🦒  Animal Memes

👨🏼‍🍳  Gordon Ramsay Memes

🦃  Thanksgiving Memes

🙅‍♂️  No Meme

👯‍♂️  Obama Biden Memes

🐸  Dank Memes

typo Memes

Friendly
Friendly
Points
Points
Sams
Sams
Favorite Meme
Favorite Meme
Got Memes
Got Memes
A Meme
A Meme
point
point
pointing
pointing
humored
humored
sext
sext 

    
                    

                

            
        
    

    
    
    






            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    
                    
                    

                        


	


    🔥 Popular | Latest






    

    
        
            
                

                    

                        
                    

                    
                    

                        
                            Trump's latest typo has become a hilarious meme
                        
                    

                    
                

            
        
    
        
            
                

                    

                        
                    

                    
                    

                        
                            "Forrest Trump" Memes & Tweets Mock The President For Another Hilarious Typo
                        
                    

                    
                

            
        
    
    






    

    
    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        jewblog:
gahdamnpunk:


The police caught and arrested him.

But despite the heinous and violent crimes he was credibly accused of, he was released without bail. He was free for three months AFTER police discovered  that he was abusing 12 underage black girls. 

 Chrystul Kizer was raped and trafficked by this man for years. 

She’s now facing life in prison for defending herself against her attacker. 
Free Chrystul Kizer!!!
Pls spread help spread the news!

SIGN THE PETITION 

this isn’t an old post; the screenshot has a typo: her hearing is scheduled for february of 2020 and if she is convicted as charged she will spend life in prison. she will likely never be granted clemency. her case and the court are far more stacked against her than they were for cyntoia brown, who regardless still spent 15 years in prison.
please sign the petition. 
: chris evans
 Follow
 @notcapnamerica
 Randy Volar, a rich white man, drugged,
 raped, and trafficked underage black
 girls. For years. He filmed the acts.
 One of them, Chrystul Kizer, had enough
 and killed him.
 She is facing life in prison.
 He was sexually abusing underage girls. Then, police said, one of...
 Now Chrystul Kizer, who was 16 when she met Randy Volar, is accused of
 murdering her alleged sex trafficker. She faces life in prison.
 washingtonpost.com
 11:48 AM - 17 Dec 2019
 3,076 Retweets 2,495 Likes

 All-Star

 Chrystul Kizer is an incarcerated trafficking survivor who is
 being charged with life in prison for acting in self-defense
 against her trafficker. The punishment that Chrystul is facing for
 defending her own life signals that black women and girls have
 no selves to defend. Right now Kenosha County District Attorney
 Michael Graveley has the power to drop all charges against
 Chrystul immediately. We are urging Graveley to do the right
 thing and drop all charges now so that instead of enduring
 more violence, Chrystul's healing can being with her family and
 community. Please show your support for Chrystul by signing
 this petition! Her next hearing is scheduled for February 21,
 2019.
jewblog:
gahdamnpunk:


The police caught and arrested him.

But despite the heinous and violent crimes he was credibly accused of, he was released without bail. He was free for three months AFTER police discovered  that he was abusing 12 underage black girls. 

 Chrystul Kizer was raped and trafficked by this man for years. 

She’s now facing life in prison for defending herself against her attacker. 
Free Chrystul Kizer!!!
Pls spread help spread the news!

SIGN THE PETITION 

this isn’t an old post; the screenshot has a typo: her hearing is scheduled for february of 2020 and if she is convicted as charged she will spend life in prison. she will likely never be granted clemency. her case and the court are far more stacked against her than they were for cyntoia brown, who regardless still spent 15 years in prison.
please sign the petition. 

        

            
            

                
                
                    jewblog:
gahdamnpunk:


The police caught and arrested him.

But despite the heinous and violent crimes he was credibly accused of, he was released without bail. He was free for three months AFTER police discovered  that he was abusing 12 underage black girls. 

 Chrystul Kizer was raped and trafficked by this man for years. 

She’s now facing life in prison for defending herself against her attacker. 
Free Chrystul Kizer!!!
Pls spread help spread the news!

