This! In fact, I"ll expand it do include a subset of larger companies as well.
The company I work for has multiple divisions. We primarily build technology. In some divisions, the people who write code are, indeed, just laborers who build exactly what is provided them.
But in a couple - magical - divisions, the people writing the code understand the intent, the business, and the objectives. It's much harder to find, hire, and develop these people. It's especially bad when someone is good at one facet but not all of them. It's really difficult to scale. That's why so many places "grow" to a point where things like the business, design, architecture, etc. are divvied up. They also end up being (individually) "expensive", at least on paper.
However, if you can make it work, the employees tend to love it. There is some survivor bias - people who don't like it are amongst those who cycle out. "I'd rather just code than deal with foo." It's also hard to scale.
Honestly, there's merit in both approaches. As for personal satisfaction, it depends where you land in terms of what you truly enjoy.
We give live programming challenges in interviews. Interestingly, we quickly moved from a 'hard' model to an 'easy' one, for kind of the same reasons.
What we do is provide a list of about 6 (depends upon skill set we're hiring) problems that equate to first or second year CS studies. They are all straightforward and require no fancy manipulations. The candidate picks one. We set them up with an environment, they can access Google (keep search history intact, no Googling the actual problem).
They are given an hour to do the problem; anyone on the team can do it in fifteen minutes or less. If they're having trouble, we will give them another hour. There is a proctor present to help with non-programming issues (for example, for C++ folks we'll help them compile if they're rusty with command-line gcc).
These types of simpler exercises provide insight into some of the fundamentals: can you write code? What methods do you use to solve problems? Can someone else easily understand your code?
The number of C++ 'programmers' who can't compare two lists based upon criteria, or web programmers who (no joke) can't code a page that dynamically retrieves data using a (provided) web service, or database folks who can't join two tables is staggering. The exercise weeds out people who have spent years - decades - copy/paste/trial-error coding. Sorry kids, we have real work to do.
Not necessarily. I've flown plenty of times with just one gate access on the lower level. People just take the stairs. It takes longer, sure, but it isn't a big deal. The second level is typically used for First or First/Business. If there's Premium Economy or just Economy on that level as well, they end up lumping them on the main jetway anyway.
"But it's bad advice to someone who has no aptitude or affinity to coding"
Fucking 8-year olds can learn some goddamned basic ladder logic and be programming conveyor lines for $60K a year. If adult journalists with a better education can't do that, then they're simply fucked.
I find it difficult to believe that you actually believe this. At least, I hope not.
Let's break it down, just in case you do... All 8-year-olds? Nope. Basic ladder logic as a (complete, holistic, everything-you-can-do) skill in demand enough to say that it's a viable on its own? Nope.
How about a little more? Would people with these... ahem... minimal skills make their way into the "non-conveyor-line" market? Probably. Do we see enough "Learn to Code in X weeks!"-type folks flooding the market? Yup. Assuming you're in tech, do you work with some miserable person who can barely but adequately cobble together some cut-and-paste functionality and send it down the pipe, only to have it cause problems later? Probably.
No, 'learn to code' isn't appropriate for everyone. It's not a floor measurement for people's aptitude in life or the job market in general. Different people are good at different things. Is this really that difficult?
While I respect your opinion and point of view, I really hate NIMBY folks. It's like, "Austin is nice now that *I'm* here, so please stop all progress." I like progress. Some aspects are good, some bad, but in general, it's for me. I'll strongly disagree with you, and also disagree that progress and growth has to equate us turning into the Bay Area.
A. You don't understand the 'A' criteria. This means that the contractor is able to provide the objective output without control of the contracting entity. In simplistic (and admittedly ineffective) terminology, this means no micromanagement. If you're contracted to provide a widget, you turn in a widget in exchange for your fee. In this case, you get the person from point to point. Part of the question is where the objective turns into control. Is dictating the application the driver uses? The vehicle characteristics?
B. You don't understand the 'B' criteria. It isn't about whether the worker can contract with another contracting entity (for this or other work). It's about whether or not the work that the contractor is supplying is or is not part of the contracting entities regular business. If you're an agency that makes websites for customers, it's hard to argue your contract web developer is supplying something outside your regular business. When Uber has faced similar challenges, their position is that they are a software company providing software and that they are not in the business of providing transportation. This is dubious.
C. This is more in-line with your 'B' argument. This is the strongest argument Uber has that its drivers are contractors, with respect to the California 'ABC'. However, it's not pick-and-choose. It's all 3.
You see, if Google doesn't do this, someone will. So you have it wrong.
You see, if Google does this, then Google can help shape future open communication and equality. So you have it wrong.
You see, then Google gets to decide bits and pieces to influence. Google only has The Good in mind. So you have it wrong.
You see, Google is good. They understand this, and that they - and only they - are responsible for ensuring freedom for the Chinese. If they fail, all will be lost. So you have it wrong.
