Linux? Linux was originally on 386 PC clones. You're talking about computers that existed before then. Maybe you're thinking Minix or Xinu or some other Unix lookalike?
IBM didn't do this though. IBM itself got sidelined when they came out with PS2 and it wasn't compatible even with hacks. IBM did not want the clones, period.
What is it with the idiots who say "SJW" like it's some massive conspiracy or even an insult. Social justice is a good thing, anyone who disagrees has some seriously messed up world views; so fighting for social justice should also be good. The fight over SJW is like that with Gamergate, part of a confusing set of code words that makes sure the outside world will have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
Exempt does not mean you can require someone to work more then 40 hours. It just means you don't have comply with rules regarding hourly wages and paying of overtime. Sure, you can pile up more and more work until the poor slave feels that they have to be there more than 40 hours, but you can't require that they spend that much time.
I have seem some people follow their "friends" to other jobs. A person leaves the company to a small likely-to-fail startup and suddenly 5 other employees are there also (even with no relevant experience). I ask why this happens and I'm told "oh, they're friends, they went to college together." But this baffles me, because I would never want to work with my friends lest we stop being friends.
I have noticed that "agile" has made me work longer hours. It has the hard deadline every two weeks, without fail. If I don't get the tasks done in time, no matter how many legitimate interruptions came up, I'm told "we need to get the tasks done that we commit to, or else get better at estimating our time." Before agile things would take the amount of time they took, we didn't have to take an 18 months project and split it up into neat quantums of two week mini-tasks. We could go home on time even if the task wasn't done yet, we could decide to work on something more important if it came up, etc. With agile you can't just decide to take a sprint to do investigation, there always has to be a deliverable of some sort even if you'll throw it away later (yes, the cultists out there will disagree and say it's being done wrong, but I refuse to wear saffron robes).
It's also the law. You may not like the law and be happier in your white male fantasy world, but in that case you should then use polltical methods to revert the country back to the fifties instead of breaking the law.
Recruiters are idiots though. Generally the best way to get a job is through networking, so you can get your resume in through the side door and not filtered out by clueless people.
I think most of the resumes I've gotten recently did not have dates of graduation, and they weren't older applicants either.
I'm thinking early 50s. but quite a lot of resumes I get do not have date of graduation listed. I don't list my graduation date, it's irrelevant. They can figure it out though from other clues (check linkedin, notice the date on the journal paper I have listed, etc).
In the other hand, if someone got a PhD in 2010, they could be 35 or they could be 55.
At Google also, the interviews are actually done by people from completely different departments than the hiring department. Honestly, you will be interviewed by people who have no idea what your job is or how to do it. So it seems possible that on the phone interview that everything sounds perfect, they then farm out the in person interview to random people through the roll of the dice. Then those people unable to recognize that the person has the necessary skills will rely on gut feelings, at which point any latent age discrimination gets magnified.
After a certain point people stop putting their graduation date on the resume; the same as no longer including every job they've ever had. If the most recent graduation was with Master or PhD then the data of graduation no longer correlates with age.
I don't put the date of my graduation on the resume. That's what you do for entry level jobs. If you've got a PhD though, the date of graduation would say nothing at all about your age anyway.
You often don't know the age of people from a resume, except for those younger workers who are still putting in every job they've ever had and date of graduation. Often the most you can tell is over or under 35.
Older people are more likely to tell the self-proclaimed genius founder that his brilliant ideas are crap. Not having zest is good, it means more likely to see through the bullshit. They can tell the difference between the artificial emergency and the real emergency.
Longer hours may be expected in many places, but it's illegal to enforce it in most places. The expectation in my experience is always self imposed, no boss ever says long hours are required (since it's illegal), but the employee seems to think that it's necessary. I sat across from someone who took work home very single night (as in pack up a box of equipment) and worked very long hours - he'd always say "I can't get my work done otherwise", but he never said "sorry, I can't do that new work assignment, I've got enough on my plate" and the boss never said "you must do all these tasks or else,": He'd even complain that the wife was complaining (which after one divorce he should have seen as a warning sign). It was completely his own doing, and only him not other team members.