SIGN THE PETITION 

this isn’t an old post; the screenshot has a typo: her hearing is scheduled for february of 2020 and if she is convicted as charged she will spend life in prison. she will likely never be granted clemency. her case and the court are far more stacked against her than they were for cyntoia brown, who regardless still spent 15 years in prison.
please sign the petition. 
: chris evans
 Follow
 @notcapnamerica
 Randy Volar, a rich white man, drugged,
 raped, and trafficked underage black
 girls. For years. He filmed the acts.
 One of them, Chrystul Kizer, had enough
 and killed him.
 She is facing life in prison.
 He was sexually abusing underage girls. Then, police said, one of...
 Now Chrystul Kizer, who was 16 when she met Randy Volar, is accused of
 murdering her alleged sex trafficker. She faces life in prison.
 washingtonpost.com
 11:48 AM - 17 Dec 2019
 3,076 Retweets 2,495 Likes

 All-Star

 Chrystul Kizer is an incarcerated trafficking survivor who is
 being charged with life in prison for acting in self-defense
 against her trafficker. The punishment that Chrystul is facing for
 defending her own life signals that black women and girls have
 no selves to defend. Right now Kenosha County District Attorney
 Michael Graveley has the power to drop all charges against
 Chrystul immediately. We are urging Graveley to do the right
 thing and drop all charges now so that instead of enduring
 more violence, Chrystul's healing can being with her family and
 community. Please show your support for Chrystul by signing
 this petition! Her next hearing is scheduled for February 21,
 2019.
jewblog:
gahdamnpunk:


The police caught and arrested him.

But despite the heinous and violent crimes he was credibly accused of, he was released without bail. He was free for three months AFTER police discovered  that he was abusing 12 underage black girls. 

 Chrystul Kizer was raped and trafficked by this man for years. 

She’s now facing life in prison for defending herself against her attacker. 
Free Chrystul Kizer!!!
Pls spread help spread the news!

SIGN THE PETITION 

this isn’t an old post; the screenshot has a typo: her hearing is scheduled for february of 2020 and if she is convicted as charged she will spend life in prison. she will likely never be granted clemency. her case and the court are far more stacked against her than they were for cyntoia brown, who regardless still spent 15 years in prison.
please sign the petition. 

                    
                
            

            
                
                
jewblog:
gahdamnpunk:


The police caught and arrested him.

But despite the heinous and violent crimes he was credibly accused of, he wa...

                
            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        25 Funny Tumblr Posts to Make You Laughing Today: jumpingjacktrash:
 arrghigiveup:
 cimness:
 China's netizens are all in a twitter over the
 account of a carpenter who was
 commissioned to make a cinnabar red
 high-backed chair with the finials at the
 top to be "in the shape of dragons' heads"
 (chéng lóngtóu Unfortunately, he
 misinterpreted the directions to mean "lin
 the shape ofl Jackie Chan's head"
 ("Chénglóng tóu )
 (via Language Log
 Reanalysis, Jackie Chan
 edition)
 LMAO ok so to elaborate on this absolute gem,
 notice how the characters provided for "in the
 shape of dragons' heads" and "lin the shape of
 Jackie Chan's head" are identical? That wasn't a
 typo
 The thing you need to understand about
 Chinese names is that they all have meaning.
 And I don't mean that in the sense of "if you
 trace the etymology back through two
 languages it has its roots in a Hebrew phrase
 that means "God is my " that many
 Western names have. I mean that in the sense
 of "almost all of these words are still in regular
 use today and my parents very literally named
 me "pretty [and] wise" in Chinese.
 (Sidenote: This is why we get annoyed at made
 up 'Chinese' names that just pull two random
 vaguely Chinese-sounding syllables together. It
 is blindingly obvious when it's not a real name).
 (chéng) means "to become", "to turn into"
 L (lóng) is "dragon". Thus, Jackie Chan's
 Chinese stage name, (Chénglóng),
 literally means "become dragon". ((tóu), of
 course, means "head")
 (Further sidenote: This is actually a bit of a
 pun/reference. Specifically, it is a reference to
 Bruce Lee, whose stage name was
 (Xiãolóng), or, "Little dragon". So Jackie's
 chosen stage name means both "become
 dragon", and "become [like] Bruce Lee")
 The other thing you need to know about
 Chinese is that we don't put spaces between
 terms in written text.
 What all this means is that the way you'd
 write "Icarvel into dragon heads" can
 be identical to the way you'd write "Icarvel
 Jackie Chan's head", and literally the only
 difference would be where you pause when
 you vocalise it: before lóngtóu, or after
 chénglóng. XD
 i think the chair turned out great
25 Funny Tumblr Posts to Make You Laughing Today
        