You see, Google cares. You must understand this about them, and that they are in the unique position to help. Only by censoring data access, censoring freedom, and reporting user actions, can they enforce freedom.
Exactly. I was going to say much of the same thing, but you said it really well.
When it was still very new, I used EverNote quite a bit. Every new feature made the application more difficult and more intrusive. Not what I wanted.
I'm no expert in their business, and am even more casual than an armchair quarterback for it, but it seems to me this kind of venture would almost have to be an acquisition target... early. There are simply to many other entrenched organizations - in business, in dev, in engineering, in virtually anything that has the money to pay for it - along with email (for the consumer) - to make a new vertical. I've seen these other verticals introduce new, integrated features that make EverNote and applications like it pretty irrelevant.
I stopped using EverNote when it became more difficult and other application stacks I was already using served its purpose.
This happened to me. I've never used battery saver; when the power icon changed, I had to look it up.
It was in close proximity with the 9-Pie upgrade. First unsettling bit was that I assumed it was a new setting, e.g. that power saver had more granular options, and my previous selection was mapped to this. This has happened with other things before; after all, when behavior changes, it changes, right?
Second was how quickly I forgot. Not only did I forget something seemed odd, but I forgot when they fixed it. I liken it to when I get a new phone; I try to arrange icons like I had them. I can tell something is different, but not exactly what. I eventually become used to the 'new' way.
This scares me, personally, because of how quickly I adapt to this. I just absorb the change, and don't really think I should dig further, investigate, change my own behavior. If I don't address it in the first 30 minutes or so, I just shrug my shoulders - whether I'm aware of this or not. The implications for this kind of stuff are kind of scary. I'm shocked at myself; I consider 'me' to be a little more aware.
whoever can spend the most money will have the fastest system simply because they can buy the most blades
My best Speed Racer voice:
And you will see that I will spend the most money and have the fastest system because I have the most blades because of the most money and therefore I have the fastest system and you did not spend the most money and therefore I did and I have the fastest system you will see ha ha.
I'll bite on the faux outrage with some serious answers:
Dare I ask why you're wasting company time doing "quick" Google search[es]?
Hiring is expensive. We're a small team within a large organization, so getting requisitions can also be time-consuming. It's useful to get context about someone. It's *all* publicly-available information. It's not a power thing, it's a curiosity thing. When hiring, I rarely lack people with the base skills to do the job. I, instead, have to pick from qualified candidates the person who is likely to thrive in our environment.
Maybe you could, oh, get to know the person? Then instead of looking down from your tower,...
Ha! So many assumptions. First, it's an interview, not a date. It's not just about my time - when's the last time *you* wanted to spend 6/8 hours interviewing. It's not about "looking down from a tower", it's about fit. If I have one position and three qualified applicants whose skills seem fairly level, culture becomes a very important consideration. You'll also probably assume that means I'm looking for clones, but you'd be wrong. Again, so many assumptions...
"Culture fit assessment". Is that code for discrimination against people because they're not "alike" the people already there? Or is it to increase diversity while trying to make sure they're a good little cog that fits right in? It just seem a little odd that you feel the need to dissect down applicants like this, but I guess it makes a lot of sense when you've got a lot of candidates to put up a lot of pretty useless, subjective criteria to exclude people that you don't like. Better than flipping a coin, right?
Have you ever worked with anyone? Of course I'm trying to find someone who fits it (calling me and my team 'cogs' is a pretty lame attempt at insult). We're here to do a job. Is it code for discrimination? Nope. I can't prove that in a comment on/., but we have lots of people with different personalities and backgrounds. I actually do my best to avoid that, because things become quite cliquey and - suddenly - work isn't getting done. Dissect applicants? Yup. Hiring a software engineer probably costs me on the order of $150K - 200K, all things considered. It also represents a significant time investment if someone doesn't work out. You bet we dissect things down. I'm pretty sure we have a good track record - low attrition, profitable results, growth. Subjective? Spoiler alert: the entire hiring process is completely subjective. Again - maybe you've never had a job?
The real question is...
I'm not even sure what you're going for here. Fun fact: most of the people's emails in this list (which I altered enough that you can't really just fire off an email to them) were actually hired. Again, captain assumption, I state clearly I've never *not* hired someone simply because of an email. It might be something that leads to other research that influence the decision.
why do you care, maybe that furry pothead anarchist is the best sysadmin in the world,
Actually two different people, both hired, both awesome. I care because stuff like that is *interesting*, and it cemented our assessment they'd fit in. Interests outside of work, proud of what they do even if others aren't, definitely willing to dedicate their effort to things they find important. So, yeah, as I said: it's usually just additional information on how someone may/may not fit into the team. Ya'll (/.) always assume the worst, and it's funny.
myflutterbi@yahoo.com note: in her interview, she self-described as "up for anything." That kinda stuck.
