HN user
Western governments do fund Israel's neighbors. This includes Egypt (one of the largest recipients of US foreign aid), Jordan, Lebanon (including indirectly through UNIFIL and UNRWA), Syria, and Iraq if they count as a neighbor.
Patrons don't necessarily apply any standard evenly.
"Hitler did not kill the Jews because of their religion; he killed them because they were Jews. And we must remember that, because there are those who would do the same today if they could."
— Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking at the World Holocaust Forum in 2020.
"Hitler was not only a mass murderer, he was a master of deception. He deceived the world about his true intentions, and ultimately, his goal was to exterminate the Jewish people."
— Benjamin Netanyahu, during a speech at Yad Vashem in 2012.
"For many, Auschwitz is the ultimate symbol of evil. It is certainly that. The tattooed arms of those who passed under its infamous gates, the piles of shoes and eyeglasses seized from the dispossessed in their final moments, the gas chambers and crematoria that turned millions of people into ash, all these bear witness to the horrific depths to which humanity can sink."
- Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the 5th World Holocaust Forum in 2020
I hope every Hitler-apologist and Holocaust-denier says and believes things like that.
Compare that to al-Husseini, a key figure worth learning about. He was an Arab leader that stoked anti-Jewish sentiment with religious propaganda about Al-Aqsa Mosque (still going today perpetuated by Hamas), possibly to distract from his corrupt management of religious endowments. Al-Husseini led anti-British and anti-Jewish violence for years. He contributed to what is a key turning point or escalation of the conflict, the Hebron Massacre in 1929.
A rumor that Jews planned to take control of the Al-Aqsa Mosque resulted in a violent pogrom against a Jewish community with continuously presence for thousands of years. By the end the mob killed 67 Jews. The rioters attacked homes, horrifically tortured and killed entire families, mutilated, raped, stabbed children, and enacted mass destruction on the Jewish quarter. In many ways it was eerily similar to October 7th. I was shocked when I read about it.
There were some noble people that saved lives from the hundreds. One Arab man literally rode in on a white horse to protect some defenseless people.
What did al-Husseni say about the riot?
"The massacre in Hebron was the result of a natural and justified reaction to the growing presence of Jews in Palestine. The Jews were responsible for the violence that broke out."
He blamed the victims.
"Palestine is the land of the Arabs, and it will remain so. The Zionist movement is an illegal act and must be opposed by all means, including violence."
He advocated for violence.
"The Jews have no place in Palestine and should leave."
al-Husseini had very close ties with Nazis. He broadcast Nazi propaganda over Arab radio from Berlin, urged Muslim and Arab populations to support Nazi efforts, and echoed their antisemitic ideology. He openly called for the destruction of Jewish communities in the Middle East. He helped recruit Muslim soldiers for the Waffen-SS, which is considered among the worst of the Nazi forces in terms of atrocities and war crimes.
And Abbas? An actual Holocaust denier and revisionist?
"The Zionist movement cooperated with the Nazis in persecuting the Jews, and this is a well-known fact.”
— Mahmood Abbas, 1982 in his PhD thesis "The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism."
"The number of Jews killed during the Holocaust is exaggerated."
— Mahmood Abbas, 2018
These are some examples of what Holocaust denial and revisionism typically sound like.
I see the recognition, where are the hard conditionality or the security guardrails? If the PA doesn't cooperate, what leverage exists?
This move alone could have accomplished a lot of reforms. So far all I've seen is:
1) the PA supposedly end "pay for slay" where Palestinians that commit terrorist attacks or their family gets more money for more dead and injured victims or for longer prison terms (this program may have actually ended, it's just really hard to tell because of mixed signals),
2) Abbas condemn October 7th once in a letter to France and Saudi Arabia in June 2025 (for the first time and a little under 2 years after October 7th happened), and
3) the arrest of a person that committed a terrorist attack in France in the 1982.
I really hope there was a lot more behind the scenes, because those seem pretty small.
Having elections they should have had for many years now wouldn't be that impressive either.
Why not condition recognition on 1) releasing the hostages and 2) Hamas / Palestinian Islamic Jihad / Al-Qassam / etc disarming? Those 2 things could end the current war.
