside the company, worse than that, it might be counted against you since you will achieve less in your team where all the evaluation will take place...
I really don't understand why companies don't value engineers capable of conducting interviews because it's really not an easy task, you need much better than average interpersonal skills and much better than average tech knowledge as well.
Agreed. I mostly conduct system design interviews which already have a smaller pool of interviewers at my company. This contribution has been included exactly zero times in the countless review cycles I went through.
But that's exactly what it is then: a check mark. I can interview dozens of candidates, and then add a total count to my self review. There is no incentive to do a good job (how would that even be evaluated?..).
Depends on the company. At my current workplace, the candidate is given an option to provide feedback at the end (either through a form or an email), and all interviewers are also required to submit written notes on how everything went down.
Given that a candidate at the onsite will get interviewed by 4-5 people, with each of them providing a very detailed set of notes, it would be fairly trivial to smell out a misbehaving interviewer, if one cared to do so. What actually happens at the end of the day with those notes and candidate feedback, that’s the part i am not sure about. Once they get submitted to the hiring committee (or HR), it is out of my hands.
But just saying, they do have ways of evaluating it, just on a less precise scale and more on a “bad/good enough/amazing” scale. With only the “bad” outcome raising any eyebrows/having any meaningful effect, and with 99% of them getting the “good enough”/“amazing” ratings. And how often the signal for that “bad” rating gets caught is also not something I know much about.
P.S. Your assessments and notes are all preserved in the centralized hub, so you (and some others) can always access them later as well. And, sometimes, you indeed have people checking them out for assessment or such. Especially during your first couple interviews, you have a person supervising you and taking notes in parallel as well, and then you discuss them and they give you improvement suggestions and such.
I am sure what you are describing is being tracked at my company. The concern with misaligned incentives I have is that there is a vast gap between conducting a passable interview in terms of engaging with the candidate and actually investing yourself in the process. So it's not really about being a bad interviewer (as in rude, openly biased, etc) but about having the energy to do the best job you can - which all candidates deserve IMO.
Ha, it's like saying there are no gay people in Saudi Arabia. If having psychological issues is extremely stigmatized by the society don't expect the stats to reflect reality in any trustworthy sense.
To play devil's advocate: sounds like a "bona fide articulable suspicion of a crime" doesn't necessarily mean there is a documented reason for the release of records that has been authorized by a judge. Wouldn't that leave too much space for abuse?
Yeah, it could. People can also lie on affidavits for warrants, but it does leave more of a paper trail to catch the guy. Honestly I don't think I'd be against a warrant requirement, but I also think we need a way to speed up the warrant process a _lot_. Right now it often involves a 1 hour + drive to a magistrates office, 30-45 minutes of filling out paperwork by hand, plus the hearing, getting the actual warrant printed+signed+logged, then 1 hour + drive back to where you need to be. I think you'd see less pushback of warrants in general if it leveraged the technology we have. We should absolutely be able to file an affidavit electronically, facetime a magistrate, and get a warrant approved/denied that way.
But again, getting records from the pharmacy isn't really the issue. The government already has the records of the doctor that "wrote" the prescription. All the pharmacy is giving you is the physical copy of the record + data of who picked it up.
Without a warrant requirement, all patients collectively pay their privacy away without knowing it. Is the collective benefit worth it? (Remember, the "benefit" is the additional harm the government prevents when not constrained by a default warrant requirement, not the total harm the government prevents with and without getting warrants.)
Our entire system is built around the fundamentally American belief that adults need to obtain permission to consume anything that isn't Alcohol or Tobacco (Unless you're an Indian living on a reservation where alcohol has been banned as well).
American pharmacies take special care to put our full names along with our doctors names and phone numbers just to make sure that nobody gets away with possessing drugs that the aren't allowed to have.
A big country like Iran banning alcohol seems unimaginable until you remember that for whatever reason alcohol is the only thing a big country like America hasn't banned.
Warrants are regularly issued based on electronic filings and phone conferences are they not? Everyone spent an entire year plus doing almost all court processes entirely online/over zoom.
AFAIK attacks on sufficiently important private infra is also considered an attack on the state. There is no meaningful difference, other than the scale of the attack and the importance of that infra.
The main defining factor in how the state responds to such an attack is whether escalation is in the interest of the victim. E.g. recent attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea.
Treatments could be—and should be—better, but comparing US to countries where psychological issues are being ignored and stigmatized is not to the benefit of the latter.