I've seen fairly innocuous ones that are nonetheless unique, and a quick Google search shows these people are {furries, swingers, potheads, anarchists, involved in political groups who actively oppose our line of work, survivalists, conspiracy theorists}. In general, we try to evaluate talent. If you're applying for a niche or high-end position, we'll likely look at your... hobby... as a novelty.
However, if you're applying for something more entry level, at the very least we will question your judgement. At worst, we might think you're a little too weird.
Ever not hired someone because of their email? Nope. Several on the above list I remember because I was all 'I can't believe I hired Bradalicious!'. It is hard, though, when forming a culture fit assessment to exclude such impressions, for good or bad.
Also, it's fun to state sometimes the background company contacts via email, is 'analrapelover1972@yahoo.com' still a good email?
It really makes me question the culture and conditions when someone in a Position of Authority claims that person/people left because the work is 'too challenging' (unless the person leaving explicitly states that). It not only obviously casts a bad light on the previous employee, but it speaks to someone's naive thought that it paints them as scrappier/smarter/more interesting.... Spoiler alert: you almost certainly aren't.
It's like the remember the old Marine ad campaign that essentially said "we do more hard stuff before 6 AM than most everyone does in their entire day." People were like, "And that's a recruitment ad?! That's supposed to want to make me join?!"
It did... or rather, it targeted their demographic. Employers who do this kind of ex post facto version by disparaging employees who quit and (gasp!) get a job somewhere else are just douchey.
Source: I once had an employer's reaction to me quitting was that 'some people just don't like the updated pace since we were acquired,' No, jackass, I didn't like the fact that I was promoted a year ago, told at the time the acquisition meant salary freeze... when the freeze was lifted my as-of-yet-unknown raise would be paid retroactively. Finally lifted, good news: my 1% salary increase would be paid retroactively. My previous boss - whose job I took - made double my salary. The 1% was an insult. Best part: she was genuinely surprised, then angry, when I quit. I understood the acquiring company paid less for the same positions and I was already in the promotion's band but... yeah.... I couldn't keep up... but the three people hired to backfill probably did OK.
In a previous life, I was a musician in a band. Did well regionally, on a small label, then some indie releases blah blah. We got limited international press, mainly early internet stuff.
The amount of requests for free stuff that we received was pretty high compared to our (very limited) sales and exposure. I mean, seriously, people sending multiple sob-story emails, contacts, etc. just to get a $12 (at the time) CD. We would always try to compromise - like we'd send them additional CDs from our catalog if they bought one, a T-shirt, whatever.
Not one freeloader ever took advantage. Not one. They went through serious effort, too - lots of emails, stories, stuff that seemed quite tailor-made for us. We appreciated the fandom but... still... it boggled the mind.
The argument is that they ultimately benefit from it, or that they (or the market) believe that they do. Their product is the viewers and the views. If - in aggregate - there is a market belief that they provide more viewers, and that more viewers flock to their platform, they have more value. So they want to appear as if they're the victim, and that the problem is simultaneously small/contained and difficult to mitigate (but they're trying!), so as to position themselves for the most benefit with the least effort and least possible negative impact.
From Matherson, quoted in the article: "For context, it is very common practice for online media companies to own or acquire additional media assets."
Except you're not an online media organization. You're a finance company. Who sells student loans/refinancing. Who created a fictional character, to seem "just like you [the borrower]", and presented yourself as an independent person collating and commenting on news related to student loans.
I smell a (public relations/marketing) rat. Uber has sunk serious cash into self-driving vehicles, with a vision of a future where there are no drivers and no vehicle ownership. The public at large will simple dial up (automated) transport services from their mobile - transport services Uber will provide. I can't imagine one (admittedly tragic) setback is all it takes to cause them to abandon it.
They are (disingenuously, I suspect) attempting to appear humane, cautious, and considerate... to mitigate the "we stomp on laws! we stomp on people! we harass! progress at any cost!" image that they have. When the dust settles, they'll - at best - issue a "we're super duper happy we took this pause to focus on safety blah blah".
Writing applications that impact public safety (as someone else pointed out, Therac anyone?) is an entirely different ballgame than "app development". Anyone rationally believe that Uber has the governance, structure, and discipline in place to create self-driving systems? What about airplane critical systems? Radiology?
Transportation is no joke. Realtime systems are not 'just another kind of app'. It's a very different approach, discipline, and willingness to follow a particular governance, a particular path. Nothing I've read about Uber, nothing they've ever said publicly, and nothing the three engineers I've known to work for them indicates that they - at all - acknowledge that. They believe they're somehow super-special, somehow smarter than the thousands of people who've come before them, working on critical systems, who utilized such safeguards and discipline.
I had to talk a family member out of investing. He is retired, and thought "tungstencoil knows about computers, I'll ask him." I hope he heeded my advice, not because he is guaranteed to lose money (in fact, had he bought when he asked me and sold now, he'd be making some cash) but because neither he nor I is smart (stupid?) enough to predict the future on this.
