But an API is the same thing, only using characters instead of physical dimensions. A different set of rules shouldn't apply just because something is software. (and yes, I know that the US Patent Office disagrees here, but they're a bunch of morons)
Since this is copyright, there is fair use allowed. As in, you can cite the name of a book and the names of the chapters without having to get permission first, and you can extract quotes as well. An API is the equivalent of the name of a chapter here. So if AT&T printed out the Unix man pages as a book, you could list the synopsis sections that include the function declarations without violating the copyright of that book.
The degree will pay off in the long term, probably short term too. It's mandatory for a lot of jobs. For those jobs where it isn't mandatory, it will still get you more pay and more promotions.
I only consider Gates and Musk to be tech leaders. The others are just business leaders. I don't even consider Facebook or Amazon to be tech companies (though they may have some side hobby projects that are tech related).
And yet, go back in the time machine and you will indeed see many women interested and working in tech. Just because today there is an insane frat boy culture in place in the IT basements does not mean that biology has changed. The first computer operators were very often women, because it wasn't considered a high status job. Sysadmins in the 70s and 80s had lots of women in those roles. The field of programming languages has been highly influenced by women from the start. You have a woman to thank for the system that Steve Jobs borrowed from.
Too late. First episode can't be terrible or I won't continue. And if the first three are mediocre it's not worth my time to "stick with it". There aren't enough hours in the day for this, especially if you watch maybe 3 or 4 hours a week total.
Sounds like Buffy fans who kept telling me had I had suffer through the entire first season before it got good.
You really shouldn't be encouraging Hollywood to rush out crap as long as they promise to get better later.
To be honest, you CAN'T get into comic books if you didn't start as a kid. Every comic has a ton of alternative timelines, reboots, conflicting storylines, and such. It's like trying to get into soap operas. Especially the superhero stuff. If you even pretend to be a fan of some superhero comic, there will be busloads of long term fans who will ridicule you for daring to call yourself a fan.
Your best bet is to get a smaller standalone set of comics, short story lines, you can start at issue one without going back 5 decades, or go with a graphic novel. Ie, The Tick is good, or Sandman, or Watchmen.
On my PC, adblock completely blocks any and all youtube ads already. However on my Roku watching youtube on a larger tv, I don't have a good solution. I added some blacklists to my router but it's not so effective. So one of these days I'll find a better blacklist.
It's like LinkedIn, but for people you haven't worked with.
It *should* just be for connecting people. I got on it late but it still sort of fits that purpose. The snag though is that it does tons of other stuff, and evil stuff. Like ads, tons and tons of ads. That I know longer see because adblock works. And news, which is a completely pointless feature unless I'm doing it wrong; I can see 3 headlines to follow, which is dumb because I can pop up tons of headlines from lots of other websites instead. And a lot of featured links they want you to follow that will tell you the ten weird things to annoy your pet, which is really just another place to shove ads at you (also blocked by adblock). The main problem is the boatloads of monetization that facebook overlays on top of a very simple concept. (I still use google plus, and it works better with fewer ads)
But mostly it just reminds you that your friend had a birthday and you forgot to send a card.
Remember, in the 50s and 60s, California was also very solidly Republican and conservative. But in the Bay Area at that time, they were already mostly out of space. In the Los Angeles area there was more open space and they did manage to build lots and lots of freeways. At the time, I don't think anyone assumed that the Bay Area would have such huge growth, they probably would have assumed most of the jobs would be in San Francisco or Alameda, not the sleepy area that would become Silicon Valley.
So in the Bay Area they did get the I280 freeway and I680 freeways, which are pretty wide. These were mostly mostly residential areas though and intended as bypass freeways (as indicated by the numbering). On 280 much of the length is in semi-rural or lower density residential areas. It's not a bad freeway to drive, except for some goofy spots in downtown San Jose, except that it's a longer commute for most unless you're going from residential San Francisco down to where the jobs are.