            
            

                
                
                    25 Funny Tumblr Posts to Make You Laughing Today: jumpingjacktrash:
 arrghigiveup:
 cimness:
 China's netizens are all in a twitter over the
 account of a carpenter who was
 commissioned to make a cinnabar red
 high-backed chair with the finials at the
 top to be "in the shape of dragons' heads"
 (chéng lóngtóu Unfortunately, he
 misinterpreted the directions to mean "lin
 the shape ofl Jackie Chan's head"
 ("Chénglóng tóu )
 (via Language Log
 Reanalysis, Jackie Chan
 edition)
 LMAO ok so to elaborate on this absolute gem,
 notice how the characters provided for "in the
 shape of dragons' heads" and "lin the shape of
 Jackie Chan's head" are identical? That wasn't a
 typo
 The thing you need to understand about
 Chinese names is that they all have meaning.
 And I don't mean that in the sense of "if you
 trace the etymology back through two
 languages it has its roots in a Hebrew phrase
 that means "God is my " that many
 Western names have. I mean that in the sense
 of "almost all of these words are still in regular
 use today and my parents very literally named
 me "pretty [and] wise" in Chinese.
 (Sidenote: This is why we get annoyed at made
 up 'Chinese' names that just pull two random
 vaguely Chinese-sounding syllables together. It
 is blindingly obvious when it's not a real name).
 (chéng) means "to become", "to turn into"
 L (lóng) is "dragon". Thus, Jackie Chan's
 Chinese stage name, (Chénglóng),
 literally means "become dragon". ((tóu), of
 course, means "head")
 (Further sidenote: This is actually a bit of a
 pun/reference. Specifically, it is a reference to
 Bruce Lee, whose stage name was
 (Xiãolóng), or, "Little dragon". So Jackie's
 chosen stage name means both "become
 dragon", and "become [like] Bruce Lee")
 The other thing you need to know about
 Chinese is that we don't put spaces between
 terms in written text.
 What all this means is that the way you'd
 write "Icarvel into dragon heads" can
 be identical to the way you'd write "Icarvel
 Jackie Chan's head", and literally the only
 difference would be where you pause when
 you vocalise it: before lóngtóu, or after
 chénglóng. XD
 i think the chair turned out great
25 Funny Tumblr Posts to Make You Laughing Today
                    
                
            

            
                
                
25 Funny Tumblr Posts to Make You Laughing Today

                
            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride
        

            
            

                
                
