I just looked at that LI tool and it's pretty sparsely populated. Most of the queries I threw at it had "$0" listed as the going salary. I'm sure it'll get better but for now it's not even as "good" as the salary estimates you get from Glassdoor.
On my Android phone, I can edit a similar message out of my emails. Not sure how to eliminate it globally via some application setting but at least I can remove it. Is removing this message tag disallowed on Apple's phones?
That was Rick Santorum's brilliant plan, too, not too many years ago. In his case, he was pushing the idea to benefit The Weather Channel. (If memory serves.)
And... didn't Trump's just-proposed budget slash funding for NASA's Earth-observing programs? There's no climate change if nobody can see it. How do you know there's no polar ice any more? Did you personally see it disappear?
... is that the legal department of the dairy spent the time poring over the law looking for something/anything--Ah Ha! A grammatical error!--that allowed them to engage in the practice that resulted in the lawsuit. The company had to know they were violating the intent of the law but the missing comma somehow made it okay. It's funny how, when money is at stake, all sorts of tortured arguments justifying bad behavior (missing f*cking comma?) wind up being litigated in the court system.
Consultancy specializing in "digital transformation" (i.e., popular new buzzword) does self-serving survey that miraculously finds that their services are needed.
I especially like the finding that 29% of companies are whining about not having the needed skills in-house. I predict that the survey did not ask companies whether they were investing in any training for their IT staff and, if they had, the responses would range from "Hell, no!" or "No" to "Huh? What is this `training' thing you asked about?"
full of howl-inducing inaccuracies, generalizations, and implications that Microsoft-based computers are the end-all-be-all of computing. But I'll bet they'll contain hackneyed comparisons like "the CPU--or (spoken slowly) Central Processing Unit--is the brains of a computer".
Oy! I rather hope these are soon-to-be-available on YouTube for our entertainment.
``It might seem like a good idea to make job requirements as exhaustive as possible, but in reality, that may turn off qualified candidates who would be great for the job,''
I've seen the job ads without the laundry lists of technologies--you've seen 'em: lists that seem to indicate they're trying to fill three open positions with a single hire (sysadmin, DBA, developer)--and that's great.
The trouble is, though, that the word hasn't trickled down to the actual hiring managers and their lieutenants doing the interviewing. The actual interviews are endless questions like "have you used this/that/the other/what version/etc?" which puts the candidates on the defensive just moments after "Hello" and the handshake and leaving little time to talk about how the candidate's background would fit in and help to solve the company's problems. To the interviewers, they're already turned off by the fact that your previous or current employer chose to use different software products than the company has chosen. "Oh my God... this guy doesn't know any of the software we chose to build our business processes on. Next! (Damn! Maybe we can get Joe to come back...)"
``HR and recruiters work hand in hand to ensure that companies get the worst possible candidates. The problem is keyword matching. Recruiters spam them, and HR filters on them. That directly penalizes someone who either has a very strong or narrow skillset, or someone who has a very high adaptability.''
Then there are:
* the recruiters who balk at the length of your resume because of all the keywords you packed it with in an attempt to satisfy the ATS.
* the HR people who write articles that warn candidates to ``keep it to a single page because we only spend 5 seconds looking at your resume''.
$DIETY help you if you've worked at more than one company and try to satisfy both of these types at the same time.
``People that are incapable of reading documentation.''
But, first, you need people who are capable of writing documentation. When companies stopped including actually helpful printed documentation--or, hell, a CD full of PDFs--prepared by professional technical writers (as opposed to foisting the task on the coders who can barely cobble together a coherent paragraph), the reading of documentation became known as a waste of time. "It's on their web site." Is it? Usually it's not. In some cases, it might be there but buried in a horribly managed wiki that sometimes contains conflicting information depending on how you navigate the damned thing.
Many? I'd say "most". Then there's the other extreme where the ads are so vague that you have no idea whether you would want to apply or not. Especially, if you are forced to submit via their ATS where you have no idea whether a human with operating neurons has actually read your resume or whether a badly constructed regex is looking at it. Hard to tailor a resume to these (probably purposely) vague job descriptions. I know of one local company that has a reputation for writing these awful ads and setting the ATS acceptance threshold to insanely high levels intentionally because the HR head really doesn't want to approve of any new hires. ("Hey! I'm saving the company money!")
