Those are multiplayer games. Totally different.

I spent about a year looking for a job (senior management in cybersecurity), and had basically ZERO luck until I got wise and did the following. Had a new role within 4 months afterwards.

1. Take your resume, and expand it 10-20x into a massive document listing every single project, accomplishment, or skill you can think of that could ever be potentially relevant in a new role.
2. Every time you apply to a new job, copy the job posting into a ChatGPT conversation, and have it edit your resume to a 1-2 page document that only includes the experience most relevant to the job posting, and to rewrite sentences to use the exact terminology from the job posting where appropriate.
3. Once you have the custom resume, use ChatGPT to generate a custom cover letter to include as well.

These 2 changes will cause your resume to get assigned a higher "relevance score" by the AI tool their HR or recruiting team uses to weed through the 400+ applications they receive, which means you'll be at the top of the list of names that gets delivered to first human in the process (the recruiter).

You'll actually start getting callbacks and phone screens at that point, which gives you a fighting chance. The rest is up to you.

There are paid services that'll do this for you (like Teal), but you can do it yourself and with more control as long as you have access to ChatGPT. If you can generate a completely customized resume and cover letter in less than 2 minutes, you can pump out 10 high-quality applications in less than half an hour per day.

Edit: I see you're getting a 40% response rate. You may be setting your sights too low if that remains consistent. If you're applying for roles that are a solid step up form where you're at, you would expect closer to a 10% response rate.

Not relevant. Trump voters don't care about reality, while the rest of us do. If the Democrats want to be the party of sane, responsible voters they'll need to put up a sane, responsible candidate.

Be better than Republicans.

ITT: A bunch of folks who didn't read the article.

The article didn’t say young people were doing worse than before, which it seems like all of you assumed.

The reason the study found for why youth is no longer one of the “happiest times” is because they showed that people only do better and better as they age. So whereas before your youth would be comparatively happier to your 'mid-life crisis', they’re saying that crisis doesn't occur anymore and we just get happier and happier into midlife and old age. So your younger days didn't get worse, they just aren't as great in comparison because the rest of your life gets so much better as time goes on.

Sounds crazy, I know. But that's what the article was actually saying.

I'm linking to peer-reviewed scientific studies over here. If you want to dispute what I'm saying, avoid the genetic fallacy and engage with the substance.

By "lower-status", I meant lower socioeconomic status. Less education and less income. The two things women primarily judge potential mates on.

It is true that women generally want a partner who makes the same or more than them, while men generally find income/career status less important in mate selection. That is a scientific fact before you politicize it. And it's also a fact that as more women receive higher education and fair pay, the pool of men who make the same or more than the average woman will shrink pretty dramatically.

So it is true to say that as women become empowered and more able to care for themselves without the help of a man, the majority of lower-income and males with a lower socioeconomic status will have a much harder time finding a mate. This mostly affects men negatively at a younger age when their earnings are lowest and they sit closest to the bottom of that hierarchy. Conversely, the negative impacts hit women later on when the end of their child-bearing years approaches and they realize that putting a family on hold to focus on their career may have been a more permanent decision than they'd intended now that they've moved up the economic ladder and the small proportion of men at or above their level are either already taken or happy to play the field non-monogamously.

It hits both genders just as hard and it's an issue we need to solve. Our evolutionary psychology and mate selection processes just haven't caught up with modern society. And since males are more prone to isolation and suicide, we see the affects against them more readily. But the affects to women will become more apparent in the next few decades.

I know this is politically charged territory, but it's pretty well established from a sociological and evolutionary psychology perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_preferences#:~:text=Mate%20preference%20priorities,-Research%20has%20been&text=In%20the%20study%2C%20it%20was,attractiveness%2C%20as%20the%20highest%20priorities.

Edit: Changed "lower-status males" to "males with a lower socioeconomic status" since that seems to be a trigger-word for some folks.

45 minutes outside of Portland, OR in any direction will get you somewhere just as rural as the place you left in SC, only with better weather and sane laws.

Veritasium is YouTube propaganda. It's well documented - Derek takes sponsor money and gets people killed in the process. I blocked Derek on all platforms the day Tom put this documentary video out.

Isn't this a pretty standard practice across the world? If someone has extensive ties to and/or sympathies for a specific regime, they'll be more susceptible to coercion and compromise by that regime. Why purposely put them in the place where they are most likely to be coerced and/or compromised?

You have to weigh the benefit (their familiarity with local perspectives and customs) against the cost (increased risk of counter-intel failures).

There's a reason Starfleet sends Captain Picard far away to the Romulan border when the Borg are attacking Earth. Or am I missing something?

I tried this once. Went to the dog park, chatted up a girl over a period of a month. I finally got the courage to ask her on a date, and she said yes! The date (dinner and a local concert) went great - we ended up back at my place and I can honestly say it was some of the best sex of my life.

Then she ghosted me and we never talked again. That was 2017, and I'm still not over it. Thanks for the advice though.

There are only five sentences of text on that page, with the last one explaining that this sort of marriage was not common at all. Where did you get the idea that the textbook is suggesting that this was the norm?

Nobody is going to vote for Trump because of this. But it WILL cause enough folks to get dejected and not vote at all, and that's all it'll take for Trump to win. Democrats need a candidate people can be excited about voting for, or they WILL lose.

The "but the other guy is worse!" approach won't work this time.