                    friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        SWE interview in Saudi Arabia: //sample ansvers from various interviews
 178//Question: Write code to find out if a nunber is odd.
 179 //Candidate: Qk give me a minute sounds of typing
 180 /Candidate: My ansver is voice changes noticeably from speaking-voice to reading-voice
 //Question: Find all the odd numbers betveen 0-100
 182 //Me suspecting that the candi
 183 I/Candidate: It means that ve find the percentage of i in 2
 googled it*: ok, and can you explain to me what does that line mean?
 2 Why are ve f
 14
 //I walked the candidate through this code carefully
 single"in the last two lines. This is a candidate who had 8 years total experience
 twice. There are no typos, not the " 1", and not the
 186 //Me "with a nice voice but nalicious intent* : I understand that it is complicated. Have you ever used this
 tore
 //Candidate "with obvious reliet: No,never! This is my first tine using it
 18 /Question: Find all the odd numbers betveen 0-100
 100;
 rtil)
 193
 194
 //Question: Find all the odd numbers between 0-100
 //Candidate: I am sorry, I have forgotten the exact formala for finding odd numbers
 23 //candidate said that finding only the odd numbers was too difficult, and this nethod will find ALL numbers, so
 196 /Candidate: I understand, but I cannot recall the formala, so I cannot find these numbers
 27
 //Question: Find all the odd numbers betveen 0-100
 200 /Question: Can you tell me about your professional history?
 //candidate: I try my absolute best to make ธure that my code does not have too many errors before I take it
 29
 30
 the odd numbers between 0 and
 205 /Question: Count down from 700 to 200 in decrements of
 coreot'hinunitt?
 completely
 the odd numbers between 0-100
 211 I/Me: And if I fixed the syntax errors, will it work then?
 213
 214
 //Me: And why is that2
 //Candidate: It has logic errors, too
 you like
 //Candidate: I have been programming for 10 years. 5 years as a hobby, and 5 professionally. know PHP, Ruby
 JS (including both node, angular), MongoDB, Myso, PostgresoL, and more
 /Me: Nice. What have
 //candidate: In the 5 years where I worked professionally, I have worked in 4 companies as a webdex. I have
 multiples sites up, all done from scratch. Some I developed solo, and sone as part of a team. I do both
 front-end and back-end development. I am ready to tackle any challenge!
 /Me: ok. using your language of choice, can you find all the odd numbers between 0-1002
 7 //Question: Find all the odd numbers betwveen
 0-100
 you used your skills for?
 50 I/I asked the candidate what this code was supposed to do, and the candidate replied: "I do not want to ansver
 1 //So I tried again. Same candidate, next question: Find the sun of all integers betveen 0-100
 3 //Me:"Ok and if I wanted this done in Javascript?
 more than this."
 222 //Candidate: tries for about 3 minutes
 223 I/Candidate: I cannot do this. My skill in mathematics is not high enough
 6 I/This was the most experienced candidate, with 19 years of professional experience. Nineteen, no typo. This
 226
 candidate was programming professionally before many of you were born.
 /This situation happened with two different candidates. Their responses were worded differently, but the
 was the same
 //Me: Ok, I want to ask you a couple of programming questions. Do you have a paper and pen or pencil with you?
 0 //Question: Assuming you have two integers, x and y, with y bigger than x. Sum all the numbers from x to y
 230 //Me: ok.Using your preferred programming language, find all the odd nunbers between 0 and 1002
 Example: If x is 1, and y is 5, then sum 1+2+3+4+5
 232 /Me: Yes. Write your code down, and when you are done, read it to me, and then ve can go through it
 233 //Candidate: But that is impossible! How can I write code without using a computer?
 4+i
 237
 //Question: Find all the odd numbers betveen 0-100. Note that this was a phone interview
 67
 //What is happening here? Your guess is as good as mine. Candidate had no idea what this code was supposed to do
 239 IMe: I am trying to test your programming skills, not your Google-search skills
 240 //Candidate: Baha, right! But İf 1 use Google, how will you know?
 241 /Me: I wil1 ask you similar questions in the face-to-face interview
 1 //Question: Count down from 700 to 200 in decrements of 13
 246
 //One of the worst interviews that I had, that made me feel genuinely bad, was this one.I tried to capture the
 mood of how it went, as I did not get to see any code Some of the actions I describe are what I assume
 happened on the other end of the phone, based on the sounds that I heard
 //Me: Greetings! Thanks for letting me interview you. Are you ready and prepared?
 247
 249
 //Me: Alright! Let us start. *İntroductions and a bit of relaxing amantalk, candidate is very cool. Qk, so
 your resume lists about 5 different programming languages.Are you good in all of them
 /candidate: I am good in Javaacript and PHP, and ak in Java
 81 //Out of curiosity, I asked: "Why is the answer a double?"
 82 //Candidate "Because it needs to store the value taken from _two variables.
 so which is your f
 252 //Candidate: Definitely avascript! I did a lot of work in Javascript!
 253 /Me: That is good. Can I ask you a question or two in Tavascript
 6 //Make a standard deck of cards. Shuftle the deck, and draw two cards at random. Display the two cards
 Are you
 256 //candidate: Yes, yes. I am on the line!
 ask you a questi
 can try my best to ansver
 gentle gloves, ve are not trying to break the candidate
 Qk. so you know what odd
 are, right?
 for (let count
 Yes Yes,I know odd number
 261 /Me: ok. so ny question is this. Using your favourite language, Javascript, can you find all the odd numbers
 8 //This was slowly and painstak
 used for the second part which only had two cards, while no loop was used for the
 cards... but I decided against
 the odd numbers
 ok. Why don't you t
 then read
 fter
 you are
 //Candidate 'excited and breathless: YES! Yes,yes!
 scribbling/scratching for about two minutes, then some furious scribbling for a minute, then the
 fast breathing, but no seribbling sounds
 1 1/9uestion: Find all the odd numbers betuween
 03
 05
 assuming
 x
 and
 lieve the candidate put the phone down, and started writing. I could hear some gentl
 y,
 someone crossing out
 many lines
 on a paper. Then came a minute
 /Candidate "voice completely broken
 //Me "making a fatal error of judgement by asking: Is everything ak
 the odd numbers...uhh
 think..L
 the odd... the odd nunbers
 alm, polite email, much later that
 this time I regret that I must decline the
 perplexing, let me
 Candidate takes the last
 once to make
 not, then you add
 you add
 odd, then you add 2
 Disregarding the sundry minor errors in the code, the logic behind
 functional, but
 ribly inefficient
 two cards at random. Display the two cards
 27 var arr-i,2,3, 4,5, 6,7,,9,10,.0K'
 ar arrl
 ar two-
 36
 t (pos
 arr pos
 50
 51
 52
 ition] push (arrti
 for (wamath
 finalArr
 var indexeeArr.indexof (nevArrti] val
 72 //Behold this masterpiece! Read it slow and savour every 1ine, for beauties like this come once
 fetine
SWE interview in Saudi Arabia
        

