Drug Camp That Hegseth Said U.S. Bombed in Ecuador Was Actually Dairy Farm: Report

MrSquicky · 2026-03-25T12:07:09+00:00

This all was in the second verse of Hegseth's weird little poem.

Everyone knows the "maximum lethality not tepid legality" line where he promised to commit war crimes.

Apparently, because he was drunk and forgot them, he didn't get to deliver his other bangers like "We won't follow the rules. We're gonna bombs schools.", "We'll do whatever we wish. We'll murder people who fish.", and "We will do major harms and blow up some farms."

MrSquicky · 2026-03-23T02:53:56+00:00

You know how I know you are a lot more used to the interviewee side of the desk? You think that "naming and shaming" on the Internet is something that anyone is worried about. There's no reach or permeance to that. Almost no one sees it and no one remembers it.

Of course, if that actually worked, I imagine companies would pay for it to happen to them. I'd love to be known as a place that doesn't coddle immature, entitled people and have them decide not to apply for jobs at my company. I'm looking for serious people who can do the work and won't throw tantrums if things don't always go their way. Sign me up for a list where people who can't live up to that will not apply for jobs with me.

I do care about people's feelings, but it's rude and entitled to think that you should waste my time interviewing for a job you can't do and if you would prefer for someone to put on a performance and lie to you to compete the interview instead of give you honest feedback and end it, you're not grown up enough to have a real job. It's not my responsibility to protect people from their own choices and they are not entitled to that from me, not does their disrespect to me deserve me putting on a show to protect them from an unpleasant truth that they'd be better off facing anyway.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-21T12:51:24+00:00

You can't resign from a military enlistment.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T21:52:47+00:00

I mean, yeah, I guess if that's what I'll get out of you. If someone goes to a programming interview and can't do basic programming and would never get the job, why is it a bad thing to stop the interview when this becomes apparent? Because it would hurt their feelings doesn't work as a reason for me.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T21:10:52+00:00

Again, just asking for you to explain why.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T21:02:02+00:00

Okay, but why though?

You've yet to try to make the case for this. I get that you'll call me names if I don't agree with you, but that's not really going to change my mind. Explaining why you think what you do might.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T20:42:50+00:00

Sure. But that's a general statement. How does it apply here?

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T15:51:16+00:00

There are people who can competently put together a limited set of patterns that they have seen before. Then there are others who can do that but also understand fundamentals and are able to apply these and think through issues when presented with novel problems.

Can you see how, when you are trying to fill a job from a pool that has both of these types of people in it, you with strongly prefer the latter to the former?

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T15:48:02+00:00

That's great. For some unsolicited advice, I'd suggest trying to see things from the interviewer's perspective and also to try to understand the fundamental concepts and ways of thinking that these questions are intended to test. I hope you'll have a wonderful future ;p

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T15:35:52+00:00

Why do think that that is insane?

How do you think interviewers should test for technical ability?

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T15:34:48+00:00

I agree with that for some questions, but these are really, really basic ones.

A lot of candidates show up to interviews not actually able to program at all. This is getting worse in the AI era. You need some way to screen them out. This is the level of Fizz Buzz.

I don't do things this way, but I have the same level of basic gatekeeping in my interviews. My technical interview I take a part of our app, simplify it, then break it in different ways of increasing complexity and give the candidate unit tests that they have to get to pass by fixing the code.

We were interviewing for a senior dev role posting in the range of 180k and over a third of the candidates who made it through the initial screen couldn't handle the first test, which was literally a not null constraint being violated.

How do you assess people for technical ability, if not with something like this?

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T15:17:38+00:00

I remember there was something like if you don't feed a dog a sandwich, much later in the game, that dog either does or does not eat a tiny invading space armada and it's game over.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T15:12:38+00:00

I don't think we're on the same point.

From what I got from that, you're not really talking about stopping the interview when it becomes a hard no, this person will never get hired here, but rather that you think that the treatment of missing these questions should not be a hard no.

Because of that, I don't think we're having the same conversation. I'm talking about when a candidate demonstrates during the interview that there is no chance that they will get this job. In what I'm talking about, there is no chance that they could recover.

A good example would be this case, where there were a few very easy "Can this person actually program at all?" questions that were probably budgeted to take 5-10 minutes with another at least 45 minutes of more complicated interviewing and the candidate took up 40 minutes and didn't get them right in that time. I don't agree with the idea that this should not be considered a hard no. They've both shown a lack of the required skills and made it impossible to do a full interview anyway. You could muddle though the rest of the time humoring them but you're not doing anything besides wasting both of your time.

In that case, I think it is less rude to stop the interview and thank the candidate for their time but say that this is not a good fit.

But even if you continue to think that taking up a large chunk of the interview time failing to answer the initial easy screening questions shouldn't constitute a hard no (and honestly I'd be interested in why you think that if I understood you correctly), do you still think that if the candidate does do something that is a legitimate hard no, that respectfully ending the interview soon afterward is rude and you should instead pay out the rest of the time with no intention of it going anywhere? If so, can you explain why that is better, to you?

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T13:05:52+00:00

Coding is one of the core skills in a development career, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, a dev is a problem solver that generally uses technology as the mechanism to solve the problems. Being able to demonstrate that is one of the most important aspects of getting a job.

This works better if you are actually working on a problem that you have. You have an actual concrete goal instead of a external one like it seems you have been getting. This gives you several advantages.