``I have sysadmin AND development experience, and that's always been a point against me, even before devops became a thing. Just like "can do" and "I don't know but I'll figure it out" attitude (a rather essential trait for generalist sysadmins) gets mentally filed under "attitude", not "can do". Thanks, HR drones.'
I run into this a lot. I've always been able to figure new tech out--point me to a manual or a web page and I'm off to the races--but that doesn't seem to count for much in many HR folks' minds. And some hiring manager's minds as well. One of the things I've run into are job ads that appear to be written with the idea of hiring someone who can ``figure it out''--i.e., apparently targeting candidates with background in general areas--but when you get in front of the manager you're grilled about whether you have ever used `Product A', `Product B', `Product C', etc. Things that were never mentioned in the job ads and might have saved both parties the wasted time of a face-to-face interview had the candidate known that specific products were critical to the position (when they rarely are---we can figure it out, right? Damn right!). Or there's the hiring manager who tells the recruiters that lengthy experience in a particular technology isn't a showstopper. Then, the very first thing you receive as feedback is that you don't have enough experience in that specific technology.
I'm beginning to think that, in some ways, the rise of open source software has made it more difficult to find employment in some areas of IT. Think about it: for any given aspect of, say, a sysadmin's job, there might be a dozen (at least) different software packages that could be used to accomplish the tasks associated with that part of the job. Now consider all the different things you might get involved in as part of that job and the number of packages that can be used to address those areas... the number of combinations of the software packages that a hiring manager starts insisting on you having skyrockets. (And that doesn't even consider the managers who think that having used ImportantTool V3.x is critical--experience in V2 is useless.) And so do the odds against finding a candidate who will meet all these ``requirements''---the mythical ``Purple Squirrels''. The failure of companies to refuse to take into account that there are, indeed, highly adaptable candidates out there with the ability to ``figure it out'' is paralyzing the hiring process. I'm seeing job ads appear from time to time for months and months (sometimes showing up for as long as a year) for the same position at some companies. How can that possibly be doing the company any good?
While Meltdown and company are getting all the attention lately, it's sort of nice to hear about something new from the folks that gave us so many classics.
``... have apps remember their last window size and location on the desktop, so that i don't have to resize and re-location the window each time I open an app...''
If you right-click on the title bar--you know... the screen element that this Gnome bozo would like to see disappear--KDE provides an option ``More Actions -> Special Windows Settings'' that lets you do just that. It even lets you specify that the application should always open in a specific Pager window. It'd be perfect if all applications worked well with the function. Most do but I have a few applications that seem to forget where they're supposed to open, how big they should be, and where.
If you're not a KDE user, you can also write a wrapper script or modify the application option in your menu to force the placement and size of an application window using the '-geometry' switch. You could also attack this using your `.Xresources' file. Doesn't help with the Pager window but it's better than having to manually resize the window.
I had a similar discussion with a Mac fanboi back in the '80s. There were no menus in the application he was using. You were supposed to just ``know'' that randomly clicking on elements of the application display would bring up a menu---sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't. In the past I would describe this as the ``Myst'' User Interface: just randomly click on stuff to see what happens.
I'm almost certainly not the only user to configure my window manager to ``windowshade'' applications by double clicking on the title bar. Why screw people by making functions like that application-specific? I foresee this useful window function being:
a.) rarely implemented,
b.) likely a tiny button that'll be harder to hit easily and,
c.) a badly placed button. One can imagine some dain bread application developer placing the windowshade button right next to the `kill app' button. (Or right next to the `Send Out Not-A-Drill Nuclear Missile Warning' option.)
Why force applications to re-implement useful screen elements that we already have and pretty much guarantee that the function won't work consistently across the applications that even bother to implement it? This sounds like a feature thought up by some one who thinks that an application's ability to have ``skins'' is the end-all-be-all of UI design.
``Everybody has been [taught] to think that the firewall is keeping the bad guys out. People need to adjust their mindset and understand that the bad actors are already in their environment.''
I can't remember how many times I heard people sit in staff meetings and argue against employing simple security practices when developing application using this excuse. You know what changed their minds? The time when some admin powered up a WinNT box sitting in an unused cubicle--inside the firewall--not realizing that it had been infected with Code Red and it DoSed several critical servers during month-end processing. Now their application design would likely have not had anything to do with protecting against Code Red, when they saw first-hand what can happen when the attacker is on the (supposedly) "clean" side of the firewall they finally figured it out.