101 is where the huge congestion is, it's closest to most jobs, and it's the most difficult to widen. It was a problem even before there was the silicon valley boom in the 70s and 80s. It goes through many rich areas that are densely packed, not cheap row houses, and everyone knows it's easier to use eminent domain against poor people. That's why the BART mass transit didn't go all the way south through Menlo Park and Palo Alto, and why there's no expressway or freeway through Menlo Park to help all the traffic coming from the Dunbarton bridge.
Building your own dam is prohibitously expensive also, if you're a single user. So moving in after it's already built to take advantage of cheaper rates is just mooching off of the taxpayers.
I once told some relatives on a weekend that things looked a bit shaky at the company I worked for, but that I was pretty safe because I was working on a vital project that had a waiting customer. Two days later the vital project was cancelled and I was a part of the 10% workforce reduction. So I went from being relatively confident in my job security to being out the door in a few hours.
A person "might" fit into your category perhaps, but very often they aren't. I have indeed known many people who were reasonably well paid beyond their level of competence.
I'm sort of talking about people who are peers, essentiallly doing the same job. Such as all people writing software on a project. So the managers don't say "I'm assigning you to write the debug logging mechanism, which doesn't bring in as much revenue, so you won't be paid as much as the others."
Consider Dilbert, where Wallly most likely has a reasonable salary, despite being useless. It's not just fiction, you see those sorts of people at a lot of companies. For some reason they don't get fired, and you can't reduce their salaries easily, so the linger around.
For an example, I've been in a situation where we wanted to get rid of an employee. But there was a hiring freeze. So if the person left, we could get a replacement. But we couldn't interview for a replacement because there was no open job req. You can't just tell a candidate "you're a great fit, just spin your wheels for several weeks while we arrange to get rid of the person you're replacing". Then there's the hassle that the employee you don't like is the only one who knows that part of the project, so even though they're screwing up it's better than having no one at all.
I had one employee that just wasn't working out who was later laid off. But I had noticed that he was rather highly paid compared to others in the group, definitely out of proportion to his productivity. I think that he just looked good on paper, did very well on the interview, and so got a higher pay grade when hired.
There are a large number of people who assume that any set of federal rules are bad by the mere fact that they are rules coming from the federal government. At the moment several of those people hold important positions of power in the US.
Duning-Kruger is about people thinking that they are better at random fields than they really are. Or as often stated "incompetents don't realize they are incompetent." However this is often misunderstood - it is not talking about someone's competence in their area of expertise, their job, etc. Instead it is about people misjudging how good they are at a different field from their normal competence. Ie, an above average engineer who thinks they're also above average at wine tasting on their first try. An engineer who is incompetent at engineering will quickly learn that they are indeed incompetent.
The original results were based on people being given some tests (humor, logic, grammar, etc). Afterwords they were asked to rate how good they thought they did on it. Those who were in the bottom of the ranking tended to rate themselves a bit above average. The hypothesis was that if they're bad enough at it that they scored low, they're also bad enough to not be able to effectively rank themselves. After some minimal tutoring they tended to become much better at estimating their own abilities.
Additionally, those who ranked near the top also assumed they were closer to average. Presumably because they thought everyone else did better because the tests didn't seem hard.
That's the background anyway. But the Dunning-Kruger effect has sort of taking on a life of its own with the general public, and is misused a lot. Such as being misused by slashdot right now. The Dunning-Kruger effect is not the same as the Peter principle. Being "incompetent" does not mean that the person is an idiot, instead it's more that they're ignorant of a particular subject.
Don't forget the hordes of people who do less work than you but who get paid lots more. Merit pay is mostly something companies like to preach but rarely practice.
Explain why the white male with a degree in communcations studies gets a 6 figure salary while watching kitten videos all day? Pay does not always have a strong correlation with a person's performance. There's lip service that pay is merit based but in practice it isn't.
Your starting salary is the biggest factor. So if everyone gets roughly 3-5% raises every year, the people with the higher starting salaries will tend to have the largest paychecks. Seniority counts too, but I usually found that I got the biggest bumps in pay by changing jobs. The snag is that many minorities get smaller starting salaries.
I once got a raise when I found out that the slacker in a nearby office was paid more than I was, and my boss said "this is not tolerable" and he went upstairs to remedy it.
