I'm curious, does it get triggered when a PR is opened or when it is merged? Because if it is when it is opened, updates to the PR could still get made which I assume would cause updates to the doc changes. Also, what if 2 PRs are opened at the same time? What if a PR is opened but never merged?
Great questions! It is possible to get Promptless to run only when PRs are merged, or when commits are made on `main`, but pretty much everyone wants the doc updates to be drafted when PRs are opened, because they'd like to review the doc updates in parallel (i.e. before it's actually released). If two PRs are created at the same time, Promptless will review them separately (and potentially create two docs PRs, if both have customer-facing impact).
Honestly, some of these workflow points are areas that we're probably going to adjust and add more configuration around. For example, some folks with very high commit velocity are asking for a "daily digest" docs PR from Promptless instead of individual docs PRs.
If you're asking about when there are new commits on the source code after a PR is opened, yes that's what happens! It just updates the existing docs branch.
If you're asking if Promptless should just add doc updates to the same PR as the code PR, that's definitely an option, but people tend to just want them separate both because it fits better with their workflows and it's less contingent on CI/CD processes, if that makes sense.
This is for PERM, not H1B. Many companies did and still do this. Imo, the concept of PERM is flawed, which causes companies to do this stuff. Some have had to settle with the gov't and can no longer do this (Meta).
Also, the jobs are not fake, they are labor market test jobs, designed to show that no citizen meets the job requirements thus validating a green card for the H1B visa holder. They are "fake" in that they are designed so no one applies for or gets the job. Imo, labor market test should be part of the visa granting process, not the naturalization.
I have been required to create such fake job postings.
From the line manager perspective, how it looks is you have a colleague who has been working with you for several years who is on a H1B visa. They want to get a green card and become a permanent resident. To support this, we are required to post a fake job ad for their position, and invent a reason to reject any US citizens who apply for the position. (Non-US applications are ignored.)
Our legal advice was that the job posting had to be contain only legitimate requirements for the role, so it could not be highly tailored to only match the resume of the employee seeking PERM status. The result was phone screen interviews were required to reject 8-10 on-paper-potentially-qualified US applicants for the fake position.
This is for a highly specialized area within finance, where in real hiring there is an immense effort to find the strongest candidates regardless of nationality.
In hindsight I am confident that earlier in my career I had applied to at least one such fake role. One not-well-known advantage of working with a recruiter as a job seeker in such a field is the recruiter will have back-channel information to know to ignore such fake job postings.
Yep, this is how it is done. I think it really needs to be revisited because everyone is faking the labor test because you have an employee who is great, who's been here for years and years, probably even had kids here, and if in the 10-15 years since the employee was hired, one US citizen could do the same job now, he gets sent back? It should be a requirement for the visa, not the residency. Residency should be done like Canada where you earn points to get it to foster assimilation.
I'd hire someone brave enough to stand up for themselves and against a toxic workplace. That's how you affect real change. Sometimes it pays to put ego out the window for something that's radically better.
Unfortunately, that's very much not how the managerial class thinks. Workers that speak up and publicly diss their employer are dangerous for any manager and business, because they won't shut up and do as they're told. Very few will knowingly hire someone who risks calling out their own bullshit.
Maybe but I think at this point we tune out places like Blind as a nonstop stream of groundless bellyaching and unfounded rumors about layoffs next week. It’s hard to know what’s true or not in such an environment.
The vast majority of men develop depression at retirement. So you can say this with scorn if it pleases you, but the group you’re talking about is massive and doesn’t deserve this derision.
This is straight up false, you are wildly overexaggerating with zero evidence to back it up.
Incidence of depression in retirement age populations are around 6 - 8%, and the correlation between retirement and depression is more pronounced in women.
There’s no need to make false claims about a real disorder just so you can feel persecuted as a man
My inaccuracy not withstanding, you supply the data to prove my point, that it is common for men to experience depression in retirement. And my suggestion that they should be considered seems just as true.
Your suggestion about my motives makes no sense, I made no comparison to women. It sounds like that may have something to do with you, not me.
Perhaps ask yourself: why does a suggestion that these men deserve some sympathy or at least consideration provoke you into harshly criticizing me?
To be fair you are the first person in this thread to bring up gender, as if women don’t also feel depression in retirement, and indeed at higher rates. Why would you only mention men?
If there is evidence my guess is that it’s likely due to the previous generation’s attitude towards work. My guess is that the previous generation (like my parents and their parents before them) lived to work, it was their whole identity, thus when they retired they had no idea what to do with themselves (like the Loom founder) and depression was common.
There has been a shift over the last decade or two likely in millennials who just work to live. They look forward to not working and living a life full of hobbies and social activities.
And when you consider that most people retire late in life when they are likely to face health issues, start losing family and friends, and that most people don't retire rich...
I think it is more that people who were married to their job find themselves suddenly divorced.
Without other activities to give them a reason to get up in the morning it is easy to fall into depression. There was even a movie that explores this situation: About Schmidt.