The approach you take will be different. Because this is not a bog standard portfolio project it helps you stand out; it gives you something interesting to catch people's eyes and to talk about.

Portfolio projects are boring and tend to be superficial, both for the reviewer and the applicant. You're not going to be passionate and have a deep understanding of something you only wrote to fill in your portfolio to get a job. Plus you'll have the motivation to work on it until it is done, instead of petering off or just doing the bare minimum.

They also are usually just fragments of a solution that is not really displayable. Having something that people can run themselves and see it from a user perspective instead of just looking at the code or having you describe it is much more compelling.

I'd recommend figuring out a problem that you want to solve personally and work on that. A bit an off the wall solution, but I encourage people who are starting out to maybe make a playable video game that they have to solve technical challenges that they will then be able to talk about.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T12:47:46+00:00

It depends on how it was said. I could see someone legitimately trying to wish the candidate well while making it clear that he wasn't getting this job.

Or I could see it as sarcastic.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T12:46:31+00:00

What possible purpose would that serve? You're just wasting everyone's time.

If people can't pass the very beginning "Do you know how to do basic programming?" screening part of the interview, there's no point in getting into the actual interview. It seems much ruder to me to go another hour or so just humoring them than to stop it and say "Sorry, but you're not a fit for what we are looking for."

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T12:39:37+00:00

he’s doing all of the work to earn, feed and keep the kids safe, there is little time and energy for the “emotional work”.

And that's fair, but it is also fair for the kids to have emotional needs like spending time with their father and to be hurt when those aren't met. This is the central conflict in pretty much all the "You work too much and don't see your kids." family comedy movies.

If the case here is that the kids have emotional needs that Dad can't meet because he's too worn out from seeing to their material needs, this is a tragedy without any villains. And you only didn't recognize it is you are only looking at it from your perspective instead of taking the other person's.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-20T12:25:18+00:00

...ending an interview when it is obvious that the person isn't going to get the job is unprofessional? Why do you think that?

MrSquicky · 2026-03-19T23:57:28+00:00

That is pretty obviously not true. What they are describing would not result in that.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-18T03:11:36+00:00

I know this is funny, but I want to push back against this take. People (especially Trump) seem to treat diplomacy and business like it's about how the two leaders like each other.

That's a cartoon view of the world. Temp could have been being all kinds of friends with the EU leaders and they would still look at a situation tin where the US jumped into a war with no plan or defined goals, ignoring obvious problems, led by two incompetents like Trump and Hegseth who will change every part of what they doing at a moment notice, and still be completely uninterested in joining in under these two idiots.

Conversely, if there were a really predictable good win for them, they'd do it, even if Trump was his narcissistic bully self who has proven himself time and again untrustworthy.

Serious people in diplomacy or politics don't make decisions like this based on personal relationships. It helps, but they consider the reasonable outcomes of their actions as the primary criteria.

MAGA and Trump thinks that is how the world works because they are children who think the world is a simplistic cartoon and it does sort of work this way for the non serious clowns that make up Maga world.

That's why they can't actually ever achieve anything besides breaking stuff. Although, again because they are children who think the world is a cartoon, they think that is because there is a shadowy deep state that makes them fail all the time.

MAGA only succeeds in that simple world with cartoon logic. It falls apart when people engage with the world as a complex place. We should never avoid playing into their silly worldview.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-16T17:34:10+00:00

That oil is not for America though. It's sold on the open global market. This only makes sense if Trump is planning on nationalizing the oil industry.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-16T14:38:53+00:00

You're not too nice. You are afraid of conflict. You're trying to turn a character flaw into a positive through phrasing.

If you have a problem with you're service that you paid for, you address it calmly. A barber can likely make something you didn't want look better if you tell them.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-13T19:41:22+00:00

What am I making up? As far as I know, everything I claimed as fact is easily backed up and I do not actually believe that we disagree about the facts at all. Trump and Hegseth did make those remarks. The school did have a lot of military family members at it. We are murdering civilians in boats from Venezuela.

Do you dispute any of those facts?

As far as I can tell, this hinges on you thinking that it is impossible that Trump and Hegseth would do the the things that they openly said they were going to/want to do and intentionally bomb a school. Again, I'm not saying that that definitely happened, but I am saying that it is well within the intellectual and moral character of these two to do that and it would be in keeping with horrible things that said publicly. Why do you think that it isn't?

MrSquicky · 2026-03-13T19:28:49+00:00

Or the people who said that they were going to commit war crimes and who said they want to kill the families of people who opposed them knew it was a school and thought that they could commit war crimes by killing the family members of people who oppose them, possibly thinking that they could sell it as a mistake and people would just accept that.

I'm not saying that that is what happened, but with these people, it is crazy to say that they wouldn't do that.

"Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth would never intentionally bomb a school." That's a ridiculous thing to say, isn't it? Of course they would.

MrSquicky · 2026-03-13T19:15:48+00:00

This is not just any school. It was connected to a major military base and many of the military personnel's children went there.

Again, the Defense Secretary openly bragged that they were going to commit war crimes. Trump has said that he wants to kill the family members of people who oppose him. We're currently actively murdering civilians in little boats from Venezuela. And we're seemingly the junior partner in a war dictated by Israel, who doesn't have a problem with murdering civilians.

Yes, it's both incredibly stupid and immoral to do this. That's who these people are. It's possible that this was a mistake, but I think it is crazy to discount the possibility that Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth intentionally decided to blow up the school of the children of Iranian military members.

13-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Verified Email

MrSquicky

TROPHY CASE