It's good you recognize the need of a re-education program and regime change. Once one side gets re-education and the right leadership, the conflict can be solved peacefully and both sides can coexist productively. You seem to have concluded the wrong party needs those things.
These countries are the top 10 countries by lobbying dollars from 2016 - 2024:
Country Total Spending
1. China $460,738,925
2. Japan $436,459,337
3. Liberia $353,239,848
4. South Korea $325,835,687
5. Saudi Arabia $311,450,797
6. Marshall Islands $285,094,040
7. Qatar $257,773,194
8. United Arab Emirates $242,674,892
9. Bahamas $242,481,453
https://www.opensecrets.org/fara
Some have spent 2x more money than Israel. Israel is 10th. I haven't heard anybody around me mention Liberia or the Marshall Islands, maybe a handful of times in my life.
These are the top 10 Foreign Principals from 2016 - 2024.
Foreign Principal Total Spending
1. Government of Liberia $350,486,671
2. Government of the Marshall Islands $283,901,646
3. Government of China $277,692,350
4. Japan External Trade Organization $277,638,402
5. Government of Saudi Arabia $238,415,218
6. Government of Bermuda $192,046,623
7. Barzan Holdings $155,775,778
8. ANO TV-Novosti $147,069,172
9. Government of the Bahamas $136,148,426
10 Government of Ireland $132,165,695
No Israeli principal in the top 10. It's obfuscated but Russia is in there (ANO TV-Novosti) and Qatar (Barzan Holdings).
Also, in the link you shared of "Industries", Israel is 7th in single issue. Some of the issues 1-6 have 10x levels of money spent. I wish it were broken down even more. I'm most interested in what makes up "miscellaneous issues".
How little do you know about the experience of Jews in Nazi Germany?
And much like the useless British-colonial state that governed Israel then, the vestigial British state in India which is as internet upon Anglo-American triumph today, can't and will do jack shit for them.
Are you saying that Indian people wouldn't be allowed to immigrate to India?
Minutes of research say current Indian law allows people of Indian descent but not citizens to get Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) — a special immigration status for foreign nationals of Indian origin.
You're eligible if you are:
1. A former Indian citizen (who gave up Indian citizenship, e.g., to get U.S. or UK citizenship), or
2. A descendant (up to great-grandparent level) of an Indian citizen, or
3. The spouse of an Indian citizen or an OCI cardholder (subject to conditions)
With OCI, you can have:
1. Unlimited stay in India
2. Right to work, own property, and open bank accounts.
India could change it's laws, keep all the non-citizens out (or even citizens, what can't we imagine in this fantasy story). India could deny OCI to most every person that applies for its green card like status. But under current laws in your unlikely story, they seem like they'll do something.
I'd expect they'd fly as many Indian people as they could out of the US like many countries do in times of war. Not that this scenario will ever come to pass.
Plenty of people criticize Israel and are not antisemites. This is true of most Israelis. They generally criticize Israel in non-antisemitic ways. It is quite easy to do so.
Roger Waters is an antisemite.
Do people who have known Roger Waters his entire life think he is an antisemite because of his obsessive criticism of Israel, or because of all the other anti Jewish things he has said and done AND his singular obsession with Israel?
* https://variety.com/2023/music/news/roger-waters-antisemitic...
In the 2023 documentary The Dark Side of Roger Waters, the saxophonist Norbert Stachel recounts Waters refusing to eat >vegetarian >dishes in Lebanon, calling them “Jew food”. When >the musician explained >that most of his relatives had been >killed in the Holocaust, the singer did >a crude and offensive >impersonation of a Polish peasant woman, and said, >“Oh, I can >help you feel like you’re meeting your long-lost relatives. I >can introduce you to your dead grandmother.” >Tellingly, Stachel also claimed to overhear Waters telling a >girlfriend that Judaism was not a race, saying, “They’re >white European men that grow beards and they practise the >religion Judaism, but they’re no different than me; they have >no difference in their background or their history or their >culture or anything.”
* https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artists/rogers-waters-anti...
I know less about Said.
He did write the forward to Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. The book is framed as an attack on Jewish fundamentalism.