That's what "culture" often means. The word makes little sense elsewhere. Anything I can think of that's "culture" a good corporation will want to mix up anyway; otherwise you get monoculture. If you're got a group that's all gamers, then that is bad. If you've got a group that's all dope heads, then that is really bad too (and I've seen that group). If it's a group that's all foodies stuck together in a clique, then that's also bad.
The other thing that "culture" means can be just a code word for "we all work 80 hours a week here, and we don't enforce that because it's obviously illegal, but if you don't voluntarily work 80 hours a week too then you're just not the right fit for the culture." Which also in a roundabout way is also age discrimination, or at least discrimination against people who know better or who would rather have a life.
The 8051 is still alive and kicking, mostly because it's cheap and easily available. Using a chip now that I think uses an 8051 internally to run a Java VM; incredibly slowly of course.
Look at it the other way. Google+ was trying to force its users to do stuff no one cares about - like Youtube or Gmail. Stop treating Google+ like it was the evil guy, int was *Google* that was evil trying to tie everything together, the underlying applications were not at fault.
Google+ was not a "me too" application. It was aimed at people who will never visit Facebook, and intended to have a better design (which it mostly has I think). Before Google+ there were no social networking sites worth visiting except maybe LinkedIn.
It can be useful without critical mass. Critical mass in social networking is only useful if you're the sort that has to be friends with everyone.
The major failing of Facebook that Google+ solved is a way to divide the world up into groups, and to not require reciprocation if you want to follow someone. Ie, I can keep my drinking buddies segregated from my church buddies and from my work buddies. I have plenty of weirdos following me on G+ but I never have to follow them back or friend them and find out how scary they really are. Facebook has this model that everyone has to be friends with everyone else, the sort of thing some naive college kid would design after a bender.
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't male entrepreneurs just bored men without the actual skills to get a real job?
So with all those mistakes, it's basically like every other business ever.
Linux? Linux was originally on 386 PC clones. You're talking about computers that existed before then. Maybe you're thinking Minix or Xinu or some other Unix lookalike?
IBM didn't do this though. IBM itself got sidelined when they came out with PS2 and it wasn't compatible even with hacks. IBM did not want the clones, period.
What is it with the idiots who say "SJW" like it's some massive conspiracy or even an insult. Social justice is a good thing, anyone who disagrees has some seriously messed up world views; so fighting for social justice should also be good. The fight over SJW is like that with Gamergate, part of a confusing set of code words that makes sure the outside world will have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
Exempt does not mean you can require someone to work more then 40 hours. It just means you don't have comply with rules regarding hourly wages and paying of overtime. Sure, you can pile up more and more work until the poor slave feels that they have to be there more than 40 hours, but you can't require that they spend that much time.
I have seem some people follow their "friends" to other jobs. A person leaves the company to a small likely-to-fail startup and suddenly 5 other employees are there also (even with no relevant experience). I ask why this happens and I'm told "oh, they're friends, they went to college together." But this baffles me, because I would never want to work with my friends lest we stop being friends.
That's a very lofty goal.
I have noticed that "agile" has made me work longer hours. It has the hard deadline every two weeks, without fail. If I don't get the tasks done in time, no matter how many legitimate interruptions came up, I'm told "we need to get the tasks done that we commit to, or else get better at estimating our time." Before agile things would take the amount of time they took, we didn't have to take an 18 months project and split it up into neat quantums of two week mini-tasks. We could go home on time even if the task wasn't done yet, we could decide to work on something more important if it came up, etc. With agile you can't just decide to take a sprint to do investigation, there always has to be a deliverable of some sort even if you'll throw it away later (yes, the cultists out there will disagree and say it's being done wrong, but I refuse to wear saffron robes).
It's also the law. You may not like the law and be happier in your white male fantasy world, but in that case you should then use polltical methods to revert the country back to the fifties instead of breaking the law.
Recruiters are idiots though. Generally the best way to get a job is through networking, so you can get your resume in through the side door and not filtered out by clueless people.