            
            

                
                
                    SWE interview in Saudi Arabia: //sample ansvers from various interviews
 178//Question: Write code to find out if a nunber is odd.
 179 //Candidate: Qk give me a minute sounds of typing
 180 /Candidate: My ansver is voice changes noticeably from speaking-voice to reading-voice
 //Question: Find all the odd numbers betveen 0-100
 182 //Me suspecting that the candi
 183 I/Candidate: It means that ve find the percentage of i in 2
 googled it*: ok, and can you explain to me what does that line mean?
 2 Why are ve f
 14
 //I walked the candidate through this code carefully
 single"in the last two lines. This is a candidate who had 8 years total experience
 twice. There are no typos, not the " 1", and not the
 186 //Me "with a nice voice but nalicious intent* : I understand that it is complicated. Have you ever used this
 tore
 //Candidate "with obvious reliet: No,never! This is my first tine using it
 18 /Question: Find all the odd numbers betveen 0-100
 100;
 rtil)
 193
 194
 //Question: Find all the odd numbers between 0-100
 //Candidate: I am sorry, I have forgotten the exact formala for finding odd numbers
 23 //candidate said that finding only the odd numbers was too difficult, and this nethod will find ALL numbers, so
 196 /Candidate: I understand, but I cannot recall the formala, so I cannot find these numbers
 27
 //Question: Find all the odd numbers betveen 0-100
 200 /Question: Can you tell me about your professional history?
 //candidate: I try my absolute best to make ธure that my code does not have too many errors before I take it
 29
 30
 the odd numbers between 0 and
 205 /Question: Count down from 700 to 200 in decrements of
 coreot'hinunitt?
 completely
 the odd numbers between 0-100
 211 I/Me: And if I fixed the syntax errors, will it work then?
 213
 214
 //Me: And why is that2
 //Candidate: It has logic errors, too
 you like
 //Candidate: I have been programming for 10 years. 5 years as a hobby, and 5 professionally. know PHP, Ruby
 JS (including both node, angular), MongoDB, Myso, PostgresoL, and more
 /Me: Nice. What have
 //candidate: In the 5 years where I worked professionally, I have worked in 4 companies as a webdex. I have
 multiples sites up, all done from scratch. Some I developed solo, and sone as part of a team. I do both
 front-end and back-end development. I am ready to tackle any challenge!
 /Me: ok. using your language of choice, can you find all the odd numbers between 0-1002
 7 //Question: Find all the odd numbers betwveen
 0-100
 you used your skills for?
 50 I/I asked the candidate what this code was supposed to do, and the candidate replied: "I do not want to ansver
 1 //So I tried again. Same candidate, next question: Find the sun of all integers betveen 0-100
 3 //Me:"Ok and if I wanted this done in Javascript?
 more than this."
 222 //Candidate: tries for about 3 minutes
 223 I/Candidate: I cannot do this. My skill in mathematics is not high enough
 6 I/This was the most experienced candidate, with 19 years of professional experience. Nineteen, no typo. This
 226
 candidate was programming professionally before many of you were born.
 /This situation happened with two different candidates. Their responses were worded differently, but the
 was the same
 //Me: Ok, I want to ask you a couple of programming questions. Do you have a paper and pen or pencil with you?
 0 //Question: Assuming you have two integers, x and y, with y bigger than x. Sum all the numbers from x to y
 230 //Me: ok.Using your preferred programming language, find all the odd nunbers between 0 and 1002
 Example: If x is 1, and y is 5, then sum 1+2+3+4+5
 232 /Me: Yes. Write your code down, and when you are done, read it to me, and then ve can go through it
 233 //Candidate: But that is impossible! How can I write code without using a computer?
 4+i
 237
 //Question: Find all the odd numbers betveen 0-100. Note that this was a phone interview
 67
 //What is happening here? Your guess is as good as mine. Candidate had no idea what this code was supposed to do
 239 IMe: I am trying to test your programming skills, not your Google-search skills
 240 //Candidate: Baha, right! But İf 1 use Google, how will you know?
 241 /Me: I wil1 ask you similar questions in the face-to-face interview
 1 //Question: Count down from 700 to 200 in decrements of 13
 246
 //One of the worst interviews that I had, that made me feel genuinely bad, was this one.I tried to capture the
 mood of how it went, as I did not get to see any code Some of the actions I describe are what I assume
