That makes sense. Considering the resources required to shortlist candidates and interview them, companies would any day prefer to avoid it. Is there any relevant data, how many such jobs may exist that are not 'advertised'?
There is relevant data, but I don't know where it is, sorry.
I am under the impression that this sort of under-the-radar hiring occurs enough to be a significant cause of institutional racism in hiring. (If your existing employees are disproportionately white, and their friends and acquaintances are disproportionately white, then new employees who fill a position before it is publicly advertised will be disproportionately white; and this is without anyone being overtly or consciously racist, and without non-whites being discouraged in any way from applying.)
If you're disadvantaged because of your race, then it's racism.
It's important to be clear: the outcome is racist even when no individual is being racist. You can't be reductionist about this, you can't decompose the company into its individual employees and give any of them individually the blame for racist hiring outcomes. It's an emergent phenomenon: it is the company as a whole that is racist and the company as a whole that is at fault.
What qualities? You have said that no one there acts in a racist way. No "person of color" who applies for a job is treated unfairly. Thus no racism occurs.
You can only imagine racism there if you see the races as "classes" (i.e. in the sense of Marxist class warfare) and feel that each class (not the individuals within it) has a right to a "share" of the company (i.e. a quota of jobs -- regardless of whether anyone in a particular class ever actually applied for a job and was treated unfairly). I know this is what the leftist professors in schools of "grievance studies" are peddling, but they have tenure requirements to meet. What's your excuse?
If I am paid annually in arrears, I must live off savings or credit for the first year. I pay off the loans and rebuild my savings at the end of the first year, but must dip into them again to get me through the second year. And so on.
And I run the risk that my employer goes bust just before paying my salary and I lose out on a year's wages (if paid monthly, I only risk a month's wages).
Meanwhile, if I'm paid annually in advance, this will surely cause my employer cashflow issues, leading them to only be able to afford paying a lower salary; but I can't effectively use a paid-annually income, because most of my expenses are monthly. And if/when I move jobs, I will probably have to repay salary.
Windows/MS-DOS had file extensions (which it inherited from CP/M) before it had directories and directory separators.
Did CP/M and Unix independently come up with file extensions with a dot separator, or did they acquire it from the same source? I'm dimly aware of other operating systems that use(d) a different character (AS/400?), but it's outside my ken.
I believe Microsoft's file extensions and the 8.3 naming scheme are descended from Digital's 6.3 naming in VMS, RT-11, etc. DEC even used a number of the same extensions: EXE, COM, OBJ. Not sure where they came from prior to that. I don't think IBM used file extensions like that in System/360, System/32, or anything prior to PC-DOS. From what I can tell, Burroughs and Univac didn't use them either.