At least my experience in the professional world, if the provided reference says anything negative about the interviewee it’s a massive red flag.
Maybe you don’t think that way, but for every position I have ever posted you’ll get at least 100 applicants, and each of them take a massive amount of time to interview and get through the system to hire.
That reference is one more thing that helps. Better yet, it’s great when someone knows someone that you do, because then it’s easy to vouch for them.
Like when it comes to dating, are you going to date a random person that you know nothing about, or go out on a date that your best friend recommends who knows you?
>Like when it comes to dating, are you going to date a random person that you know nothing about
That's literally modern dating in a nutshell. Anyone not dating in their 2nd/3rd degree circle is going to the apps.
More than anything, though: I don't really get modern references because they are some of the easiest things to be faked. And if for whatever reason they require your last manager... well, what can you do if you don't have contact? My last professional studio shut down, I don't know if I can get a response from my lead. I'm sure that makes for easy excuses as well.
I am not sure references are easily faked. Especially in industries where there aren't a whole lot of references that someone is not going to know. "Hey Bob, I have this excellent candidate for the position you are looking for they have X qualities", much more likely to get an interview than the person from Indeed. That's simply reality.
As for a manager, you may not have their contact information, but seems like relevant information to keep ahold of for professional networking. So yes, it seems like you are making easy excuses that in a competitive hiring environment would quickly get you excluded from the pool of applicants.
You're right and most people are finding out they don't like it at all.
Anecdote: I have a few friends who have never and will never use dating apps, their dating comes from their social circle of various degrees (friends of friends etc..)
Yes. But they refuse to stop using the apps (or at least, the most popular apps minmaxed for profit at the cost of UX) and find proper alternatives. e.g. touching grass and finding local community events?
We have access to quicker and easier information than ever, but curiosity to escape from the friction these companies create is at an all-time low. They can't even be arsed to ask ChatGPT about ways to escape the apps (which, for now, it should give some helpful answers to). So I find it hard to sympathize with the current young generation on this issue. There's many broken systems I feel us older generations are responsible for fixing, but this feels like one of the points where this generation needs to help itself.
On my end, I'm not in a rush to date, have horrible specs for utilizing dating apps, and know how the sausage works for the apps. I've in fact spent the last few years disengaging from as much of big tech as feasible. So I don't see myself ever using such apps in the foreseeable future.
Yes, sadly, several decades ago, one of the parties started running on the platform of "the government is broken" and to help the electability of said platform, they kept breaking the government.
Look, I vote blue too, but you can't ignore that the Democrats have also pushed the slider further and further toward executive power every chance they get. Well, I guess I can't tell you what to do, so I suppose you can.
I don't "vote blue." I vote for whichever candidate offers the most realistic solutions to the problem at hand. At times this may be "blue" but not necessarily. I have also voted 3rd party and skipped voting for a specific role alotgether.
Also, not even sure what you are talking about. My point specifically was about the congress, where the Republicans have stonewalled legislation, stolen SCOTUS seats, and shut down the government the vast majority of shutdowns since it became a "legitimate"(?) tactic.
> Democrats have also pushed the slider further and further toward executive power every chance they get
Okay, you can scroll back up and see that the thread is about the erosion of checks and balances. After that, you can do a web search to read either about the Clinton administration's increased partisan direction of federal agencies, or Obama's increase in both scope and number of executive orders.
Presidential powers have been ratcheting up for at lest thirty years. And neither party seems particularly interested in turning the dial back once they're in power.
The only reason we have good weather data is because the government maintains stations in remote places all over the country. Who else would maintain that?
There are many large projects to collect this information ranging from extremely specialized satellites to networks of ocean buoys. It turns out that weather is a global phenomenon and warming seas on the other side of the planet affect wherever you are.
You're not wrong, but I would like to point out that there is also the Civilian Weather Observer Program (CWOP) that is fed by a lot of private weather stations (the kind you can buy at Walmart of Amazon and put at your house). I believe the data is aggregated and averaged to account for variations in installation deficiencies, and used to inform/enhance the government maintained data feeds.
We have good weather data because of satellites, and there are plenty of private weather sats.
The classical US ground station network is actually run by volunteers and has been seriously degrading in quality over time. Its data was identified as corrupted and useless for climatology decades ago, which is what led to the US CRN being built. Other countries however did not do an equivalent, and their networks are still very low quality. Most of the UK's network, for example, is considered unusable for climate monitoring under WMO standards (but they are still used regardless!).