 happened on the other end of the phone, based on the sounds that I heard
 //Me: Greetings! Thanks for letting me interview you. Are you ready and prepared?
 247
 249
 //Me: Alright! Let us start. *İntroductions and a bit of relaxing amantalk, candidate is very cool. Qk, so
 your resume lists about 5 different programming languages.Are you good in all of them
 /candidate: I am good in Javaacript and PHP, and ak in Java
 81 //Out of curiosity, I asked: "Why is the answer a double?"
 82 //Candidate "Because it needs to store the value taken from _two variables.
 so which is your f
 252 //Candidate: Definitely avascript! I did a lot of work in Javascript!
 253 /Me: That is good. Can I ask you a question or two in Tavascript
 6 //Make a standard deck of cards. Shuftle the deck, and draw two cards at random. Display the two cards
 Are you
 256 //candidate: Yes, yes. I am on the line!
 ask you a questi
 can try my best to ansver
 gentle gloves, ve are not trying to break the candidate
 Qk. so you know what odd
 are, right?
 for (let count
 Yes Yes,I know odd number
 261 /Me: ok. so ny question is this. Using your favourite language, Javascript, can you find all the odd numbers
 8 //This was slowly and painstak
 used for the second part which only had two cards, while no loop was used for the
 cards... but I decided against
 the odd numbers
 ok. Why don't you t
 then read
 fter
 you are
 //Candidate 'excited and breathless: YES! Yes,yes!
 scribbling/scratching for about two minutes, then some furious scribbling for a minute, then the
 fast breathing, but no seribbling sounds
 1 1/9uestion: Find all the odd numbers betuween
 03
 05
 assuming
 x
 and
 lieve the candidate put the phone down, and started writing. I could hear some gentl
 y,
 someone crossing out
 many lines
 on a paper. Then came a minute
 /Candidate "voice completely broken
 //Me "making a fatal error of judgement by asking: Is everything ak
 the odd numbers...uhh
 think..L
 the odd... the odd nunbers
 alm, polite email, much later that
 this time I regret that I must decline the
 perplexing, let me
 Candidate takes the last
 once to make
 not, then you add
 you add
 odd, then you add 2
 Disregarding the sundry minor errors in the code, the logic behind
 functional, but
 ribly inefficient
 two cards at random. Display the two cards
 27 var arr-i,2,3, 4,5, 6,7,,9,10,.0K'
 ar arrl
 ar two-
 36
 t (pos
 arr pos
 50
 51
 52
 ition] push (arrti
 for (wamath
 finalArr
 var indexeeArr.indexof (nevArrti] val
 72 //Behold this masterpiece! Read it slow and savour every 1ine, for beauties like this come once
 fetine
SWE interview in Saudi Arabia
                    
                
            

            
                
                
SWE interview in Saudi Arabia

                
            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    


    
	

        
	

    




                    

                

                

                    




    

        
        

            
            

              
            

        

        
        
        

            

            
            
                
                    
                        

                            

                                
                                
                                
                            

                            
                            

                                
                                    Trump tweeted about a 'smocking gun' and the typo became a glorious meme
                                
                            

                            
                        

                    
                
            
                
                    
                        

                            

                                
                            

                            
                            

                                
                                    Donald Trump Tweets About "Smocking Gun". Typo Inspires Hilarious Jokes, Memes
                                
                            

                            
                        

                    
                
            
                
                    
                        

                            

                                
                            

                            
                            

                                
                                    #SmockingGun Tweets & Memes About Trump's Typo Blunder To Help You Laugh Through This ...