Werner Cohn, Professor Emeritus at the University of British Colombia, writes: “He [Shahak] says (pp. 23-4) that "Jewish children are actually taught" to utter a ritual curse when passing a non-Jewish cemetery.[b] He also tells us (p. 34) that "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands....On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God... but on the other he is worshiping Satan..." I did take the trouble to question my orthodox rabbi nephew to find what might be behind such tall tales. He had no clue. If orthodox Jews were actually taught such hateful things, surely someone would have heard. Whom is Dr. Shahak kidding?”
Edward Said wrote the foreward to the second edition, calling Shahak “one of the most remarkable individuals in the contemporary Middle East.” Said writes that the book is “nothing less than a concise history of classic and modern Judaism, insofar as these are relevant to the understanding of modern Israel.”
At best Said endorses antisemites.
Tucker Carlson hosted Darryl Cooper, a podcaster known for promoting Holocaust revisionism and making historically inaccurate claims about World War II. He labeled Winston Churchill as the "chief villain" of the conflict. They perpetuated downplayed Nazi atrocities.
Sure seems antisemitic.
The links were there but the the formatting was worse. Glad the formatting helped make the content clearer.
The Cradle is pretty obviously a biased publication.
Google, but you're welcome.
I hadn't heard of them either so I checked online. I usually check Media Bias / Fact Check and AllSides when I encounter a news source with which I'm not familiar.
1. Media Bias / Fact Check:
Funded by / Ownership
The Cradle lacks transparency as it does not disclose who owns it. Revenue is generated through donations.
Analysis / Bias
The Cradle’s content frequently opposes Israeli policies and Western geopolitical stances, particularly focusing on West Asian politics. Articles often critique far-right Israeli politicians and highlight regional issues from a perspective that challenges mainstream Western narratives. Articles and headlines often use loaded emotional language in opposition to Israeli policy like this Cracks deepen in Israel as opposition head issues ‘ultimatum’ to Netanyahu. This story is correctly sourced from the Times of Israel and Haaretz.
Editorially, The Cradle consistently frames Israel negatively with stories such as this On Israel and rape. While this article is sourced properly from credible sources, it is entirely one-sided in focusing on Israel. When reporting on the United States, they often report negatively on President Joe Biden like this ‘Biden has the blood of innocent people on his hands’: Former US official.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-cradle-bias-and-credibili...
2. AllSides:
The Cradle Rated Lean Left in January 2024 Independent Review
An independent AllSides reviewer opted to give The Cradle an initial rating of Lean Left.
While it demonstrated a clear opposition to Israel and the West, The Cradle did not appear to weigh in on other topics relevant to right-left U.S. politics. Site searches for "liberal," "conservative," "right-wing," and "left-wing" yielded few results.
Who is your customer? Why should they use your product over alternatives to solve their problem / improve their life?
This is the realm of product management and product marketing as much as general "marketing".
Read The Mom Test. Follow what it says to do practical user research, so that you can effectively target your niche within time management / productivity tools.
After that, here's a good video from a YC person about launches, and why you should think of them as things to do over and over as opposed to just once:
> They do find antisemitism on the left and the center of the US political spectrum - just more on the right. >You know who says that?
Academics looking at data: https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_roy...
it was ignored until the prime minister was finally forced to acknowledge it.
Appropriate responses should happen the moment these things come to light.
From what I have seen and observed, I wouldn't be surprised if things aren't that different in Europe from the US, just somewhat worse on the whole. That is, antisemitism is found on all sides of the political spectrum including in the center. Also, that antisemitism is most common, and often most overt, on the right / far right. Share any studies you have supporting or refuting that though.
This covers many countries, and does have multiple years in many of them, but it doesn't distinguish by political views. Just gender, age, and religious affiliation by country.
While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about through a “both sides” lens, our evidence — the first of its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a large repre- sentative sample — suggests the problem of antisemitism is much more serious on the right than the left. This evidence confirms that the antisemitism that has been on prominent display in white nationalist protests is not merely confined to a tiny group of extremists; antisemitic attitudes appear quite common among young conservatives, and much more so than among older conservatives or among liberals of any age.
* https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_roy...
This view isn't supported by studies in this area. They do find antisemitism on the left and the center of the US political spectrum - just more on the right.
