Counselling a developing economy kid with a sub-premium GPA, who wants to know if it matters or not, having had difficult interviews

Part 1

1. CGPA is useful if you want brand-name jobs.

2. CGPA is ONLY useful if you want brand-name jobs.

3. If your strategy has never been to get a brand-name job, you never had to worry about CGPA.

4. Now that you don't have a brandname-quality CGPA, align your expectations and don't spend too much time shooting for brand-sensitive employers.

5. A lot of lucractive businesses are not about the flashy branding.

\\ Subject could not figure out via Google, what "brand-name" should refer to \\

Part 2

Let's first establish the lay of the land.

1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/upper-class.asp

Next, 

2. Google "top brand investment bank" and "top brand management consulting"

...  these are the most competitive, and it's not that they want to dulan poor people, it's just that a lot of poor people are trying to get in the door, and they really need to filter, otherwise they can't maintain a percentile population distinction and charge their customers 99 percentile fees.

3.

https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/faq/how-important-is-gpa-to-getting-finance-jobs

https://www.quora.com/How-important-is-GPA-if-I-want-to-work-as-a-management-consultant-at-McKinsey-Bain-Co-Strategy-or-BCG?

Mitigation is addressed in 3., more here :

4.

https://mergersandinquisitions.com/low-gpa-investment-banking/

https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/how-to-address-low-gpa-in-an-investment-banking-interview/

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-apply-for-wall-street-internship-2015-10

https://www.myconsultingoffer.org/cover-letter/bcg-gpa-cutoff/

5.
At the end, you want to ask how competitive you seek to be. Fresh graduate earning RM1.5k or RM15k? Late 20s, making RM5k, or RM50k? Mid-career making RM10k, or RM400k (a month!!)?

It's a big field. Know your game. 

(dash) Redirection Operators

Debian Almquist Shell (dash) operators

0.

(dash) is the default (sh) in Debian and Alpine (busybox uses dash).

(bash) is the default (sh) in Red Hat.

1.

Operands are EITHER string filenames (FNs) OR integer file descriptors (FDs); 

this is inflexible.

2.

[ow] "optional whitespace"

3.

"source from LHS (default 1, stdout) ..."

FD>[ow]FN "... sink to RHS, UNenforced clobber"

FD>|[ow]FN "... sink to RHS, enforced clobber"

FD>>[ow]FN "... sink to RHS, append to"

FD>&[ow]FD "... sink to RHS"

FD>&- "... sink to nowhere; (close LHS)"

4.

"sink to LHS (default 0, stdin) ..."

FD<[ow]FN "... source from RHS"

FD<&[ow]FD "... source from RHS"

FD<&- "... source from nowhere; (close LHS)"

FD<<[ow]delimiter "... source is the text between delimiters, 

stuff stuff withOUT parameter expansion"

stuff 

delimiter

FD<<[ow]"delimiter" "... source is the text between delimiters,

stuff stuff with parameter expansion"

stuff

delimiter

... furthermore if (<<) is replaced with (<<-), 

then leading tabs in the here-doc-text are stripped.

5.

"open on LHS (default 0, stdin) ..." 

FD<>[ow]FN "... for both reading and writing to RHS, UNenforced clobber"

6.

These are not implemented; you can't use these in (dash).

&>[ow]FN "(bash/zsh) for ( 1>[ow]FN 2>&1 ): 

both 2 and 1 end up in FN, UNenforced clobber"

&>>[ow]FN "(bash/zsh) for ( 1>>[ow]FN 2>&1 ): 

both 2 and 1 end up in FN, append to"

>>&[ow]FN "(zsh) for ( &>>[ow]FN ); not implemented in (bash)"

Handling Tantrums : A Cognitive Modelling Approach

Napped. Reflected somewhat on the social work altercation of the day. Belligerent foot stamping is generally both easy to ignore, but amusing to unravel. What is its structure?

It is a matter of truth-seeking, energy exerted in sense-making, and it triggers the survival instincts of its host. What a gnarly subsystem. In different hosts and situations, the justification sought would be based on a vendetta model of some sort. A missing piece in the model building operations of the host which leaves a hook (callback) embedded in the host's threat or risk management system.

The solution for handling the host is typically to provide the missing piece, or to restore the missing balance, which terminates the hook. This requires building a model of the host-and-the-host's-own-mental-model, a process which may loosely be referred to as empathy. It is a sort of cognitive forensics.

A large priority in reducing the probability space in modelling the host's inner mental model is, heuristically guessing the domain of the broken model which the host seeks to repair. It might be a physical model, a business model, a social model ... moral models are social, and then figuring out their currently impinged sense of morality, ah, there's the rub.

What a gnarly subsystem.

Conversational Conventions / Missing Protocols

 How many public conversations go :

B : lue

R : ed?

B : lue, here, not ed

R : lue + ed?

B : lue here, not ed, understand context, here?

R : ok lue. I go now.

B : you can stay and chat.

R : yay ed!

B : lue here, not ed. Lue because. Not ed, because.

R : ed, because.

B : lue here, missing the point, ed no, because.

R : not productive to continue, will withhold comments.

B : productive if you agree, lue here, not ed.

R : ok!

I don't get the point of entertaining external views, if one expects the external views to change to meet internal views. It's almost as if the external views should just be advised to not waste the time of the internal viewers, from the get go ... i.e. be explicitly un-entertained.

Relationship Portfolios

 Reflections in convalescence. We all define ourselves, directing ourselves, in terms of the people around us. Some more, some less. Many of us cherish our relationships with other people, as deeply personal affairs - yet to many others these are petty formalities. I am often struck by how absent my values are, with regards to other people; (intentionally ambiguous phrasing). Every time the machine presents me with a relationship, past, or potential, I wonder ... what is it worth? And then I figure the only way to find out its function, is to accept. Those unaccepted are literally write-offs. Yet what is written-off at a time, may not be written-off at a future time. Accept or Reject?