Slashdot Mirror
I just looked at that LI tool and it's pretty sparsely populated. Most of the queries I threw at it had "$0" listed as the going salary. I'm sure it'll get better but for now it's not even as "good" as the salary estimates you get from Glassdoor.
... a call to clean house of the Deep Staters at the NRLB.
On my Android phone, I can edit a similar message out of my emails. Not sure how to eliminate it globally via some application setting but at least I can remove it. Is removing this message tag disallowed on Apple's phones?
... to supply me with quality crossword puzzles each week.
That was Rick Santorum's brilliant plan, too, not too many years ago. In his case, he was pushing the idea to benefit The Weather Channel. (If memory serves.)
And... didn't Trump's just-proposed budget slash funding for NASA's Earth-observing programs? There's no climate change if nobody can see it. How do you know there's no polar ice any more? Did you personally see it disappear?
Bah! Pear Anjou cables are the minimum acceptable cables you should be using. Sure, they're about $450/foot but aren't your ears worth it?
(Yes... I'm kidding. But not about that pricing.)
These folks were perfectly happy coding and you just alerted HR departments across the country to be on the lookout for old guys to get rid of.
... is that the legal department of the dairy spent the time poring over the law looking for something/anything--Ah Ha! A grammatical error!--that allowed them to engage in the practice that resulted in the lawsuit. The company had to know they were violating the intent of the law but the missing comma somehow made it okay. It's funny how, when money is at stake, all sorts of tortured arguments justifying bad behavior (missing f*cking comma?) wind up being litigated in the court system.
Consultancy specializing in "digital transformation" (i.e., popular new buzzword) does self-serving survey that miraculously finds that their services are needed.
I especially like the finding that 29% of companies are whining about not having the needed skills in-house. I predict that the survey did not ask companies whether they were investing in any training for their IT staff and, if they had, the responses would range from "Hell, no!" or "No" to "Huh? What is this `training' thing you asked about?"
they should have shown the open title of ``Heidi'' with the audio consisting of an evil ``Mwa-ha-ha-ha''.
Oops! Missed that part. Have to check them out.
full of howl-inducing inaccuracies, generalizations, and implications that Microsoft-based computers are the end-all-be-all of computing. But I'll bet they'll contain hackneyed comparisons like "the CPU--or (spoken slowly) Central Processing Unit--is the brains of a computer".
Oy! I rather hope these are soon-to-be-available on YouTube for our entertainment.
At least not yet.
I've seen the job ads without the laundry lists of technologies--you've seen 'em: lists that seem to indicate they're trying to fill three open positions with a single hire (sysadmin, DBA, developer)--and that's great.
The trouble is, though, that the word hasn't trickled down to the actual hiring managers and their lieutenants doing the interviewing. The actual interviews are endless questions like "have you used this/that/the other/what version/etc?" which puts the candidates on the defensive just moments after "Hello" and the handshake and leaving little time to talk about how the candidate's background would fit in and help to solve the company's problems. To the interviewers, they're already turned off by the fact that your previous or current employer chose to use different software products than the company has chosen. "Oh my God... this guy doesn't know any of the software we chose to build our business processes on. Next! (Damn! Maybe we can get Joe to come back...)"
Then there are:
* the recruiters who balk at the length of your resume because of all the keywords you packed it with in an attempt to satisfy the ATS.
* the HR people who write articles that warn candidates to ``keep it to a single page because we only spend 5 seconds looking at your resume''.
$DIETY help you if you've worked at more than one company and try to satisfy both of these types at the same time.
But, first, you need people who are capable of writing documentation. When companies stopped including actually helpful printed documentation--or, hell, a CD full of PDFs--prepared by professional technical writers (as opposed to foisting the task on the coders who can barely cobble together a coherent paragraph), the reading of documentation became known as a waste of time. "It's on their web site." Is it? Usually it's not. In some cases, it might be there but buried in a horribly managed wiki that sometimes contains conflicting information depending on how you navigate the damned thing.
