This is a fancy way of saying that Portuguese, unlike English, really doesn't like "tb" occurring together with no vowel in between, so people added one! (In other words that have a longer history you sometimes don't have the vowel written, but it's commonly still spoken, like advogado /a.d͡ʒi.voˈɡa.du/ 'lawyer', from Latin advocatus. IPA again from Wiktionary.)
How often does that happen though? I'm straight and I don't recall ever being asked about my family or love life in a job interview. Not that I'd keep it secret if asked, but why the hell would they be asking?
Yeah I'm also curious. When I was at Google there were a list of things you were never supposed to ask a candidate because that's Super Illegal(TM) and could expose the company to lawsuits. That included sexual orientation and marriage status. That was more than ten years ago, I'd expect most IT companies would do the same by now, at least in the US.
I've never been asked this sort of question at a large company. Mostly "startups" (scare quotes because they're not Silicon Valley startups; think Orlando or Chicago instead).
They also tend to ask a lot about things that might sound innocuous, like hobbies.
If I was being stupidly honest, I could talk about my involvement in the furry community. Most furries (~80%) are LGBTQ (versus ~3% to 5% of the base population).
Instead, I make vague allusions to being a gamer. (I play video games less than anyone I know, but it's not zero, so that's still technically true.)
The annoying part is that you are essentially cornered, being either LGBTQ and/or furry is a large part of your identity and it is hard to have to divorce yourself from that for the purpose of getting hired. Companies really need to get over this desire to know more about the private lives of their employees during the run-up to being hired than they are willing to disclose about their own affairs (such as: financial health of the company, maturity of leadership, attitude to quality of life issues, health care and so on).
There are ways to ask those without being illegal and these are employed quite frequently. Essentially any kind of probing into someone's private life should be off-limits.
> There are ways to ask those without being illegal
Strictly speaking, its not illegal to ask the question. However, because it is illegal to base hiring decisions on it, asking the question is legally dangerous in two ways:
(1) Asking the question in an employment interview is evidence which can tend to support that you intended to use it in a hiring decision, and
(2) The interviewee answering the question is evidence that you had the information, and thus the opportunity to use it in a hiring decision.
As a result, the usual legal advice is to strictly avoid asking the question: you can’t legally use the response, and by asking it you make yourself unnecessarily vulnerable. The idea that it is illegal to ask the question is probably a consequence of this.
I'm far more experienced with React function components than with class components, so I'm curious, what are some of the problems with class components and how did hooks solve them?
Probably not, but if you ever watch a cycling race with commentary on TV then you’ll hear it used. I’d guess since they expanded out from just cycling it’s probably not super unusual for people to come across them first though.
Ideally we'd wait until we have evidence of who did it and what their motivations are, rather than just jumping to whichever conclusion fits our existing biases.
On the other hand, we don't live in an ideal world. If it is terrorism, then the perpetrators have an interest in avoiding capture so there's probabilities of false negatives as well as false positives.
We know that people who espouse terrorism not only fantasize but produce instructional materials on this sort of thing, so we should admit admit it as a possibility and try to estimate the probability of it being a factor here.
On the other hand, I have a loved one who struggled with suicidal thoughts for years and told me that if they'd lived somewhere like Switzerland where euthanasia is easily accessible, they would almost certainly have used it. Now they're no longer suicidal and are very happy that they're still alive (as am I!)
That's the kind of personal experience that makes me feel much less in favour of legalisation.
It's very different in Belgium for non-terminal patients, quoting Pieter:
"I am, finally, so glad I never quit Belgium. This country allows for death on demand, for patients who are terminal or have a bad enough quality of life.
*It takes three doctors and a psychiatrist, in the second case, and four weeks' waiting period.* In the first case, it takes one doctor's opinion."
> I’d rather there be some cases of coercion than people who want to die being denied the chance.
No-one is "denied the chance" to die if they wait long enough and I'd much rather let a few more people die natural deaths if the alternative is coercing people into suicide.
I used to be very much in favour of legalised euthanasia but I'm a lot less certain after reading about what it's actually looking like in practice in Canada - where the results seem horrifying.
> after reading about what it's actually looking like in practice in Canada - where the results seem horrifying.
I live in a state (W.Australia) with legal assisted death and I have no specific opinion on what is actually happening in Canada (a peer Commonwealth country) .. but I can see that much of what there is to read on the matter is strongly bent toward the worst possible presentation.
Eg: When I read horrified accounts of social workers recommending death to (otherwise) healthy disabled people I too am shocked .. and then I read elsewhere that this is the isolated practice of individuals whose behaviour is being hauled over the coals at tribunal hearings into "this is how not to do this".
It's a charged issue and no system can ever be perfect. The question for Canada is how much effort is going into oversight and keeping things ethical.
Okay, I'm not Canadian, and I'm not going to pretend to be intimately familiar with how things work there. But then I read appalling anecdotes like this one:
> “I don’t want to die but I don’t want to be homeless more than I don’t want to die,” shared Farsoud.
One doctor has already signed off on his euthanasia and he only needs one more.
I don't know how common this kind of story is but it shouldn't be ignored - and it's the exact kind of thing that all those scary right wing monsters warned would happen if we didn't listen to them.
The fact that such people exist is unsurprising - and it concerns me.
The fact that one doctor has confirmed he meets one (of several) criteria (which is physical suffering due to a disability that is intolerable and cannot be relieved) is a factoid.
At this point he has not been approved, and in the state I live in, on the face of the article, would not be approved, at the very least not without the intervention of counseling and effective welfare assistance.
You're correct, this is the exact kind of story scary right wing monsters amplify and use to suggest that any day now we'll be stacking the corpes of the homeless in carts and rolling them off to the landfill.
I'm guessing their endgame here is improve support for the homeless?
> You're correct, this is the exact kind of story scary right wing monsters amplify and use to suggest that any day now we'll be stacking the corpes of the homeless in carts and rolling them off to the landfill.
I don't think this issue has been politicized yet (at least in the US). Has it been politicized in Canada or something?
Preamble: I read a lot "news media" from about the globe - I'm more interested in substance than culture war type material.
My perhaps incorrect view from afar (Australia) is that a great many events in Canada get politicized in the US press with the cooperation of some Canadians with less mainstream views.
Canadian Health Care is often smeared (like the UK NHS) as it would otherwise serve to shaow that better than "Obamacare" is feasible, etc.
> and then I read elsewhere that this is the isolated practice of individuals whose behaviour is being hauled over the coals at tribunal hearings into "this is how not to do this".
Ahh yes, it's only a couple of bad apples and not the system in place that's enabling their behavior
