Resembles Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to me.

As others have said, I would get it written down somewhere asap. In the future, you could ask to have an email sent to you to confirm the date, time, location, interviewers, and any other details like who to contact with questions/rescheduling. Plus they might also share hints like dress code, projected length, and expected types of questions that can help you prepare but might look bad if you explicitly asked for them.

If I was a recruiter, I wouldn't think less of you for asking for confirmation. Rather, it makes you seem professional and prudent to want to avoid mix-ups like what you just experienced, that you have a legitimate interest in the position, and that you value your interviewers' time as well as your own. Even if you have a sharp memory, this sort of thing can easily happen just from someone mishearing or misspeaking on the phone.

Good luck with the job hunt. You get better at it with experience, but even then, it's mostly a numbers game. Don't let a rejection get you down, every new application is a fresh start with more experience.

Reading through this, some of these criticisms seem unwarranted. Like for problem 1:

The assumption that consumer willingness to pay slightly more will fundamentally change the deeply entrenched structure of this industry — and its merciless exploitation of animals — is absurd.

I don't think Kurzgesagt ever made the claim that consumer preference would actually bring about change as described. When they detailed how small increases in the price of animal products could offset a dramatic improvement in the suffering of farmed animals, it wasn't to suggest this was likely to happen or how. Rather, it emphasizes that the cruelty of factory farming is particularly obscene now. It points out that we as a society support insane cruelty even for very meager benefit.

Problem 2:

In the conclusion of the video, Kurzgesagt suggests that viewers should “maybe avoid the worst torture meat — at least sometimes.” ... How can you recognize horrific violence — and then casually brush it aside?

A charitable reading could take that line to be cheeky and ironic, like A Modest Proposal. But if it is sincere, then I agree it's much too compromising for something that demands much larger change. And if not, then it should be made more obvious.

Problem 3:

From start to finish, the video treats plant-based eating as unrealistic — and, absurdly, doesn’t even mention it as a possible solution.

Switching to a vegan diet is entirely reasonable to expect for an individual. But this video examined the current issue from a societal level, and expecting the majority of the population to change this much quickly is absurd to offer as a solution. The first problem in fact criticises the unlikelihood of a very minor change (from the consumer's perspective) being achieved. Such a large cultural change would take generations of incremental improvement. The solutions to prevent the most egregious torture are focussed on because they could reasonably be done with a few targeted bills in a near-future political climate.

Problem 4:

Kurzgesagt has explored [topics on the broader destruction caused by animal agriculture] in past videos. So why ignore them here?

This seems to answer itself. The related topics are a part of other, more dedicated videos. A Kurzgesagt video is a short-form summary of an interesting topic or question, and much of their appeal is how approachable they are. They have a limited scope by design, and that is part of why they manage to be both accurate and popular. There are generally many resources available to people who would like to learn more after an introduction, and this is certainly no exception. It seems harsh to criticise a video for not being something it isn't attempting to be.

Problem 5:

Kurzgesagt claims things are “getting better” — a feel-good statement that misrepresents reality.

I agree it's too broad a claim to make, but they did go into by what metrics things show an optomistic trend. They should have mentioned these things and left overall judgement to the viewer.

Problem 6:

The video uses outdated and oversimplified price calculations

IIRC they stated how they came up with the values they had. These were estimates. Again, they are unjustifiably expecting too much depth for this format.

Problem 7:

The video defines “decent” conditions in a way that still includes these brutal practices — raising the question: what could possibly be considered decent about such treatment?

Again, they explain in the video how they determine their standards. Decent doesn't mean good. Veganism is far from the consensus in society, so of course they allowed for more controversial practices. Meat eaters are going to care much less about exploitation, and I think this is meant more to meet them halfway and convince them that even if they are unwilling to abolish exploitation outright, they can at least afford to have a paltry minimum standard against basically pointless cruelty.

Overall it feels like the author wants more of a long-form video essay targeted at an audience already receptive to vegan ideas. The video was instead intended to be a short exploration into small steps society could make for considerable harm reduction regarding animal welfare in meat industries aimed at general audiences. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Honestly their alts might be getting banned for ban evasion. Having alts isn't against the rules but using them to circumvent bans is. I could see having an alt for nsfw stuff and maybe another if you represent a company officially, but otherwise I don't see why you would need more other than something malicious.

And you probably see them almost every day!

Birds are feathered theropod dinosaurs and constitute the only known living dinosaurs.

Wikipedia

Specifically, they are members of the Aves class, therefore also members of the Dinosauria clade.

True, but there is thought to be a finite amount of matter + energy, which cannot be created or destroyed. And since it is spreading out from an original dense point, it stands to reason that there would be a vacuum area that it has not reached yet.

The problem is that then you need the government's permission to procreate. There's always the valid concern that the government would prevent you from having children to remove some undesirable trait from the population and justify it as being a danger to a child. I know you described basic competency skills, but there would always exist a very credible threat of it being politicized.

