Prior to the discovery of the Hittite language, linguists had compared the various Indo-European languages they knew of and did much of the work of reconstructing the Proto-Indo-European language based on comparative linguistics. This work was highly conjectural, but it provided something akin to a falsifiable theory that could be tested by the discovery of another written Indo-European language. Such a language was Hittite, and the Hittite language fits the model of Indo-European languages that had been constructed prior to its discovery.
English is what? ~600-800 years old? Most other major Western European languages only developed over the past ~2000 years or so.
It’s not like Porto Indo-European developed out of nothing. It was related to other languages that just didn’t survive and happens to be the most recent (hypothesized) common ancestor of all other Indo-European languages)
To be fair being able to understand which facts matter in which situation and which are irrelevant can be a very important aspect of some jobs.
I mean before replying “I need the money" etc. one should consider if that’s not obvious and why would the interviewer care about the information. It’s not particularly subjective.
> who's making no effort
Having to always be very literal and explicit is not very efficient though. That person might prefer spending their time doing something else.
You're missing the same point as in the other reply. The issue is not whether you can conceivably derive some other reasonable interpretation of the question. The issue is whether a NT interviewer is deft enough at communication so as to make this just a minor hiccup. If they're so flabbergasted by that kind of reply, and just shut down that that point, then yeah, I'm sorry, they just suck at asking for what they want, or are trying to weasel out of owning the real question.
(Edit: Or, even better, why not, like migrate to a question that heads off the misinterpretation in the first place e.g. "Why do you feel this role is a good match for you?" I think you know why.)
Remember, everyday communication constantly has (far-more-obvious) misinterpretations that, in hindsight, with sufficient logical strength, one party could have avoided entirely. Those who are actually good at communication, at "talking about facts", can easily identify the mismatch and narrow down what they want. This remains true regardless of how obvious a thing one party missed.
So yes, I get it, you can derive a better interpretation. That's beside the (original) point about, why can't you ask for what you really want? Why would you say something like, "[uhhh, oh crap, I have no self-awareness...] Just, whatever you interpret the question to mean"?
And, as with the other commenter, it's kind of funny that you're discounting the possibility that an NT would ever be in a position where they can't/don't want to ask the question they really want to, and are in a position of power to expect the interviewee to volunteer it. ("Yes I'm desperate enough to really need the money and make up some story about how I really like your company/line of work to cover it.")
To be fair it’s hard to reconcile with them being paid relatively high wages due to manpower shortages (since they are generally reluctant to send conscripts into Ukraine).
> ed, it is in its best interest to ethnically cleanse Gaza,
That was not Israel’s policy back in 2006. Hamas had zero interest in coexistence or the wellbeing (or lives) of the people living in Gaza. The current situation is a direct outcome of that.
I mean.. yes, if the only choice is between removing the entire population of Gaza and giving it back to Hamas it’s not that surprising that most Israeli’s are picking the first option.
I don't think the evidence favors this conclusion. Their actions immediately following 2006 suggests they definitely had quite a bit of interest - they enforced a ceasefire after 2006 (also punishing other groups that attempted to break it), and according to former President Carter were willing to accept a 2-state solution if the Palestinians democratically approved it. This was all put on hold after Cast Lead, which aligns with the Israeli policy of denying a two-state solution.
The only piece of evidence I can think of that counters this is Hamas' charter, which IIRC calls for the creation of a Palestinian state in all of former Mandatory Palestine which would imply the destruction of Israel. But even then, based on the pragmatism demonstrated above (and the openness to a two-state solution), the Hamas leadership were rational enough to realize this goal could not be achieved.
> comparing the number of civilian victims whenever Russia bombs Ukraine
Because Ukraine has access to modern AA and early warning systems. Russia is still indiscriminately shooting at civilian targets it’s just that they have a much harder time hitting anyone than the Israelis.
Also there are hardly any actual military targets in Lebanon and Gaza because the local terrorists couldn’t care less about the civilian population there (not that this fact absolves Israel of anything)
> used as a NATO-powered bulwark against Russia
Deranged paranoid delusions… NATO, EU and USA couldn’t care less about somehow attacking or invading Russia. That’s just as absurd as it gets.
> allows you to make such a 2-dimensional assessment
Surely there were many complex causes which resulted in Germany invading Poland back in 1939, and Poland itself at the time was a deeply flawed state in quite a few ways?
So of course you would also say that that event could not be described as “unquestionably, unconscionably, unacceptably wrong”?
> or the Scandinavian countries that generally have higher spending power than the us.
Do they? PPP they all have lower disposable income than the US and they are not even at the top in Europe (including social transfers). Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands are above Norway and Sweden is even lower than France.
Of course we have higher Disposable Income in the US, it's a useless metric for these sorts of comparison purposes as it includes expenditures for things like healthcare, which in most other places is paid for by taxes (aka. not part of disposable income). A more useful metric would be Discretionary Income.
The OECD economists are pretty smart cookies, and account for government services delivered in kind (like healthcare). The net adjusted household disposable income includes the value of government provided healthcare: https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/ (“Household adjusted disposable income includes income from economic activity (wages and salaries; profits of self-employed business owners), property income (dividends, interests and rents), social benefits in cash (retirement pensions, unemployment benefits, family allowances, basic income support, etc.), and social transfers in kind (goods and services such as health care, education and housing, received either free of charge or at reduced prices).”) So the income top line in European countries is higher than the actual income to account for the value of those services.
Global market share hardly matters though. UN isn’t regulated monopolies national agencies/EU are. Not that it should matter it’s still an oligopoly which is not that different
this is a super slippery slope. this would mean most manufacturers are actually monopolies because they have control over their own products. i don’t see how this makes any sense.
