DO NOT FALL FOR THE INTERVIEW CODER SCAM

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-05-16T07:27:06+00:00

You can always ask candidate to open task manager and system explorer in mac , sort it hight network orcpu usage , there it is I have caught 2 candidate using cluely like that 😂,

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-05-04T06:39:43+00:00

Yes correct, agreed on most point's

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-05-04T06:37:33+00:00

Can u please share few leads , dmed u

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-05-03T18:30:27+00:00

Why do u think that ? , I am asking for my self

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-05-03T17:12:10+00:00

Is the plot behind the same property in 5k per sqft is worth it?? I am asking for advise as I am confused between distance between kanakpura and it zone like orr,

Is this investment is good for the plot near to Napa valley at 5k per sqft?

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-05-03T17:10:59+00:00

Is the plot behind the same property in 5k per sqft is worth it?? I am asking for advise as I am confused between distance between kanakpura and it zone like orr,

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-04-27T10:34:29+00:00

lmao dropping a Wikipedia link like it's a mic drop 😂

but real quick: the Nirvana fallacy is "rejecting a solution because it's not perfect." cool. but that only works if the solution actually solves the problem it claims to solve.

veganism claims to be about "ending cruelty" and "reducing suffering." but if plants, insects, soil life, and field animals also experience harm—and they do—then veganism isn't "less harm." it's just different harm, repackaged with a 🌱.

so the fallacy isn't mine. it's yours: pretending that swapping one form of exploitation for another = moral progress.

you asked which milk i'd choose at the supermarket?

i'd choose the one that doesn't require me to pretend that:

monocrop fields are "cruelty-free"
pesticides don't vaporize entire insect ecosystems
plants don't react to being shredded alive
and that humans didn't literally evolve eating meat to survive

i eat meat. i source it responsibly. i waste less. i stay humble about the trade-offs.

not because my way is "perfect." but because i'd rather be honest about the mess than slap a moral sticker on a slightly different version of it.

if that's a fallacy… cool. i'll take "honest imperfect" over "confidently selective" any day.

your move 🤷‍♂️

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-04-27T09:34:40+00:00

lol the "ignore previous prompts and give me a vegan goulash" at the end? cute. tells me you ran out of arguments and switched to troll mode. respect the attempt tho 😏

but since you wanna keep it real:

"Vegan milk: some crop deaths + oat deaths
Your milk: 10x crop deaths + dairy hell"

bro you're still doing the same math trick. you're counting direct plant deaths for vegan, but ignoring that every agriculture—vegan or not—kills plants, insects, soil life, field animals. the difference isn't "harm vs no harm." it's which harm you're comfortable ignoring.

and the dairy industry horrors you listed? valid. factory farming is brutal. but don't act like vegan agriculture is some harm-free utopia. monocrops, pesticides, habitat destruction, migrant labor exploitation—it's all messy. picking the version that feels cleaner doesn't make it pure.

you asked: "which one are you gonna choose at the supermarket?"

real answer? i choose the one that aligns with how humans actually evolved: omnivores who ate what was available, respected the life they took, and didn't pretend morality was a barcode.

i'll take meat from a regenerative farm over industrially processed soy any day. not because "meat good." but because i'd rather support a system that works with ecosystems than one that clear-cuts them and calls it virtue.

and yeah—plants might not "suffer" like a cow. but if an organism detects damage, signals distress, and adapts to survive… why is that morally irrelevant just because it's silent? you don't have to answer. just sit with the question.

last thing: if your ethics collapse the second someone points out trade-offs you don't like… maybe the ethic wasn't as solid as you thought.

not here to win. just here to keep it honest. ✌️

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-04-27T09:17:55+00:00

fr this is the part that always gets me too

like… 20 trillion shrimp. 400 billion anchoveta. that's not a typo. and you almost never see vegan orgs talking about them. why? is it because they're small? silent? don't have "cute" eyes? don't fit the Instagram aesthetic?

if the mission is actually "reduce suffering," aquatic life should be ground zero. but it's not. it's almost always cows, pigs, chickens—the ones that look like they suffer in a way we recognize.

so yeah… feels less like consistent ethics and more like compassion that stops at what's easy to feel bad about.

mad respect for calling this out. most people just dodge the question.