Doesn't matter what it is, investing heavily into a single asset or even market space carries significantly more reward/risk, and that's not great for the typical retiree.
Isn't this... a different discussion or a different mitigation tactic? Wipe-and-bring means... wait for it... you have to bring it. Granted, you can pack it away, but then why buy a new, wiped machine? This is about having the laptop in the main cabin, not customs inspecting or confiscating your laptop (admittedly a problem, but a different problem.
That is interesting... I think it's chalked up to a few different factors: animal blood != human blood; human testing often is done in larger bulk samples (for example, some disease tests pool small quantities of many samples. If it reacts, they then divide/test until they get to the offending sample); human tests are often subjected to multiple refinements or retests to meet FDA standards under one test umbrella. I'm not a doctor or lab tech, this is just what some quick Googling suggests.
Note that my statement wasn't that improvement isn't possible. It's just that it isn't a Eureka! idea. To me, it was the story of "she hated needles/blood draws, thought you should be able to do it with less volume and fuss, and then made that" like an app or a batch of bacon-maple cookies. The innovation is in neither idea nor execution, but in invention/innovation. That's tough stuff.
One wonders at the (lack of) common sense here. The premise is, "we will do blood testing on incredibly small vials of blood, because some people have difficulty with large specimen collection, and large specimen collection is inconvenient or impossible."
What gets me is this is NOT a "Eureka!" moment like Uber or AirBnB or something.
This is not a combination of old idea + do it better + better marketing, like Facebook.
This is something that requires non-trivial technical invention in an area that is already attempting to innovate. Somehow, no one thought "gee, I'll bet labs already try to get specimens with minimal fuss." It's instead like they thought "wow, no one thought of this! Once we had the idea, we just had to do that instead of this."
This meant once Theranos said "hey, we thought of this, so we decided to invent that" everyone went along... like a Kickstarter for a better travel pillow or boredom toy, rather than a complex set of scientific processes designed to support other scientific processes. This, in turn, almost requires that you accept that the VC realized this, and only hoped that it went far enough for them to cash out before imploding. I mean, there's practically no way to assume they were that naive.... is there?
Like ChipsChap, I've managed teams up to the hundreds on a global scale. I've also managed global product management and strategy. I started in the trenches, as a software engineer.
Two things come to mind: first, I'll echo ChipsChap's sentiment about the manager's job. I'll add that sometimes there just needs to be someone who can make an informed decision and move forward. In many cases - in spite of what individual contributors may think - there isn't a clear-cut or definitive "better" way/solution/approach. A good manager makes decisions in the face of ambiguity, on behalf of the individual contributors, in spite of the fact that some will be pissed off.
The second thing is the unfortunate cycle I see embodied in many comments here: individual contributors have a bad boss, and declare all management stupid and decide to forge their own path as much as possible. Managers have bad individual contributors, and declare them all ineffective and in need of more management. The sports team analogy is nice because it is fairly obvious to most people that forging your own path and deciding your individuals are ineffective doesn't work.
I'll add to that, many people also misunderstand the purpose of a manager or individual contributor. Too often, ICs look expect management to be some kind of "super" version of themselves. If you're an engineer and you expect your boss to be a smarter/faster version of you, you don't understand their role (note: this is not the same as having zero understanding of a position). If you're a manager and you expect your IC to understand (or care about) the big picture or things that aren't directly in line with their day-to-day (even others' day-to-day), you don't understand their value. Case in point: I am far from the best or smartest software engineer in my company (thank goodness), but I damned well wouldn't go to one of my leads and ask them to devise a market/strategy-based feature pipeline that includes allowances for where we expect *global* legislation differences to lead the industry I'm in (and please code them up lickity-split, if you don't mind).
- Anyone buying a house *must* have it inspected by their own inspector. Even if the house is brand new (see the previous point). For an older home, you never know what has happened during the life of the building. On top of that, inspect the house yourself. Trust-but-verify.
Fun fact from my experience:
We bought a brand-new tract home that someone else had spec'ed but their financing fell through. We got a very good deal because the builder wanted to get rid of it, and they were still building out the neighborhood so most people preferred to pick their own options. We wanted something ready to move in, so it was a win-win.
We hired an independent inspector, and were promptly mocked by both our sales liaison and the construction project manager. After all, not only do they employ their own inspectors, but it passed city inspection. Meanwhile, our inspector found a multitude of minor things, and also that the construction team had not properly finished the roof or the inside attic soffits (for the pedantic, I may have the language a bit wrong - it's been ten years). This would have likely led to roof damage in heavy wind and water damage in heavy storms.
The builder fixed it, and it passed inspection. The sales liaison was a bit indignant and tried to minimize it, but their construction manager apologized and acknowledged sometimes things happen. Since then, several of our neighbors have had to have roof work done after storms. So far, we've been OK.
Always get an independent inspector. Even new construction.