As a manager now I can see how much a lot of people make and there are some big gaps in pay, like $50K+ between peers. Sometimes someone starts out at a higher salary because they were considered a good bet at the time, even if later on they didn't measure up. Since lowering a salary is very difficult those starting salaries set the pace for the first few years. Raising a salary is a bit simpler but still not easy at medium to large companies. Everyone gets rated at the same time during annual performance reviews, and you can't just say all your reports are above average, and even your recommendations may be overridden by directors or VPs. Best bet to get a bump in pay is a promotion to the next pay grade, but you can't promote everyone in your team.
I've thought about this before, especially with a past commute. If I left for home at 6:30 then it might take an hour to get home. If I left at 7:00 it might take a half hour to get home. So I wondered what sort of equation could result determining optimum time to leave, how to simulate this, etc.
What makes it tricky is that the point of disturbance, where someone had a flat tire or what not, causes a wave of congestion going backwards. Ie, those times when traffic suddenly clears up and you don't see any accident or other cause, is because the congestion has moved backwards and past you. So, there might be a big congestion if you leave early, and if you leave slightly later you'll still hit that wave, but if you wait long enough the wave will have moved moved past your starting point and you'll never know anything was amiss. If you're far enough away then the wave may diminish enough that you don't notice it.
Until Adobe stopped making PDF a read-only format and started adding all sorts of new and unnecessary features. You should not need to edit PDFs, especially for things that are not meant to be edited (a chip's datasheet for instance). If I have a chip's datahseet, I do not want or need to change that PDF, and yet they all seem to think I want to edit them. A document meant to be edited should be supplied in a different format. I also don't want to have to request and maintain certificates just to look at at document, I don't want to fill out a form on the document, I don't want it to remember what pages I have looked at, and so forth.
When I use a PDF file, what I want is a digital equivalent of a physical printout, not a malware vector.
Slashdot Mirror
But an API is the same thing, only using characters instead of physical dimensions. A different set of rules shouldn't apply just because something is software. (and yes, I know that the US Patent Office disagrees here, but they're a bunch of morons)
Since this is copyright, there is fair use allowed. As in, you can cite the name of a book and the names of the chapters without having to get permission first, and you can extract quotes as well. An API is the equivalent of the name of a chapter here. So if AT&T printed out the Unix man pages as a book, you could list the synopsis sections that include the function declarations without violating the copyright of that book.
The degree will pay off in the long term, probably short term too. It's mandatory for a lot of jobs. For those jobs where it isn't mandatory, it will still get you more pay and more promotions.
1% causing 75% of the drama? Sounds like high school.
Am I allowed to roll my eyes at this story?
That explains why you fell down at my door.
Often those dark shapes at night can be seen when you look straight at them, but they are not at all easy to see with peripheral vision.
I am amazed at how many jaywalkers I see wearing dark clothes at night crossing a four lane road that I often drive on.
I only consider Gates and Musk to be tech leaders. The others are just business leaders. I don't even consider Facebook or Amazon to be tech companies (though they may have some side hobby projects that are tech related).
And yet, go back in the time machine and you will indeed see many women interested and working in tech. Just because today there is an insane frat boy culture in place in the IT basements does not mean that biology has changed. The first computer operators were very often women, because it wasn't considered a high status job. Sysadmins in the 70s and 80s had lots of women in those roles. The field of programming languages has been highly influenced by women from the start. You have a woman to thank for the system that Steve Jobs borrowed from.
Too late. First episode can't be terrible or I won't continue. And if the first three are mediocre it's not worth my time to "stick with it". There aren't enough hours in the day for this, especially if you watch maybe 3 or 4 hours a week total.
Sounds like Buffy fans who kept telling me had I had suffer through the entire first season before it got good.
You really shouldn't be encouraging Hollywood to rush out crap as long as they promise to get better later.
To be honest, you CAN'T get into comic books if you didn't start as a kid. Every comic has a ton of alternative timelines, reboots, conflicting storylines, and such. It's like trying to get into soap operas. Especially the superhero stuff. If you even pretend to be a fan of some superhero comic, there will be busloads of long term fans who will ridicule you for daring to call yourself a fan.