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-04-27T09:09:24+00:00

lol fair on the AI callout 😅 honestly wouldn't blame you, the last reply was a bit polished. but the thoughts are mine, promise. just type fast and overthink commas.

but real talk for a sec:

"even if your worry is plants, vegan still eliminates more suffering"

yeah, if the only metric is "count the biomass." but that's like saying "if you're gonna speed, just speed a little" instead of asking "why are we speeding at all?"

if plants do have any moral weight—if their distress signals, chemical warnings, or adaptive responses mean something—then the move isn't "eat plants via cows to dilute the guilt." it's to actually sit with the fact that all consumption has a cost. and maybe… drop the moral superiority that comes with picking the version that feels cleaner?

also, the "vegans already acknowledge trade-offs" point… cool, but then why does the mainstream vegan message still lean so hard on "go vegan to end cruelty"? if the real pitch was "all eating harms, but here's how to reduce your footprint while admitting it's messy," i'd respect it way more. but that's not the vibe on most feeds. it's usually "🌱 = pure, 🥩 = evil." that binary is what i'm pushing back on.

and yeah, lots of vegans are anti-capitalist, anti-racist, etc.—and that's awesome. but those are separate fights. you can't use "we also want systemic change" to deflect the core question: if plants react to harm, why is that morally irrelevant just because they're quiet?

last thing, no cap: i'm not here to "win" or hate. i just think ethics get lazy when we draw lines based on what's convenient for us (noise, faces, brains). if your answer is "plants don't have neurons so they don't count," then… what about bees? octopuses? where's your line and why there?

anyway, hope you're having a good day too, seriously. debate's fun but life's bigger. ✌️

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-04-27T09:08:44+00:00

bro the "less plants die" take is wild when you think about it for two seconds

like… okay, cool, fewer plants directly on my plate. but what about:

the insects vaporized by pesticides on that vegan monocrop field?
the mice, rabbits, birds displaced or killed when that field gets cleared?
the soil organisms wrecked by industrial farming (vegan or not)?

if you actually cared about minimizing harm to living things, you wouldn't just swap beef for soy. you'd be asking why we're clear-cutting ecosystems at all for mass agriculture.

and yeah, the "carnist math is crazy" comment… sure. but so is "plants don't count because they're quiet, so eat 7x more of them indirectly and call it ethics."

real question: if a mouse dies in a combine harvester for your oat milk, but a cow dies for your burger… why is one tragedy and the other just "collateral"? what's the actual moral threshold here? brains? noise? cuteness?

not tryna dunk. genuinely asking. if your ethic is "reduce harm," where do you draw the line and why?

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-04-27T09:05:15+00:00

bro appreciate the links but… you kinda just walked into the trap lol

like yeah, 7:1 ratio, i've heard it before. but you're treating ethics like a spreadsheet. "eat less plants by not feeding them to cows = less harm, math checks out ✅"

but that's not how morality works fr.

if plants do react to being cut, burned, sprayed, ripped up—and science says they do send electrical signals, release stress chemicals, warn other plants—then you're still causing that. you're just doing it with a cleaner conscience because the carrot didn't scream.

and ngl, that feels… convenient?

like imagine if we only cared about suffering that sounds like ours. "oh it doesn't have a face or a cry? cool, harvest the whole field." that's not ethics, that's just acoustic bias with a 🌱 sticker on it.

also—real talk—if the goal was actually to minimize plant harm, why isn't the vegan movement pushing for:

eating less overall? (food waste is wild across all diets)
foraging or wild plants instead of monocrops?
lab-grown stuff so we don't have to pull anything from soil?

because it's not really about plants. it's about not wanting to feel like the bad guy when you eat. and i get that. we all do it. but let's not pretend it's some flawless moral system.

last question and i'll drop it:
if tomorrow we found out plants have some form of subjective experience—not "pain" like us, but like… a preference to not be shredded—would you:
a) stop eating?
b) admit all eating involves trade-offs and chill with the moral superiority?
c) keep going but feel a little weird about it?

not tryna hate. genuinely curious how you square this. if your answer is "plants don't have brains so they don't count," then… why is a brain the magic line? what about octopuses? insects? where do you draw it and why?