Slashdot Mirror
...And Walmart is paying what the law states that they owe (or better).
The point here is if either is ethical.
The company I work for has multiple divisions. We primarily build technology. In some divisions, the people who write code are, indeed, just laborers who build exactly what is provided them.
But in a couple - magical - divisions, the people writing the code understand the intent, the business, and the objectives. It's much harder to find, hire, and develop these people. It's especially bad when someone is good at one facet but not all of them. It's really difficult to scale. That's why so many places "grow" to a point where things like the business, design, architecture, etc. are divvied up. They also end up being (individually) "expensive", at least on paper.
However, if you can make it work, the employees tend to love it. There is some survivor bias - people who don't like it are amongst those who cycle out. "I'd rather just code than deal with foo." It's also hard to scale.
Honestly, there's merit in both approaches. As for personal satisfaction, it depends where you land in terms of what you truly enjoy.
What we do is provide a list of about 6 (depends upon skill set we're hiring) problems that equate to first or second year CS studies. They are all straightforward and require no fancy manipulations. The candidate picks one. We set them up with an environment, they can access Google (keep search history intact, no Googling the actual problem).
They are given an hour to do the problem; anyone on the team can do it in fifteen minutes or less. If they're having trouble, we will give them another hour. There is a proctor present to help with non-programming issues (for example, for C++ folks we'll help them compile if they're rusty with command-line gcc).
These types of simpler exercises provide insight into some of the fundamentals: can you write code? What methods do you use to solve problems? Can someone else easily understand your code?
The number of C++ 'programmers' who can't compare two lists based upon criteria, or web programmers who (no joke) can't code a page that dynamically retrieves data using a (provided) web service, or database folks who can't join two tables is staggering. The exercise weeds out people who have spent years - decades - copy/paste/trial-error coding. Sorry kids, we have real work to do.
Not necessarily. I've flown plenty of times with just one gate access on the lower level. People just take the stairs. It takes longer, sure, but it isn't a big deal. The second level is typically used for First or First/Business. If there's Premium Economy or just Economy on that level as well, they end up lumping them on the main jetway anyway.
"But it's bad advice to someone who has no aptitude or affinity to coding"
Fucking 8-year olds can learn some goddamned basic ladder logic and be programming conveyor lines for $60K a year. If adult journalists with a better education can't do that, then they're simply fucked.
I find it difficult to believe that you actually believe this. At least, I hope not.
Let's break it down, just in case you do... All 8-year-olds? Nope. Basic ladder logic as a (complete, holistic, everything-you-can-do) skill in demand enough to say that it's a viable on its own? Nope.
How about a little more? Would people with these... ahem... minimal skills make their way into the "non-conveyor-line" market? Probably. Do we see enough "Learn to Code in X weeks!"-type folks flooding the market? Yup. Assuming you're in tech, do you work with some miserable person who can barely but adequately cobble together some cut-and-paste functionality and send it down the pipe, only to have it cause problems later? Probably.
No, 'learn to code' isn't appropriate for everyone. It's not a floor measurement for people's aptitude in life or the job market in general. Different people are good at different things. Is this really that difficult?
While I respect your opinion and point of view, I really hate NIMBY folks. It's like, "Austin is nice now that *I'm* here, so please stop all progress." I like progress. Some aspects are good, some bad, but in general, it's for me. I'll strongly disagree with you, and also disagree that progress and growth has to equate us turning into the Bay Area.
A. You don't understand the 'A' criteria. This means that the contractor is able to provide the objective output without control of the contracting entity. In simplistic (and admittedly ineffective) terminology, this means no micromanagement. If you're contracted to provide a widget, you turn in a widget in exchange for your fee. In this case, you get the person from point to point. Part of the question is where the objective turns into control. Is dictating the application the driver uses? The vehicle characteristics?
B. You don't understand the 'B' criteria. It isn't about whether the worker can contract with another contracting entity (for this or other work). It's about whether or not the work that the contractor is supplying is or is not part of the contracting entities regular business. If you're an agency that makes websites for customers, it's hard to argue your contract web developer is supplying something outside your regular business. When Uber has faced similar challenges, their position is that they are a software company providing software and that they are not in the business of providing transportation. This is dubious.
C. This is more in-line with your 'B' argument. This is the strongest argument Uber has that its drivers are contractors, with respect to the California 'ABC'. However, it's not pick-and-choose. It's all 3.
I'm certain that you have it wrong.
You see, if Google doesn't do this, someone will. So you have it wrong.
You see, if Google does this, then Google can help shape future open communication and equality. So you have it wrong.
You see, then Google gets to decide bits and pieces to influence. Google only has The Good in mind. So you have it wrong.
You see, Google is good. They understand this, and that they - and only they - are responsible for ensuring freedom for the Chinese. If they fail, all will be lost. So you have it wrong.
