skisnow

My unpopular opinion (and I'll eat the downvotes) is that CV fraudsters don't get prosecuted nearly enough.

It's not just faceless billionaire companies you're fucking over, it's the other candidates who actually put in the effort to become competent at the job you lied to get.

I'll never get my head around the popularity of the idea that lying on a CV doesn't make you a liar.

Fifteen years ago trans rights was barely a topic at all. The Christian Right’s adoption of it as a suddenly important social issue (after losing the gay marriage debate) was a cynical and deliberate piece of political manipulation, based on careful research into what topics various factions of liberals were divided on.

They realized that there was a big enough subset of feminists that could be persuaded that trans rights were an attack on feminism, to be able to turn them against mainstream liberal thought and thus get their votes, and all they had to do was destroy the lives of a few hundred thousand people who they’d previously never given a second thought to.

Worst of all, it seems to have worked.

America today is not substantially different to the America that dropped more tonnage of bombs on each of Laos and Cambodia than were dropped by the Allies during the whole of WW2, destroying whole villages and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in stark violation of international law and the Geneva Convention.

Nobody came even close to being brought to justice for that, so why would things be any different now?

I once had a coworker whose CV said she had a BSc from Oxford University.

Clearly neither she nor our hiring manager knew much about Oxford.

It's a nice thought, but the difference is that if you grow 1 tonne of rice you only need to find a buyer for 1 tonne of rice. If you've invested in a film then you need that film to play in as many markets as possible to stand any chance of recouping that investment.

For a given individual, sure. If you're trying to do some statistics over a whole group that you have no other record for, it could be useful.

It sounds ridiculous now with everything that's happened in social media in the meantime, but I can see that being a thing in 2006 when the vibe of social media was very different to what it's become now. Back then it was just a tidy little PHP site for you to chat and share photos with friends and family on. Literally nothing appeared in your feed that wasn't a post from a Friend. It was basically a Whatsapp group with a photo gallery feature.

Since Facebook didn't have the baggage it has now, it's much easier to read refusing to join your girlfriend's circle of friends and family back then as a wider rejection of her as a person, same as if you refused to join her family Whatsapp/Telegram/whatever group chat.

I'm not taking her side here, but I wanted to give a bit of perspective for people looking at it through the lens of 2025.

Serious answer, that's not ever what would get prosecuted. What would get you prosecuted in your scenario is e.g. sending a memo to the network of malls you operate saying "do not renew or accept new leases from McDonalds", or to the accounts department of your company saying "do not accept any staff expense claim receipts from McDonalds".

(I'm not supporting the bill by the way, just answering your question at face value)

Yeah. I worked for a US-headquartered multinational in Asia, and we had to do a whole training about how we had to be scrupulous in not doing anything that could be interpreted as a boycott of Israel otherwise the company would be breaking the law.

Continued astonishment at how consistently and repeatedly they self-own with stunts like this. Humiliation fetish is the only explanation.

It’s not uncommon for some sects to write G-d instead of God as a handy workaround, and even then “God” is already a euphemism for the Tetragrammaton rather than His actual name. So in that vein using “G” on its own is probably safe.

A line obscures the thing it's trying to explain. Visually noisy, hard to read.