Your best bet is to get a smaller standalone set of comics, short story lines, you can start at issue one without going back 5 decades, or go with a graphic novel. Ie, The Tick is good, or Sandman, or Watchmen.
On my PC, adblock completely blocks any and all youtube ads already. However on my Roku watching youtube on a larger tv, I don't have a good solution. I added some blacklists to my router but it's not so effective. So one of these days I'll find a better blacklist.
It's like LinkedIn, but for people you haven't worked with.
It *should* just be for connecting people. I got on it late but it still sort of fits that purpose. The snag though is that it does tons of other stuff, and evil stuff. Like ads, tons and tons of ads. That I know longer see because adblock works. And news, which is a completely pointless feature unless I'm doing it wrong; I can see 3 headlines to follow, which is dumb because I can pop up tons of headlines from lots of other websites instead. And a lot of featured links they want you to follow that will tell you the ten weird things to annoy your pet, which is really just another place to shove ads at you (also blocked by adblock). The main problem is the boatloads of monetization that facebook overlays on top of a very simple concept. (I still use google plus, and it works better with fewer ads)
But mostly it just reminds you that your friend had a birthday and you forgot to send a card.
Remember, in the 50s and 60s, California was also very solidly Republican and conservative. But in the Bay Area at that time, they were already mostly out of space. In the Los Angeles area there was more open space and they did manage to build lots and lots of freeways. At the time, I don't think anyone assumed that the Bay Area would have such huge growth, they probably would have assumed most of the jobs would be in San Francisco or Alameda, not the sleepy area that would become Silicon Valley.
So in the Bay Area they did get the I280 freeway and I680 freeways, which are pretty wide. These were mostly mostly residential areas though and intended as bypass freeways (as indicated by the numbering). On 280 much of the length is in semi-rural or lower density residential areas. It's not a bad freeway to drive, except for some goofy spots in downtown San Jose, except that it's a longer commute for most unless you're going from residential San Francisco down to where the jobs are.
101 is where the huge congestion is, it's closest to most jobs, and it's the most difficult to widen. It was a problem even before there was the silicon valley boom in the 70s and 80s. It goes through many rich areas that are densely packed, not cheap row houses, and everyone knows it's easier to use eminent domain against poor people. That's why the BART mass transit didn't go all the way south through Menlo Park and Palo Alto, and why there's no expressway or freeway through Menlo Park to help all the traffic coming from the Dunbarton bridge.
Building your own dam is prohibitously expensive also, if you're a single user. So moving in after it's already built to take advantage of cheaper rates is just mooching off of the taxpayers.
I once told some relatives on a weekend that things looked a bit shaky at the company I worked for, but that I was pretty safe because I was working on a vital project that had a waiting customer. Two days later the vital project was cancelled and I was a part of the 10% workforce reduction. So I went from being relatively confident in my job security to being out the door in a few hours.
A person "might" fit into your category perhaps, but very often they aren't. I have indeed known many people who were reasonably well paid beyond their level of competence.
I'm sort of talking about people who are peers, essentiallly doing the same job. Such as all people writing software on a project. So the managers don't say "I'm assigning you to write the debug logging mechanism, which doesn't bring in as much revenue, so you won't be paid as much as the others."
Consider Dilbert, where Wallly most likely has a reasonable salary, despite being useless. It's not just fiction, you see those sorts of people at a lot of companies. For some reason they don't get fired, and you can't reduce their salaries easily, so the linger around.
For an example, I've been in a situation where we wanted to get rid of an employee. But there was a hiring freeze. So if the person left, we could get a replacement. But we couldn't interview for a replacement because there was no open job req. You can't just tell a candidate "you're a great fit, just spin your wheels for several weeks while we arrange to get rid of the person you're replacing". Then there's the hassle that the employee you don't like is the only one who knows that part of the project, so even though they're screwing up it's better than having no one at all.
I had one employee that just wasn't working out who was later laid off. But I had noticed that he was rather highly paid compared to others in the group, definitely out of proportion to his productivity. I think that he just looked good on paper, did very well on the interview, and so got a higher pay grade when hired.