You see, Google cares. You must understand this about them, and that they are in the unique position to help. Only by censoring data access, censoring freedom, and reporting user actions, can they enforce freedom.
So you have it wrong.
Exactly. I was going to say much of the same thing, but you said it really well.
When it was still very new, I used EverNote quite a bit. Every new feature made the application more difficult and more intrusive. Not what I wanted.
I'm no expert in their business, and am even more casual than an armchair quarterback for it, but it seems to me this kind of venture would almost have to be an acquisition target... early. There are simply to many other entrenched organizations - in business, in dev, in engineering, in virtually anything that has the money to pay for it - along with email (for the consumer) - to make a new vertical. I've seen these other verticals introduce new, integrated features that make EverNote and applications like it pretty irrelevant.
I stopped using EverNote when it became more difficult and other application stacks I was already using served its purpose.
Bye.
This happened to me. I've never used battery saver; when the power icon changed, I had to look it up.
It was in close proximity with the 9-Pie upgrade. First unsettling bit was that I assumed it was a new setting, e.g. that power saver had more granular options, and my previous selection was mapped to this. This has happened with other things before; after all, when behavior changes, it changes, right?
Second was how quickly I forgot. Not only did I forget something seemed odd, but I forgot when they fixed it. I liken it to when I get a new phone; I try to arrange icons like I had them. I can tell something is different, but not exactly what. I eventually become used to the 'new' way.
This scares me, personally, because of how quickly I adapt to this. I just absorb the change, and don't really think I should dig further, investigate, change my own behavior. If I don't address it in the first 30 minutes or so, I just shrug my shoulders - whether I'm aware of this or not. The implications for this kind of stuff are kind of scary. I'm shocked at myself; I consider 'me' to be a little more aware.
whoever can spend the most money will have the fastest system simply because they can buy the most blades
My best Speed Racer voice:
And you will see that I will spend the most money and have the fastest system because I have the most blades because of the most money and therefore I have the fastest system and you did not spend the most money and therefore I did and I have the fastest system you will see ha ha.
Dare I ask why you're wasting company time doing "quick" Google search[es]?
Hiring is expensive. We're a small team within a large organization, so getting requisitions can also be time-consuming. It's useful to get context about someone. It's *all* publicly-available information. It's not a power thing, it's a curiosity thing. When hiring, I rarely lack people with the base skills to do the job. I, instead, have to pick from qualified candidates the person who is likely to thrive in our environment.
Maybe you could, oh, get to know the person? Then instead of looking down from your tower,...
Ha! So many assumptions. First, it's an interview, not a date. It's not just about my time - when's the last time *you* wanted to spend 6/8 hours interviewing. It's not about "looking down from a tower", it's about fit. If I have one position and three qualified applicants whose skills seem fairly level, culture becomes a very important consideration. You'll also probably assume that means I'm looking for clones, but you'd be wrong. Again, so many assumptions...
"Culture fit assessment". Is that code for discrimination against people because they're not "alike" the people already there? Or is it to increase diversity while trying to make sure they're a good little cog that fits right in? It just seem a little odd that you feel the need to dissect down applicants like this, but I guess it makes a lot of sense when you've got a lot of candidates to put up a lot of pretty useless, subjective criteria to exclude people that you don't like. Better than flipping a coin, right?
Have you ever worked with anyone? Of course I'm trying to find someone who fits it (calling me and my team 'cogs' is a pretty lame attempt at insult). We're here to do a job. Is it code for discrimination? Nope. I can't prove that in a comment on /., but we have lots of people with different personalities and backgrounds. I actually do my best to avoid that, because things become quite cliquey and - suddenly - work isn't getting done. Dissect applicants? Yup. Hiring a software engineer probably costs me on the order of $150K - 200K, all things considered. It also represents a significant time investment if someone doesn't work out. You bet we dissect things down. I'm pretty sure we have a good track record - low attrition, profitable results, growth. Subjective? Spoiler alert: the entire hiring process is completely subjective. Again - maybe you've never had a job?
The real question is...
I'm not even sure what you're going for here. Fun fact: most of the people's emails in this list (which I altered enough that you can't really just fire off an email to them) were actually hired. Again, captain assumption, I state clearly I've never *not* hired someone simply because of an email. It might be something that leads to other research that influence the decision.
why do you care, maybe that furry pothead anarchist is the best sysadmin in the world,
Actually two different people, both hired, both awesome. I care because stuff like that is *interesting*, and it cemented our assessment they'd fit in. Interests outside of work, proud of what they do even if others aren't, definitely willing to dedicate their effort to things they find important. So, yeah, as I said: it's usually just additional information on how someone may/may not fit into the team. Ya'll (/.) always assume the worst, and it's funny.
I've seen fairly innocuous ones that are nonetheless unique, and a quick Google search shows these people are {furries, swingers, potheads, anarchists, involved in political groups who actively oppose our line of work, survivalists, conspiracy theorists}. In general, we try to evaluate talent. If you're applying for a niche or high-end position, we'll likely look at your ... hobby ... as a novelty.