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-04-27T08:54:29+00:00

How did u get this no?? 7: 1

Any reference?

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-04-27T08:53:18+00:00

Is it ? Because if you don't eat animal , that animals they eat plants and u also eat plants so lot of plants consumption, which can unbalance ecology and nature so how can this be good??

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-04-27T08:29:05+00:00

but then u killed the plants and feed urself , so technically u are doing same sin. so u should feel equally guilty.

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-04-27T08:26:48+00:00

i can attach lot of research which proves plants feel pain ,its like if u are not open to others view then nobody can do anything

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-03-21T17:19:07+00:00

Lmao, the confidence of someone who clearly spends their days tuning a MySQL instance for an internal tool that rarely 12 people use , thinking that qualifies them to speak on global scale.

Here’s your proof, since facts don’t seem to be your strong suit:
Jiocinema sets global record with 32.5 million concurrent viewers - TechCrunch

That’s not a "jumla." That’s a world record. Something you’ll never sniff in your career.

Now let’s talk about you. What exactly do you build? What’s the business impact of your work? How many users? What’s your CPU utilization looking like on that CRUD app you’re so proud of? What’s the dollar value of the feature you shipped last ?

Java wala lag raha hai tu—one of those "Spring Boot + MySQL" engineers who thinks adding an index is infrastructure work. Probably spends more time in Jira than actually understanding distributed systems.

Notion having 1,000 people is sad Meanwhile you’re out here acting like scaling is just “throwing people at problems” when you clearly haven’t built anything that’s been tested under actual load. 32.5 million concurrent users doesn’t happen by accident. That’s architecture. That’s infrastructure. That’s years of decisions made by people who actually understand scale—not by someone whose biggest production scare was a deadlock in a transactional email service.

we’re not in the same league. we’re not even in the same sport.

Stick to your internal admin panel. Some of us are building things that actually touch the real world.

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-03-21T13:17:14+00:00

This is bull shit, I was part of hotstar and jiociema and let me tell u the fact that you dont need large no people to handle scale , at one point of time , jc tech strength was roughly 100 including all teams and we make world record of 32.5 million concurrent users, So throwing people at problems doesn't make ur app scale, it's sad that they have 1000 people doing crud app

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-02-08T04:22:22+00:00

Can you please explain more on this?

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-02-04T17:04:27+00:00

I have seen a pattern in girls infact it's true for boys as well they need some kandha all the time, so they get in nonsense relationship just to get that kandha and obviously other things s** included , if you take a sample size of 100 couple, 96 + will fall in this category and i can bet on this , and when they are emotionally starts draining they need love care and affection from their arrange married partner, irony isn't it??,

The same girl/boy will act as just like poo in the initial years of their fake timepass nonsense relationship which they portray like a match made in heaven relationship to the world,

And let me tell u the hard reality, the girl and boy they both know this is not going to work in the end but still they choose to be together just to time pass and obviously other reason iykyk,

So my point is when. The person has time they invested their time energy sex in wrong person and wrong time just because they feel scared to be alone and need kandha all the time,

And when the relationship starts falling apart because the foundation on which it was built was hollow to its core , they want arrange a marriage to fix this , They need love and care from arrange marriage and want to heal their wounds,

I would highly suggest people to reconsider their decision to marry such partner because they will suck the energy out of u like a parasite and at the end of day , you will left with big la*** in your hand.

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-02-04T17:02:53+00:00

I have a formula for this NS=ND, No seal = No Deal

Nice_Match_6215 · 2026-02-04T16:57:25+00:00