I think most of the resumes I've gotten recently did not have dates of graduation, and they weren't older applicants either.
I'm thinking early 50s. but quite a lot of resumes I get do not have date of graduation listed. I don't list my graduation date, it's irrelevant. They can figure it out though from other clues (check linkedin, notice the date on the journal paper I have listed, etc).
In the other hand, if someone got a PhD in 2010, they could be 35 or they could be 55.
At Google also, the interviews are actually done by people from completely different departments than the hiring department. Honestly, you will be interviewed by people who have no idea what your job is or how to do it. So it seems possible that on the phone interview that everything sounds perfect, they then farm out the in person interview to random people through the roll of the dice. Then those people unable to recognize that the person has the necessary skills will rely on gut feelings, at which point any latent age discrimination gets magnified.
After a certain point people stop putting their graduation date on the resume; the same as no longer including every job they've ever had. If the most recent graduation was with Master or PhD then the data of graduation no longer correlates with age.
If it's segregation by race, age, gender, orientation, then it's also illegal and those anti-SJW troglodytes will get a big fine.
I don't put the date of my graduation on the resume. That's what you do for entry level jobs.
If you've got a PhD though, the date of graduation would say nothing at all about your age anyway.
You often don't know the age of people from a resume, except for those younger workers who are still putting in every job they've ever had and date of graduation. Often the most you can tell is over or under 35.
Older people are more likely to tell the self-proclaimed genius founder that his brilliant ideas are crap. Not having zest is good, it means more likely to see through the bullshit. They can tell the difference between the artificial emergency and the real emergency.
Longer hours may be expected in many places, but it's illegal to enforce it in most places. The expectation in my experience is always self imposed, no boss ever says long hours are required (since it's illegal), but the employee seems to think that it's necessary. I sat across from someone who took work home very single night (as in pack up a box of equipment) and worked very long hours - he'd always say "I can't get my work done otherwise", but he never said "sorry, I can't do that new work assignment, I've got enough on my plate" and the boss never said "you must do all these tasks or else,": He'd even complain that the wife was complaining (which after one divorce he should have seen as a warning sign). It was completely his own doing, and only him not other team members.
That's what "culture" often means. The word makes little sense elsewhere. Anything I can think of that's "culture" a good corporation will want to mix up anyway; otherwise you get monoculture. If you're got a group that's all gamers, then that is bad. If you've got a group that's all dope heads, then that is really bad too (and I've seen that group). If it's a group that's all foodies stuck together in a clique, then that's also bad.
The other thing that "culture" means can be just a code word for "we all work 80 hours a week here, and we don't enforce that because it's obviously illegal, but if you don't voluntarily work 80 hours a week too then you're just not the right fit for the culture." Which also in a roundabout way is also age discrimination, or at least discrimination against people who know better or who would rather have a life.
If they want an expert in certain technologies, then they will have to hire someone who's older.
They are that disorganized.
The 8051 is still alive and kicking, mostly because it's cheap and easily available. Using a chip now that I think uses an 8051 internally to run a Java VM; incredibly slowly of course.
Look at it the other way. Google+ was trying to force its users to do stuff no one cares about - like Youtube or Gmail. Stop treating Google+ like it was the evil guy, int was *Google* that was evil trying to tie everything together, the underlying applications were not at fault.
Google+ was not a "me too" application. It was aimed at people who will never visit Facebook, and intended to have a better design (which it mostly has I think). Before Google+ there were no social networking sites worth visiting except maybe LinkedIn.
It can be useful without critical mass. Critical mass in social networking is only useful if you're the sort that has to be friends with everyone.
The major failing of Facebook that Google+ solved is a way to divide the world up into groups, and to not require reciprocation if you want to follow someone. Ie, I can keep my drinking buddies segregated from my church buddies and from my work buddies. I have plenty of weirdos following me on G+ but I never have to follow them back or friend them and find out how scary they really are. Facebook has this model that everyone has to be friends with everyone else, the sort of thing some naive college kid would design after a bender.
Yup, I hate how they think that becuase I'm on Google+ that I want to use their crapware like Youtube or Picassa or Gmail.