However, if you're applying for something more entry level, at the very least we will question your judgement. At worst, we might think you're a little too weird.
Ever not hired someone because of their email? Nope. Several on the above list I remember because I was all 'I can't believe I hired Bradalicious!'. It is hard, though, when forming a culture fit assessment to exclude such impressions, for good or bad.
Also, it's fun to state sometimes the background company contacts via email, is 'analrapelover1972@yahoo.com' still a good email?
It really makes me question the culture and conditions when someone in a Position of Authority claims that person/people left because the work is 'too challenging' (unless the person leaving explicitly states that). It not only obviously casts a bad light on the previous employee, but it speaks to someone's naive thought that it paints them as scrappier/smarter/more interesting.... Spoiler alert: you almost certainly aren't.
It's like the remember the old Marine ad campaign that essentially said "we do more hard stuff before 6 AM than most everyone does in their entire day." People were like, "And that's a recruitment ad?! That's supposed to want to make me join?!"
It did... or rather, it targeted their demographic. Employers who do this kind of ex post facto version by disparaging employees who quit and (gasp!) get a job somewhere else are just douchey.
Source: I once had an employer's reaction to me quitting was that 'some people just don't like the updated pace since we were acquired,' No, jackass, I didn't like the fact that I was promoted a year ago, told at the time the acquisition meant salary freeze... when the freeze was lifted my as-of-yet-unknown raise would be paid retroactively. Finally lifted, good news: my 1% salary increase would be paid retroactively. My previous boss - whose job I took - made double my salary. The 1% was an insult. Best part: she was genuinely surprised, then angry, when I quit. I understood the acquiring company paid less for the same positions and I was already in the promotion's band but... yeah.... I couldn't keep up... but the three people hired to backfill probably did OK.
In a previous life, I was a musician in a band. Did well regionally, on a small label, then some indie releases blah blah. We got limited international press, mainly early internet stuff.
The amount of requests for free stuff that we received was pretty high compared to our (very limited) sales and exposure. I mean, seriously, people sending multiple sob-story emails, contacts, etc. just to get a $12 (at the time) CD. We would always try to compromise - like we'd send them additional CDs from our catalog if they bought one, a T-shirt, whatever.
Not one freeloader ever took advantage. Not one. They went through serious effort, too - lots of emails, stories, stuff that seemed quite tailor-made for us. We appreciated the fandom but... still... it boggled the mind.
The argument is that they ultimately benefit from it, or that they (or the market) believe that they do. Their product is the viewers and the views. If - in aggregate - there is a market belief that they provide more viewers, and that more viewers flock to their platform, they have more value. So they want to appear as if they're the victim, and that the problem is simultaneously small/contained and difficult to mitigate (but they're trying!), so as to position themselves for the most benefit with the least effort and least possible negative impact.
From Matherson, quoted in the article: "For context, it is very common practice for online media companies to own or acquire additional media assets."
Except you're not an online media organization. You're a finance company. Who sells student loans/refinancing. Who created a fictional character, to seem "just like you [the borrower]", and presented yourself as an independent person collating and commenting on news related to student loans.
maggots
I smell a (public relations/marketing) rat. Uber has sunk serious cash into self-driving vehicles, with a vision of a future where there are no drivers and no vehicle ownership. The public at large will simple dial up (automated) transport services from their mobile - transport services Uber will provide. I can't imagine one (admittedly tragic) setback is all it takes to cause them to abandon it.
They are (disingenuously, I suspect) attempting to appear humane, cautious, and considerate... to mitigate the "we stomp on laws! we stomp on people! we harass! progress at any cost!" image that they have. When the dust settles, they'll - at best - issue a "we're super duper happy we took this pause to focus on safety blah blah".
Writing applications that impact public safety (as someone else pointed out, Therac anyone?) is an entirely different ballgame than "app development". Anyone rationally believe that Uber has the governance, structure, and discipline in place to create self-driving systems? What about airplane critical systems? Radiology?
Transportation is no joke. Realtime systems are not 'just another kind of app'. It's a very different approach, discipline, and willingness to follow a particular governance, a particular path. Nothing I've read about Uber, nothing they've ever said publicly, and nothing the three engineers I've known to work for them indicates that they - at all - acknowledge that. They believe they're somehow super-special, somehow smarter than the thousands of people who've come before them, working on critical systems, who utilized such safeguards and discipline.
NopeNopeNope.
There's an excellent article on this very topic here.
FWIW, I found the linked article pretty interesting. Thank you. Worth checking out.
I had to talk a family member out of investing. He is retired, and thought "tungstencoil knows about computers, I'll ask him." I hope he heeded my advice, not because he is guaranteed to lose money (in fact, had he bought when he asked me and sold now, he'd be making some cash) but because neither he nor I is smart (stupid?) enough to predict the future on this.