Many? I'd say "most". Then there's the other extreme where the ads are so vague that you have no idea whether you would want to apply or not. Especially, if you are forced to submit via their ATS where you have no idea whether a human with operating neurons has actually read your resume or whether a badly constructed regex is looking at it. Hard to tailor a resume to these (probably purposely) vague job descriptions. I know of one local company that has a reputation for writing these awful ads and setting the ATS acceptance threshold to insanely high levels intentionally because the HR head really doesn't want to approve of any new hires. ("Hey! I'm saving the company money!")
I run into this a lot. I've always been able to figure new tech out--point me to a manual or a web page and I'm off to the races--but that doesn't seem to count for much in many HR folks' minds. And some hiring manager's minds as well. One of the things I've run into are job ads that appear to be written with the idea of hiring someone who can ``figure it out''--i.e., apparently targeting candidates with background in general areas--but when you get in front of the manager you're grilled about whether you have ever used `Product A', `Product B', `Product C', etc. Things that were never mentioned in the job ads and might have saved both parties the wasted time of a face-to-face interview had the candidate known that specific products were critical to the position (when they rarely are---we can figure it out, right? Damn right!). Or there's the hiring manager who tells the recruiters that lengthy experience in a particular technology isn't a showstopper. Then, the very first thing you receive as feedback is that you don't have enough experience in that specific technology.
I'm beginning to think that, in some ways, the rise of open source software has made it more difficult to find employment in some areas of IT. Think about it: for any given aspect of, say, a sysadmin's job, there might be a dozen (at least) different software packages that could be used to accomplish the tasks associated with that part of the job. Now consider all the different things you might get involved in as part of that job and the number of packages that can be used to address those areas... the number of combinations of the software packages that a hiring manager starts insisting on you having skyrockets. (And that doesn't even consider the managers who think that having used ImportantTool V3.x is critical--experience in V2 is useless.) And so do the odds against finding a candidate who will meet all these ``requirements''---the mythical ``Purple Squirrels''. The failure of companies to refuse to take into account that there are, indeed, highly adaptable candidates out there with the ability to ``figure it out'' is paralyzing the hiring process. I'm seeing job ads appear from time to time for months and months (sometimes showing up for as long as a year) for the same position at some companies. How can that possibly be doing the company any good?
While Meltdown and company are getting all the attention lately, it's sort of nice to hear about something new from the folks that gave us so many classics.
Well, Micron execs probably love static linking, containers, et al.
Sounds like a classic ``Gish Gallop'' tactic.
If you right-click on the title bar--you know... the screen element that this Gnome bozo would like to see disappear--KDE provides an option ``More Actions -> Special Windows Settings'' that lets you do just that. It even lets you specify that the application should always open in a specific Pager window. It'd be perfect if all applications worked well with the function. Most do but I have a few applications that seem to forget where they're supposed to open, how big they should be, and where.
If you're not a KDE user, you can also write a wrapper script or modify the application option in your menu to force the placement and size of an application window using the '-geometry' switch. You could also attack this using your `.Xresources' file. Doesn't help with the Pager window but it's better than having to manually resize the window.
Must sit across the aisle from the systemd team.
I had a similar discussion with a Mac fanboi back in the '80s. There were no menus in the application he was using. You were supposed to just ``know'' that randomly clicking on elements of the application display would bring up a menu---sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't. In the past I would describe this as the ``Myst'' User Interface: just randomly click on stuff to see what happens.
I'm almost certainly not the only user to configure my window manager to ``windowshade'' applications by double clicking on the title bar. Why screw people by making functions like that application-specific? I foresee this useful window function being:
Why force applications to re-implement useful screen elements that we already have and pretty much guarantee that the function won't work consistently across the applications that even bother to implement it? This sounds like a feature thought up by some one who thinks that an application's ability to have ``skins'' is the end-all-be-all of UI design.
I can't remember how many times I heard people sit in staff meetings and argue against employing simple security practices when developing application using this excuse. You know what changed their minds? The time when some admin powered up a WinNT box sitting in an unused cubicle--inside the firewall--not realizing that it had been infected with Code Red and it DoSed several critical servers during month-end processing. Now their application design would likely have not had anything to do with protecting against Code Red, when they saw first-hand what can happen when the attacker is on the (supposedly) "clean" side of the firewall they finally figured it out.