While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about through a “both sides” lens, our evidence — the first of its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a large repre- sentative sample — suggests the problem of antisemitism is much more serious on the right than the left. This evidence confirms that the antisemitism that has been on prominent display in white nationalist protests is not merely confined to a tiny group of extremists; antisemitic attitudes appear quite common among young conservatives, and much more so than among older conservatives or among liberals of any age.
* https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_roy...
Anything to do with Israel/Palestine/West Bank is unreliable [and in favor of Israel]
This is the claim that needs substantiation, not that a key Wikipedia person supports Zionism or identifies as a Zionist, or that various employees or volunteers support Israel. Those other claims don't seem significant.
The opposite is also true - that various volunteers are antagonistic towards Israel. It's also likely that some employees are antagonistic towards Israel. You can find plenty of people's experiences discussing the same pattern you describe but with different political views - some antagonistic admin coming along and declaring that you lost the dispute.
Various "bosses" at Wikipedia have different views, ideologies and identities. Given that, what on Wikipedia can be trusted, and what can't be? What's special about views towards Israel?
Evidence is useful, but when viewing people as "adversaries", and if trying to "defeat" them in general, the game is already diminished or lost - for most everyone involved. Little productive conversation can occur.
This is an issue that people on both sides are strongly emotionally engaged in.
Yes. But that is true of many issues in the world.
I find it interesting that your way of proving anti-Zionist sentiment is to demonstrate that there are quantifiably more leftist editors on Wikipedia. That does not demonstrate your thesis of anti-Israeli bias. Plenty of people who at least claim to be leftists are profuse in their support of Israel.
It’s not definitive proof of anti-Israel bias - it is, however, evidence. As opposed to the unsubstantiated assertion I responded to.
Evidence of what? A leftward slant in Wikipedia, if you believe the conclusion of these studies (or the summaries of them - I haven’t read them all). And it's easy to see that such a slant would broadly coincide with somewhat less support - though far from zero support - for Israel in 2022 and the past couple decades.
I’m not sure how leftward the slant is. It could be slight. It could also not be relevant in specific areas (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). I didn’t exhaustively research the topic (nor did I believe Wikipedia had any specific leftward slant before today.) If you find anything useful, please share your findings - happy to read!
“Quantifiably more leftist editors on Wikipedia” isn’t a good summary of the headlines of those 5 studies.
To your other point, number of editors matter - and the Israel-antagonists presumably outnumber the Israel-supporters - but it’s far from the only thing that matters. To name a few more things that make an editor more or less influential: the number of edits made, the prominence of their edits (for example if it is in the introduction vs elsewhere in an article), the degree to which the edits are neutral vs slanted, and the relative power they have as editors.
Anything to do with Israel/Palestine/West Bank is unreliable; the boss is a zionist, and so are a lot of the senior staff, so it's not surprising. But WP is a million times better than the web that search engines expose.
Is there good evidence for this claim? Evidence is useful, especially for these claims of general bias.
On the contrary, in general Wikipedia's content is likely biased against Israel when considering its general overall political preferences / bias.
5 Studies Find Wikipedia Bias
Five studies, including two from Harvard researchers, have found a left-wing bias at Wikipedia:
* A Harvard study found Wikipedia articles are more left-wing than Encyclopedia Britannica.
* Another paper from the same Harvard researchers found left-wing editors are more active and partisan on the site.
* A 2018 analysis found top-cited news outlets on Wikipedia are mainly left-wing.
* Another analysis using AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ found that pages on American politicians cite mostly left-wing news outlets.
* American academics found conservative editors are 6 times more likely to be sanctioned in Wikipedia policy enforcement.
Have you read The Mom Test? Highly recommended.
Here's a summary: https://www.slideshare.net/xamde/summary-of-the-mom-test
The closer you are to the target user and target buyer (not necessarily the same person), the better. You can learn a lot from anyone, but it might be at a pretty abstract level and less useful.
Focus as much as you can on users and buyers. Speak with them often, observe what they do often, wherever they are - conversations with you, chatting with each other online, complaining about current pain points with existing solutions, including in reviews for products that solve similar problems.
Good luck!
Yes, that is the main part of it.
Being a CTO might make sense for you. I'd still ask why you want to do it, just like I'd ask why you want to be a product leader, developer, developer advocate, or whatever.