There are a large number of people who assume that any set of federal rules are bad by the mere fact that they are rules coming from the federal government. At the moment several of those people hold important positions of power in the US.
Duning-Kruger is about people thinking that they are better at random fields than they really are. Or as often stated "incompetents don't realize they are incompetent." However this is often misunderstood - it is not talking about someone's competence in their area of expertise, their job, etc. Instead it is about people misjudging how good they are at a different field from their normal competence. Ie, an above average engineer who thinks they're also above average at wine tasting on their first try. An engineer who is incompetent at engineering will quickly learn that they are indeed incompetent.
The original results were based on people being given some tests (humor, logic, grammar, etc). Afterwords they were asked to rate how good they thought they did on it. Those who were in the bottom of the ranking tended to rate themselves a bit above average. The hypothesis was that if they're bad enough at it that they scored low, they're also bad enough to not be able to effectively rank themselves. After some minimal tutoring they tended to become much better at estimating their own abilities.
Additionally, those who ranked near the top also assumed they were closer to average. Presumably because they thought everyone else did better because the tests didn't seem hard.
That's the background anyway. But the Dunning-Kruger effect has sort of taking on a life of its own with the general public, and is misused a lot. Such as being misused by slashdot right now. The Dunning-Kruger effect is not the same as the Peter principle. Being "incompetent" does not mean that the person is an idiot, instead it's more that they're ignorant of a particular subject.
Don't forget the hordes of people who do less work than you but who get paid lots more. Merit pay is mostly something companies like to preach but rarely practice.
Explain why the white male with a degree in communcations studies gets a 6 figure salary while watching kitten videos all day? Pay does not always have a strong correlation with a person's performance. There's lip service that pay is merit based but in practice it isn't.
Your starting salary is the biggest factor. So if everyone gets roughly 3-5% raises every year, the people with the higher starting salaries will tend to have the largest paychecks. Seniority counts too, but I usually found that I got the biggest bumps in pay by changing jobs. The snag is that many minorities get smaller starting salaries.
I once got a raise when I found out that the slacker in a nearby office was paid more than I was, and my boss said "this is not tolerable" and he went upstairs to remedy it.
As a manager now I can see how much a lot of people make and there are some big gaps in pay, like $50K+ between peers. Sometimes someone starts out at a higher salary because they were considered a good bet at the time, even if later on they didn't measure up. Since lowering a salary is very difficult those starting salaries set the pace for the first few years. Raising a salary is a bit simpler but still not easy at medium to large companies. Everyone gets rated at the same time during annual performance reviews, and you can't just say all your reports are above average, and even your recommendations may be overridden by directors or VPs. Best bet to get a bump in pay is a promotion to the next pay grade, but you can't promote everyone in your team.
I've thought about this before, especially with a past commute. If I left for home at 6:30 then it might take an hour to get home. If I left at 7:00 it might take a half hour to get home. So I wondered what sort of equation could result determining optimum time to leave, how to simulate this, etc.
What makes it tricky is that the point of disturbance, where someone had a flat tire or what not, causes a wave of congestion going backwards. Ie, those times when traffic suddenly clears up and you don't see any accident or other cause, is because the congestion has moved backwards and past you. So, there might be a big congestion if you leave early, and if you leave slightly later you'll still hit that wave, but if you wait long enough the wave will have moved moved past your starting point and you'll never know anything was amiss. If you're far enough away then the wave may diminish enough that you don't notice it.
Until Adobe stopped making PDF a read-only format and started adding all sorts of new and unnecessary features. You should not need to edit PDFs, especially for things that are not meant to be edited (a chip's datasheet for instance). If I have a chip's datahseet, I do not want or need to change that PDF, and yet they all seem to think I want to edit them. A document meant to be edited should be supplied in a different format. I also don't want to have to request and maintain certificates just to look at at document, I don't want to fill out a form on the document, I don't want it to remember what pages I have looked at, and so forth.
When I use a PDF file, what I want is a digital equivalent of a physical printout, not a malware vector.