Doesn't matter what it is, investing heavily into a single asset or even market space carries significantly more reward/risk, and that's not great for the typical retiree.
Isn't this... a different discussion or a different mitigation tactic? Wipe-and-bring means... wait for it... you have to bring it. Granted, you can pack it away, but then why buy a new, wiped machine? This is about having the laptop in the main cabin, not customs inspecting or confiscating your laptop (admittedly a problem, but a different problem.
That is interesting... I think it's chalked up to a few different factors: animal blood != human blood; human testing often is done in larger bulk samples (for example, some disease tests pool small quantities of many samples. If it reacts, they then divide/test until they get to the offending sample); human tests are often subjected to multiple refinements or retests to meet FDA standards under one test umbrella. I'm not a doctor or lab tech, this is just what some quick Googling suggests.
Note that my statement wasn't that improvement isn't possible. It's just that it isn't a Eureka! idea. To me, it was the story of "she hated needles/blood draws, thought you should be able to do it with less volume and fuss, and then made that" like an app or a batch of bacon-maple cookies. The innovation is in neither idea nor execution, but in invention/innovation. That's tough stuff.
One wonders at the (lack of) common sense here. The premise is, "we will do blood testing on incredibly small vials of blood, because some people have difficulty with large specimen collection, and large specimen collection is inconvenient or impossible."
What gets me is this is NOT a "Eureka!" moment like Uber or AirBnB or something.
This is not a combination of old idea + do it better + better marketing, like Facebook.
This is something that requires non-trivial technical invention in an area that is already attempting to innovate. Somehow, no one thought "gee, I'll bet labs already try to get specimens with minimal fuss." It's instead like they thought "wow, no one thought of this! Once we had the idea, we just had to do that instead of this."
This meant once Theranos said "hey, we thought of this, so we decided to invent that" everyone went along... like a Kickstarter for a better travel pillow or boredom toy, rather than a complex set of scientific processes designed to support other scientific processes. This, in turn, almost requires that you accept that the VC realized this, and only hoped that it went far enough for them to cash out before imploding. I mean, there's practically no way to assume they were that naive.... is there?
Like ChipsChap, I've managed teams up to the hundreds on a global scale. I've also managed global product management and strategy. I started in the trenches, as a software engineer.
Two things come to mind: first, I'll echo ChipsChap's sentiment about the manager's job. I'll add that sometimes there just needs to be someone who can make an informed decision and move forward. In many cases - in spite of what individual contributors may think - there isn't a clear-cut or definitive "better" way/solution/approach. A good manager makes decisions in the face of ambiguity, on behalf of the individual contributors, in spite of the fact that some will be pissed off.
The second thing is the unfortunate cycle I see embodied in many comments here: individual contributors have a bad boss, and declare all management stupid and decide to forge their own path as much as possible. Managers have bad individual contributors, and declare them all ineffective and in need of more management. The sports team analogy is nice because it is fairly obvious to most people that forging your own path and deciding your individuals are ineffective doesn't work.
I'll add to that, many people also misunderstand the purpose of a manager or individual contributor. Too often, ICs look expect management to be some kind of "super" version of themselves. If you're an engineer and you expect your boss to be a smarter/faster version of you, you don't understand their role (note: this is not the same as having zero understanding of a position). If you're a manager and you expect your IC to understand (or care about) the big picture or things that aren't directly in line with their day-to-day (even others' day-to-day), you don't understand their value. Case in point: I am far from the best or smartest software engineer in my company (thank goodness), but I damned well wouldn't go to one of my leads and ask them to devise a market/strategy-based feature pipeline that includes allowances for where we expect *global* legislation differences to lead the industry I'm in (and please code them up lickity-split, if you don't mind).
- Anyone buying a house *must* have it inspected by their own inspector. Even if the house is brand new (see the previous point). For an older home, you never know what has happened during the life of the building. On top of that, inspect the house yourself. Trust-but-verify.
Fun fact from my experience:
We bought a brand-new tract home that someone else had spec'ed but their financing fell through. We got a very good deal because the builder wanted to get rid of it, and they were still building out the neighborhood so most people preferred to pick their own options. We wanted something ready to move in, so it was a win-win.
We hired an independent inspector, and were promptly mocked by both our sales liaison and the construction project manager. After all, not only do they employ their own inspectors, but it passed city inspection. Meanwhile, our inspector found a multitude of minor things, and also that the construction team had not properly finished the roof or the inside attic soffits (for the pedantic, I may have the language a bit wrong - it's been ten years). This would have likely led to roof damage in heavy wind and water damage in heavy storms.
The builder fixed it, and it passed inspection. The sales liaison was a bit indignant and tried to minimize it, but their construction manager apologized and acknowledged sometimes things happen. Since then, several of our neighbors have had to have roof work done after storms. So far, we've been OK.
Always get an independent inspector. Even new construction.