In fact, this already happens for things like queer couples being rejected for adopting children or the Uyghur population being quietly genocided in China. And Eugenics was historically practiced such that criminals would be sterilized as part of their punishment.

It's worth pointing out that governments already intervene with unqualified parents by removing the child from the household. Shifting the burden of proof from the government needing to show neglect to parents needing to prove themselves worthy is a dangerous amount of authority to cede to a centralized, corruptible power.

Also, it's not clear how you handle unlicensed parents. People are going to have unsafe sex no matter how illegal you make it. Would you push for preemptively sterilizing everyone and trusting it can be reversed after a license is acquired? Forcing abortions? Confiscating the child after birth?

Another one apparently being that you can maintain power through an alt after mod abuse gets your other account demoted.

Here's the context for just one of the things you did as Beaver. You should be held accountable for your actions.

IIRC that community has strict ideas about what sources are allowed, and the moderation is consistent about enforcing that even if the written rules are vague. Not sure why people are saying dailymail isn't a news source just because it's low quality. A bad news outlet is still a news outlet. So the mod should have given a better reason for removing it, but I agree with it being removed.

I've seen people choose to define racism to only include institutional racism, effectively preventing the privileged race from being victimized. They would insist a slur against white people can't be racist.

"Why yes, I always envisioned Fartbuckle to be a tragic character destined for great sacrifice."

Most Americans own some stocks. Many working class people are relying on retirement portfolios that they've been building up for decades. If this causes another recession we're all going to pay.

This is too broad. Sure, you shouldn't be a bystander to atrocity, but a lot of my frustrations with other people's views tend to be that they were introduced to one, adopted it, and refused to change from it after being exposed to things that challenge it. Like this:

The right of the US to establish and enforce any law is implicitly dependent on a fundamental right of people to reject the authority of a tyrannical government. Otherwise the legitimacy of the US as a sovereign nation is invalidated.

Yeah I worked in a grocery store making minimum wage about ten years ago. They paid employees as little as they could without breaking the law. During the pre-hire training session they were transparent that they were legally required to pay us for it. It wasn't even normal work duties, just going through an online test.

It's more that what's taught in American schools varies wildly between states, as it's generally left up to them to determine agendas individually. And schools and even individual teachers are going to choose for themselves how deeply things get covered.

For me, LGBT involvement was at least acknowledged when we covered the history of the Civil Rights movement. We were also shown a biographical film on the start of the AIDs epidemic when discussing viruses in biology. It made victims look very sympathetic, while the politicians that were uninterested in stopping the spread until it started affecting people outside of gay communities were rightfully depicted as villains. It probably came up in health classes too, but I don't remember anything distinctly.

Women have been wanting comparable rights to men since before written history, yet most people would say the women's suffrage movement started in the mid 1800s. The original user wasn't saying trans people didn't exist until recently, they were likely saying there wasn't previously any serious effort at accepting them in (American? Western?) society, or at least no where near the magnitude as today. Basic public tolerance may not be good, but it is much better than even just a decade or two before.

Paris is Burning isn't a film I had heard about before, probably because it's older than me and I haven't been paying attention to queer spaces long. And if that user is 45 now, they would be about 10 when it released. Pretty reasonable to not have it on their radar considering it is R rated. Still, they shouldn't assume trans communities didn't exist just because they were not aware of any back then. That's just a mistake.

I took a look and I see their point. Rule 3 sounds like there's effectively a black list of known unreliable sources. And even then, it sounds like there would be exceptions based on the mods' discretion. I wouldn't expect a blanket ban on blogs from reading that.

Personally, I think requiring a reputable source for an article is a good policy for the community, at least when one is available, as in this case. And it does sound like it is being enforced objectively. We are in an age where information is weaponized and fake news and engagement is manufactured maliciously. It makes sense to be skeptical of sources with no reputation on the line.

But I do think the requirement should be clarified in the rules better to match what it means de facto. If nothing else, it would simplify things when someone complains again in the future. And including a list of repeat offender sites could be helpful so long as it's clear that it is not exhaustive. Just mentioning that MBFC is used to judge sources could reduce the amount of unreliable posts in the first place.

For reference, these are the rules I see:

Rules:

1. Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
2. No racism or bigotry.
3. Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article title.
5. No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.

Instance-wide rules always apply.

We spec'd for stamina, which turned out to be a hard counter to the current meta. We also have a flexible diet, fine motor control, excellent heat regulation, intricate vocalizations, and arguably best-in-class intelligence (although neanderthals did have larger brains, and other apes have better working memory).

But we are suffering from our success really. We were able to dominate even with an unoptimized build. So we have things like an appendix and other vestigial structures. Our spines are serviceable for bipedalism but are prone to developing issues and stress points. And our teeth don't last nearly as long as much of the rest of our body without frequent external maintenance. And our young take a very long time to develop, to the point the actual birth happens basically as late as possible without being a guaranteed death sentence for the mother rather than when the child is ready for the world. Also, humans have a tremendously high ratio of penis to total body mass among primates, making you wonder what kind of freak was behind our character creation.