The core motivation of switching to being a developer seems to be coding more. The others are building a product and being a CTO.
You can find lots of developer's experiences on HN or elsewhere saying that when you start doing other related roles, such as engineering management or engineering executive work, you might spend 0 time coding. Yes, some CTOs code often. I have even heard of a founder and non-CTO of a reasonably large company in the UK that still contributes some code to the codebase, which is admirable and probably overall a good thing though I don't know too many details and could have problems but could be great for everyone.
For some people, no longer coding much or at all is great. They're not interested in coding anymore (or they never were), they want a new challenge (for example, people management), more pay or prestige which often go along with people management or executive work, more influence. For others, not coding much or at all is a terrible fit. For you right now, being a CTO at anything but a small company where you would code a lot doesn't sound like it would accomplish your goal of coding more or the associated joy.
You might get enough coding joy by coding outside of work. It's worth considering. It's great to code full time if that's good for you. It's great to code outside of your primary work if that's good for you. Whatever works for you short term and long term, day to day and big picture.
About building a product - you can build many products right now with your current skills. You don't need to get a different primary job, or 2 different ones (developer advocate and then software engineer) to do it. You have some stability and mastery of crucial skills, and hopefully some disposable income though in many cases not much is necessary especially at first.
If building a product is one of your main goals, what can you do to take a step in that direction today?
If I were you I'd start with the meaty product work rather than developing anything, even a website.
If you want to get back into developing software professionally, you should. The tradeoffs seem small. Lower likelihood of product leadership role (that you don't seem that interested in). Higher probability of being a CTO (though I wonder why you want to be a CTO). Your product skills atrophy while you're doing development, but can be redeveloped if you switch back. Compensation is probably around the same (depending on the details of your current roles and prospects, and the developer-oriented role and prospects). More capability of developing the SaaS you want to build yourself.
Joy is worth optimizing for.
Would you lose the joy if you code professionally? Some do, some don't.
I want to transition back to Software development by going into a developer advocate role so that I can leverage all my client-facing experience and code on a daily basis.
Developer relations makes sense. Another possible stepping stone is Consultant Software Engineer / Solutions Architect (the professional services kind, meaning a client facing engineer that integrates the thing with clients of your company, or builds a full custom solution for them - companies like Thoughtworks or Palantir come to mind).
I am hoping that this will allow me to build a micro SaaS in the next few years to set up a parallel income stream or become a CTO with a strong product & strategy mindset in a few years.
You seem to have all the skills you need to build a micro SaaS (or regular SaaS - maybe even a macro SaaS). If that's what you want to do, what stops you from doing that right now?
I am probably going to lose the option to be a product executive in the future
You won't lose the option entirely, especially at smaller companies. Though yes, it will be harder, especially at larger companies, if you change towards development part or full time.
The BBC says it will stop broadcasting two of its over-the-air television networks and move their content exclusively to the company's streaming platform BBC iPlayer over the next few years.
A less misleading headline would say this applies to 2 BBC networks.
The title is ambiguous, and I interpreted it as applying to all BBC networks.
1. Read the book The First 90 Days. Do what it says.
2. Framework: have coffee / a beer / a video chat / whatever informal 1-on-1 conversation with as many people as you can, 5-10 a week, for 30-60 minutes.
Ask every single person: 1) What should we keep doing that we're already doing? 2) What should we stop doing that we're doing? 3) What should we start doing that we aren't doing? 4) What are the most important 3 things I can do to make your life easier as a product leader? In 3 months or 9 months, if I just did a few things to make your life easier given your personal role and goals and your teams' role and goals, what would that be?
Take notes and do some of those things.
That's it.
Good luck!
Can't edit but I would change:
1. "And for what - symbolic gain alone?"
You advocate giving (or selling) weapons. That isn't symbolic alone, so I'd remove this if I could. It's really more common to see the view that Israel isn't taking a clear enough stance again Russia with symbolic things. It seems pretty clear (see the UN vote).
Nonetheless, Israel giving or selling weapons would complicate an already tricky relationship with Russia. Russia may act as if it is an act of war (arguably it would be reasonable for Russia to do so).
