The Night Thread Mk. IX

Phone interview tomorrow for a position that actually uses the technologies I want to use and is extremely relevant to my interests.

Bit awkward though given that I've only been in my current job for a year

Fry's argument is essentially how I feel about the subject, and the shocked facial expressions of the interviewer are just priceless.

Phone interview tomorrow for a position that actually uses the technologies I want to use and is extremely relevant to my interests.

Bit awkward though given that I've only been in my current job for a year

Fuck it lad a year is plenty of time to have stayed in a job and sure you've got to put yourself first tbf.

Job keep you in Dublin? Good luck

Aye, can't see the boss man being too happy about it, but it's purely a "career" decision in that I'd be doing what I've always wanted to do (something I was promised in my interview for current place, but never happened), not like I'm just moving for money.

Aye, Out by UCD. Bus straight from Drumcondra to it so it's a lot handier than I thought given that UCD is a nightmare to get to. Hopefully all goes well, they want interviews done and people chosen by the end of the week so I shouldn't be waiting around for long for an answer

Where the fuck do you look for jobs aside from the main job sites?

Newspapers

My local one is shite, always just advertising for teachers and builders.

I feel like there are so many jobs out there I just don't know where to find them!

Thought the phone interview went alright, recruiter straight back on to me: "They want you in for an interview with Head of Business Development on Thursday afternoon. Feedback so far has been very very positive"

\o/

Lad literally said "they're looking for a few lads who can have the craic and go for pints after work". It's like perfect

The Hardcore History podcast is absolutely

Been listening to the series about the first world war over the past two weeks and it's just incredible.

About how you lot were spineless nancies?

Better to be a "spineless nancy" than send an entire generation of young men to slaughter in some muddy Belgian field for nothing.

Yeah cause everything would have been fine if we'd just let it happen.

Considering how history unfolded after the war, Britain is arguably the biggest loser of the major powers involved. I'm not sure guaranteeing Belgian neutrality is a cause worth losing an empire and 2% of your total population for, if the British leadership at the time had the wisdom of hindsight available to them, I'm not sure that they would make the decision they made.

Imperial Germany were naughty boys, invading neutral Belgium, being the first to use chemical weapons and carrying out indiscriminate submarine warfare, but the First World War was hardly some great battle between good and evil, only a giant clusterfuck triggered by the web of pacts, alliances, agreements and guarantees the great powers of Europe had made in the preceding century. Calling countries not bound by such agreements "spineless nancies" for not entering the war reeks of ignorance and stupidity, especially when you know what an unspeakable tragedy the war was for anyone who was involved in it.

The ignorance of ianbakers comment is is further heightened by the fact that he's chastising a neutral power for remaining neutral, when the United Kingdom entered the war to defend the right of neutral powers to do exactly that. On top of that, had Sweden entered the war it would almost certainly have been on the German's side, the Swedish elites at the time were germanophiles and our greatest historical antagonist was a member of the Entente, recapturing or liberating Finland would have been the only conceivable reason for Sweden to enter the war.

The Hardcore History podcast is absolutely

Been listening to the series about the first world war over the past two weeks and it's just incredible.

They're amazing. So informative. I've been meaning to listen to the Mongols series for some time now.

Considering how history unfolded after the war, Britain is arguably the biggest loser of the major powers involved. I'm not sure guaranteeing Belgian neutrality is a cause worth losing an empire and 2% of your total population for, if the British leadership at the time had the wisdom of hindsight available to them, I'm not sure that they would make the decision they made.

Imperial Germany were naughty boys, invading neutral Belgium, being the first to use chemical weapons and carrying out indiscriminate submarine warfare, but the First World War was hardly some great battle between good and evil, only a giant clusterfuck triggered by the web of pacts, alliances, agreements and guarantees the great powers of Europe had made in the preceding century. Calling countries not bound by such agreements "spineless nancies" for not entering the war reeks of ignorance and stupidity, especially when you know what an unspeakable tragedy the war was for anyone who was involved in it.

The ignorance of ianbakers comment is is further heightened by the fact that he's chastising a neutral power for remaining neutral, when the United Kingdom entered the war to defend the right of neutral powers to do exactly that. On top of that, had Sweden entered the war it would almost certainly have been on the German's side, the Swedish elites at the time were germanophiles and our greatest historical antagonist was a member of the Entente, recapturing or liberating Finland would have been the only conceivable reason for Sweden to enter the war.

Listened to the one about the nuclear bomb and "logical insanity"?

I did, and it was my favourite, but that was about a year ago. I think I got through it all in one sitting. I can't remember the details though so I might give it a re-listen soon.