Retirement might be, in a way, a clear point in life when you get to actually think about your own mortality and life coming to an end in the next few decades. That alone could have a major impact in people developing depression at retirement.
What the poster says might still be true, people are being defined by their work and when that's over there's a huge gap they don't know how to fill. This might very well be a criticism on the role of work in society.
Ultimately though, you're right, there's no need to insult people when thinking critically about this issue.
What I never understood about this movie is how it never connected the pieces. The beginning of the movie when bill was with the drunk women and they say "where the rainbow ends..." it clearly connects to the "rainbow" costume shop later where the sinister stuff with the owners child happens. Then it's learned that the women at the beginning of the movie were the same women who were at the secret society party this clearly connects the secret society to the sinister stuff at the costume shop. So the connections are clear and bill is privy to all of it yet it is never explicitly stated at the end of the movie. Perhaps Kubrick didn't actually finish it.
This is very much on-style both for dream movies in general (ever watched anything Lynch/Tarkovsky/Fellini?) and Kubrick. The connections are supposed to happen in your mind. Their significance is up to you.
Related Kubrick quote from TFA:
> One of the things I always find extremely difficult, when a picture's finished, is when a writer or a film reviewer asks, "Now, what is it that you were trying to say in that picture?" And without being thought too presumptuous for using this analogy, I like to remember what T.S. Eliot said to someone who had asked him—I believe it was The Waste Land—what he meant by the poem. He replied, "I meant what I said." If I could have said it any differently, I would have. ("The Odyssey Begins", 1960 Horizon interview)
Spelling everything out for the (supposedly dim-witted) audience at the close is, reversely, something that frustrates me.
I get that but it doesn't even make sense in terms of the dream logic. Bill basically has two "confession" scenes - one with Zeigler and one with his wife and seemingly doesn't mention the stuff at the costume shop in either. However he was open to confess to Zeigler that he knew about the dead woman. This seems contradictory. I think there are two possibilities 1) it was unfinished or 2) it was intentionally left out. Both of which are very interesting.
Well they are supposed to be confessions yet he does not confess the worst part of what he witnessed. IIRC he literally says "I'll tell you everything" then proceeds to leave things out. Somewhat contradictory.
I don't take them that way, Ziggler is certainly not being forthcoming with Bill. I'm not sure why you'd expect Bill to be honest about everything, I don't think that's the point of the movie at all, no less so that it doesn't make sense because he wasn't honest
The costume shop owners daughter whispers “you should get a cloak lined with ermine” suggesting she (an underage girl) knows where Bill is going (the mansion party). It feels like there’s at least one scene missing that ties that together a bit less subtly.
Except they also obviously aren't. Different actresses, different voices. Yet we know that the guy who plays the red cloak is referenced as the famous photographer in the paper Bill reads that says Lucky to be Alive on the cover.
People generally use leetcode to prepare for interviews and learning is kind of a side-effect so I'm curious are these questions similar to those you would find in interviews (i.e. like leetcode) or is it more for general learning purposes?
The current stage of finance interview is a little bit like coding interview 20 years ago, pre-leetcode time, where you write sudo code on a paper to answer some coding challenges. The coding interview nowadays are quite advanced, I believe Leetcode plays huge role.
The best way of learning financial modeling is by doing it on the excel. Even though many finance technical interviews still focus on behavior type of questions, discussing your model-building approach and assumptions. By practising different scenarios on Excel, timeboxing it, it will help you refine your responses during the interview.
I give folks an excel test. It’s more of a very basic modeling test as I provide some data and tell them what I want from it and see how they get to the answer. They do it in our office on our PC and access to the internet for help.
I’ve been giving it to candidates for over 15 years now. And seen some awful stuff out of it. Some people just spend an hour building 14 different pivot tables and never write a formula. I think it’s very easy but only about 10% of people do well on it. It’s not meant to be tricky either, like one question is “write a SUMIFS on the data table to determine X, Y, Z” and you can tell most people fumble with giving the formula the correct parameters or in the right order. This is a major red flag for me as a Financial Analyst, even if they don’t use that formula often, should be able to understand the instructions Excel is giving you OR use a search engine to figure it out in just a couple minutes.
On the SUMIFS problem, we tell them exactly which formula to use because we noticed early on if we didn’t then people would just say they had no answer, or not sure how to approach the problem.
Worth noting, I only ever interview people with minimum 2 years actual work experience as a Financial Analyst (Also managers, directors, VPs. Everyone gets tested). Also, it’s become better over time. I think colleges are pushing excel literacy as part of the curriculum more than they used to.
“Thanks for interviewing with us at H&R Block. I’m sure you’ll be great at helping people file their Income Taxes. In the next 45 minutes, we would like you to examine this conference room full of Banker’s Boxes of records for a Fortune 500 company accused of financial wrongdoing. You must determine whether they are guilty or not, and if guilty, the nature and extent of their crime.”