2. India is another country to consider. While not as close an ally to the US compared to Israel, they are either an ally or friendly (depending on the arena / what you mean by ally). India abstained from voting in the UN vote criticizing Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In US media and social media, they got relatively little criticism and attention for this compared to comments I've seen directed at Israel. Even though Israel did in fact vote to criticize Russia. Some people in this thread were at best unaware or at worst lied about this basic, verifiable fact. Apparently Israel even lobbied some other countries to vote the same way they did.
India's reasons for abstaining are also realpolitik and largely driven from considerations around military cooperation with Russia. I don't know too much about Indian / Russian military cooperation, but from what I've read it is much closer and deeper than Israel and Russia. Israel and Russia I'd describe as having few overlaps and at a distance. I'd characterize it as Russia begrudgingly accepting Israel's occasional attacks on Syrian targets and / or Iranian targets in Syria that are trying to supply better weapons to Hezbollah, Hamas, or other people closer to Israel. Given that Syria is a close ally of Russia, it's mildly awkward for Russia, but Syria depends on Russia more than the other way around, Russia is more powerful, Israel is useful for Russia for economic reasons, and Russia can understand Israel's military considerations.
If Israel was an ally they would be helping to supply weapons and armor to Ukraine.
Citation needed. A strongly held opinion isn't a fact.
Instead they will not supply anything more than medication. The US gives Israel plenty of military $ for them to share in times of need.
They have or are going to have a field hospital, and have given aid to Ukraine and surrounding countries.
Israel is a US ally. Israel would be strategically harmed by pissing off Russia (they depend on Russian good will to stop Iranian spread of weapons to Syria and Lebanon). And for what - symbolic gain alone?
It's pretty obvious what the Israeli government and population generally seem to think about Russia's actions (as it is obvious what the Chinese government and Chinese population generally seem to think, another country that's trying to stay more "on the fence" but clearly supportive as opposed to Israel that is clearly not supportive).
Israel can also help mediate the end of this conflict as they have pretty good relations with both Ukraine and Russia, and odds of that are higher if they don't give or sell weapons directly to Ukraine.
As a strictly emotional thought, this makes me feel Israel is a country to cozy up to the strongest nation at the time. If the US falls from grace Israel will have no problem ‘switching’ sides to Russia.
What you are describing in geopolitics. Israel is not special in this regard.
One major factor of alliances is realpolitik and benefits to ones' country. The US has close relations to Israel for many reasons, and the relationship didn't benefit the US in some or many ways, do you really think the US would be a close ally of Israel?
For any smaller country (in terms of population, economics, etc) like Israel, being aware of the massive countries (like the US, China, EU, to a lesser extent Japan and India) are sensible considerations. The US would do the same thing in Israel or any similar sized country's position, would it not?
Maybe that is the case with some small, insular sects of Orthodox Jews? Some of the groups among those often referred to as the "Ultra Orthodox" - I don't know.
It is not aligned with the vast majority of Jewish views about conversion to Judaism.
In general, conversion is possible. As far as I can tell there are even clearly-enough defined requirements.
Jews are not supposed to treat converts any differently than non-converts. People being people, this doesn't always happen, but that is the reasonable principle.
Given that Jews for centuries have not proselytized to non-Jews, many believe you cannot convert to Judaism. You can.
no one can convert to the jewish religion
Citation needed / this is not correct. It isn't easy, but it is perfectly kosher.
better path to higher comp
Sometimes yes. In general, probably not.
Development pays better, and there are way more opportunities. Interest and aptitude matter a lot, short and long term, for both domains.
Either way, you won't be poor.
Look at available data (eg levels.fyi). I don't think it will be a shortcut to higher comp, unless you are more interested in product work or TPM work. Or if you're better at it (which you might be after several years, but probably not for a while).
Also, for truly large organizations, an MBA may be useful. In some cases, it may be necessary.
fulfillment than being a pure developer
Maybe. Hopefully! You'll know only if you try it.
The strategy side of things feels very different, but the interview process seems much more sane and less broken?
Interviewing for product related fields is also not sane and pretty broken.
Same performance. Just different performance skills.
Thanks for clarifying! This wasn't obvious, but it's clear now.
Someone downvoted my comment. Stay classy, HN.
Can you clarify what you mean here?