Do you not know what the word "like" means?
Hint: it doesn't mean "exactly named".
Do you not know what the word "like" means?
Hint: it doesn't mean "exactly named".
It's a company trying to sell their assessment products that are more marketable the higher the number they manage to produce out of their "study". Extrapolating "36,000 engineering students from IT related branches of over 500 colleges" to " engineers in the country" seems a little generous as well. Most of the students in IT related branches I've met are also really crap at programming - because they aren't actually doing programming or because they are first years who haven't managed to learn anything yet.
That said most of the people I have interviewed for programming positions I would put in the "can't program" category too. Not 95%, but probably 60%.
And I would expect the Indian IT education system to have more than its fair share of really bad "colleges" compared with say the US (and note that the US has things like "ITT Technical Institute"). It's a bigger country population wise with worse infrastructure and government oversight. The good programmers seem far more likely to go and get a job overseas than they do to take up an academic career in an Indian college...
It's the most simple problem America has to fix.
Remove the random selection component. Grant the places to the those offering the highest salaries - that is the capitalist way of allocating resources, after all, those willing to pay the most for them get to use them.
There are X places. Companies can ask for as many places as they want, but must specify the minimum salary they will pay to the person who fills the position. The highest X get the places. That the promised salaries are met by the actual salaries is checked at intervals.
Simple. No need for the government to decide which categories of workers are required - the market will sort it out.
Republicans should love it. The government still decides the value of X, so Democrats can be happy too.
Why do you think that equality means equality of outcome? Rather than say equality of opportunity - which is certainly compatible with a meritocratic society, it could be argued it is essential to one.
Are you really so attached to the government teat that you think the only way America could have been or be great is due to government action?
There are lots of "real job"s that pay a wage and not a salary and that have bursts of overtime.
There are lots of jobs that pay and a salary and have bonuses. There are lots of real jobs with a commission component.
Lots of people pay too much in withholding taxes so there's a month with an increase in "income" when they get their tax refund if they just counted money arriving in the bank account.
But if you're shopping somewhere that doesn't charge less for cash transactions than they do for cards, you'd be silly to not use a card that doesn't cost you anything directly (no fee and always paying it off before interest accrues) but gives you some tiny bit back. Might as well get a tiny slice of that action.
The extra cost is already baked in the prices, you as one individual not using a card with some sort of cashback type thing isn't going to change anything.
> Its a negative feedback loop, however some will defend it to the death because they dont see its coming out of their pockets. I almost have to admire the Machiavellian brilliance of getting people to defend being ripped off.
For those who want the convenience (and protection against loss) of a credit card having a system which charges some of the cost of that system to others, say those using cash and thus not having any CC benefits but still paying higher prices due to the CC fees being baked into normal prices, seems like they are on the good side of some of that ripping off.
> Now here in the UK, the EU imposed a maximum limit that banks can charge merchants..
You'll be free of that oppression in a couple of years, right?
Just how big are your hands?
I made no claim about it being "ok" or "logical". Just that there's a potential world view in which it is internally consistent.
I also made no mention of sexuality being "something that they should feel ashamed of". There are many things that make me uncomfortable about which I feel no shame.
Sex is outside the everyday experience of most people, particularly for children. If sex is not outside the daily experience of a child then that is a problem. Anyway the point is that repressing sexuality and glorifying violence results in some very weird social dynamics, many of them bad.
You may not have noticed but "want their child to do it later" isn't talking about the present.
That is not the point, you said you found it curious and odd not that you found it "bad". I only presented some reasons I consider plausible as to why it is like that not reasons for why that is good or bad. I don't have to think something is good to try to explain it.
Sex is only uncomfortable to talk about because they are told not to talk about it. There are plenty of places in the world that are much more sexually liberated than the US. Most sexual repression is religious in origin. Frankly if you aren't comfortable about having The Talk with your kids then you probably shouldn't have kids because you aren't mature enough yet. Most images and representations of sex are also "just fantasy" as you put it.
The reasons for it being uncomfortable is completely irrelevant to the simple fact that it is. We know it is because of the very thing being discussed - movie ratings consider sex worse than violence. Again whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is completely irrelevant to trying to understand why that is the case.
People who probably shouldn't have kids do have kids. And surely if they aren't mature enough to yet then they are precisely the group that cares about movie ratings since they need others to guide their decisions. Again it doesn't matter that they shouldn't have kids, the simple fact is that they do.
I defy you to find a movie or TV show or video game that shows a realistic portrayal of sexual activity in a non-ironic way. Young girls in particular get a very conflicted set of messages about sexuality. And if you think there is no violence in our country I refer you to the number of homicides and violent assaults that occur annually. You don't have to be a special forces soldier for violence to enter your life.
And they don't realistically portray violence either. Realism wasn't the point. Fantasy was being used not to describe the lack of realism in the movie but that such violence is unlikely to occur in the lives of the people who care about the ratings.
Most people have never been shot and have never shot someone. Most people have had some sort of sexual activity. For children replace "have" with "will". Or do you seriously think there are more homicides and violent assaults annually then there are sexual encounters?
I have *never* been involved in an incident of violence in the US. I've never hit anyone. I've never used a weapon against someone. No one has ever hit me. No one has ever used a weapon against me. I have caused two pregnancies while in the US. Every person I know has engaged in more sexual activity than they have violence. Yes, there are people who grow up in say a violent street gang or the military will see more violence than typical. But the typical is what matters for movie ratings.
I wouldn't call him "smart" though.
Probably true. I find it particularly curious that violence in movies and games is more acceptable than sexuality. Decapitate someone in a movie and you might get a PG-13 rating. Show a breast and you go straight to rated R. Very odd.
I don't think that's universal. Different societies have probably developed different views...
But sexuality being considered worse for children to view than violence makes some sense. Violence is outside of the everyday experience for most people, while sex isn't.
That makes violence more comfortable for parents - they can after all just say it's just fantasy in the real world you will be hurt or dead on the receiving end and in prison on the handing out end. Whereas, sex is uncomfortable to talk about for many people (the very people movie ratings are made for). Possibly because they don't want their child doing it now but do in fact want their child to do it later - so they don't want to call it "bad" but also don't want to call it "awesome".
Most people are never going to find themselves using their very particular set of skills to hunt down and murder the kidnappers of their child. Most people will engage in sexual activity at some point in their lives. One is clearly fantasy (especially to the target of movie ratings), one is reality and thus,more difficult to deal with.
At least that's the armchair analysis I pulled out of me ass...
You only have to check the ones with brown skin or funny names, so it should be easy-peasy...
Yes. Refusing to do business with someone for reasons outside of the various protected classes is a choice a business can make. In a lot of cases that's a bad choice since your competitors who don't do that will have a bigger market of potential buyers. However, sometimes a customer can be unprofitable and it might make sense. You'll note that land lords do this all the time, as do credit card companies - though they do have some clear not-generic-business reasons. Some restaurants will often refuse service to people who don't meet a dress code. Many stores will refuse to do business with someone who is abusive to their staff. And so on.
However, destroying the product that you have already sold to someone is an entirely different matter. That really should be obvious.
Might be. But I'm not.
The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.