Unfortunately, the non-degreed applications may contain the best candidates, and they're not even going to look at them. It's just another way to get out of actually doing the job for which HR employees were hired. They seem to have loads of them.
True, with an important exception: female coders. The big companies are so eager to hire women in tech that they'll consider anyone with the slightest plausibility to her resume. It's how it should work for everyone, really, being accepting to unusual paths to being good at software development. It's how it did work until the mid-90s or so, before colleges started churning out CS degrees like crazy. CS degrees weren't even the norm in the early years - it was mostly math degrees.
Without degree HR will screen you out and you will never get a chance to demonstrate your skills. With a few exceptions of world-class experts that are already known, you need a degree. Degree is also necessary if you are mediocre, as at that point you are just a replaceable cog.
It's damn hard to break into software development without a degree, to be sure. But once you have a few years experience, almost no one cares.
What appeals on a resume is a history of difficult or interesting problems that you've solved, or having worked at the big-name companies where it will just be assumed that you were solving hard problems. The ideal candidate is always someone who has already solved the problem you're faced with, or more realistically someone with a track record in the same problem domain (experience with the specific tech stack is usually "nice to have", at least at larger companies).
Beyond entry level, a track record demonstrating you can do good work is what managers generally look for (recruiters of course just do keyword searches, but that's a different topic).
. Education offers the foundational theoretical knowledge of a domain - deep understanding of relevant principles that allow for faster and more flexible skill development.
Yes. But I don't find that in university graduates. I find that in smart people who have finished the early years of their career, and took the initiative to learn and generalize along the way.
Perhaps that's because software engineering isn't yet a mature field, but I hear the same from other engineering fields.
But companies want practical skills, not foundational knowledge.
Every place I've worked looks for both. At entry level, practical skills matter more as you won't be designing much yourself, but you won't get far in your career without the foundational stuff.
And practical skills are the domain of work experience and trade schools, not colleges.
Where did that line of BS get started? It was when universities were for the children of rich nobles, who would never actually work in their lives. We live in a different time.
Can you afford to spend $60k-100k and four years of your life for a bunch of stuff that's interesting but has no practical value? Only if your family is rich enough to carry you. For the rest of us in the 99% colleges damn well better produce graduates with the skills to get a good job.
Experience has virtually no correlation with understanding or even skill. Concrete skills have a half life of about 2-3 years.
A senior engineer is someone who has that 2-3 years of depth, multiple times, and thus can generalize and form best practices that aren't specific to a given tech stack (and thus may be useful for the latest thing).
. We need to be fast, correct the first time, and our projects need to be easy for others to use/manage
Uh huh. Good, fast, and cheap: pick at most 2, and you're probably getting 1. But it's easy to deceive yourself about quality.
illennials make up possibly the most well-educated American generation ever.
No - they're the generation that spent the most time in schools. Education is related, but not the same.
Why would the IBM CEO feel the need to make this statement of opinion if it has already become a fact in HR?
Perhaps to emphasize their willingness to hire form diverse backgrounds. Diversity is all the fashion these days, after all.
Finally, if you were in charge of hiring for a new project that leveraged a new technology, would you rather hire someone with two year's experience in this new technology or someone with a four-year degree that they received at a university whose curriculum did not include said technology?
I'd rather hire someone who is "smart and gets things done", plus is not a jerk. New technologies are usually quick enough to ramp up on, and I don't care where someone picks up the tools of the trade: if they can both code and design, that's what matters. Design optional for entry-level hires.
They used to say "if you let private companies build the roads, they'll all be toll roads". I havn't seen a government build a non-toll highway or bridge in over a decade.
I'm glad people are downvoting this faggot. Fuck off with your "us folk in the south don't take too kind to your kind"... type attitude.
How do you get that from "if you move here, you might get the same pay and a lower cost of living"? Seriously, how do you get form "it's wonderful here, which is why you should move here" to "we don't want you"?
You must have made a pretty shitty salary in ca then.
Employers will offer you similar salaries when you move to Texas, if you're good. It's all the same to a large company with offices around the country.
Plus it's really handy to have the ocean to your immediate east when you launch. Otherwise, like Russia, your mistakes rain fire form the sky onto whoever happens to live downrange.
The move was explicitly because transport was impractical. The rocket uses a 9m fuselage, IIRC, and would only be transportable through the Panama Canal. That was their first plan, then they had a blinding flash of the obvious.
Do you understand the difference between "less immigration" and "no immigration"? Assuming you believe in democracy, I'd assume you'd agree that the voting citizenry has the right to determine the rate, whatever it might be? A goal that is impossible before we secure the border.
During the summer fires in California, firefighting teams were organized as either "English" or "Spanish" so there would be no intra-team communication problems. 80% of the teams choose Spanish. So you want to deport the family of the guy who just saved your house?
I moved to a state less mindbogglingly fucking stupid in every way and every decision than California, and so my state is not on fire! But that's neither here nor there.
Fair point, but people get confused about the whole "speed of light" thing (and anyway, influence doesn't start with "c"). The key point is that c represents something more fundamental than the motion of light.
Yes. You can launch things into space, you know? Thus the difference in cost.
Robots that work in a vaccum are difficult and expensive, but we have them (and some are used in fabs, humankind's most complex manufacturing). Fully automated production lines are rare because of the cost, but we have them, here and there where the economics work.
It's the cost that makes most of this a non-starter today. Power generation it the likely first step for orbital commerce, as there's a strong non-economic motive to move away from cheap fossil fuels. The lower launch costs get, the more will make sense to do IN SPACE, and there are several very successful billionaires competing with one another to lower launch costs.
People used to the exponential cost reduction for computer parts think this will all happen next year, but on the many-decade timeline of cost reduction for industrial processes it seems straightforward. Not "I can afford 64GB instead of 64K in my computer" fast, but "steel sure is cheaper than 100 years ago" fast.
Very few people are saying America shouldn't have immigration. Very many people are saying America shouldn't have illegal immigration. Lying assholes pretend to be confused about that.
What's the difference between an automated space factory and an automated ground factory? Cost, and you can't use rubber seals (which is non-trivial). Technology just isn't the limit any more, but the cost is, well, astronomical.
Fun fact: orbital solar power stations would be profitable at current launch prices, and we've been putting solar panels in orbit for almost 50 years now. However, they just cost a lot more than just doing the same in the desert, and more still than natural gas generators. But it's close enough that PG&E did a serious evaluation, and cited NIMBY difficulties in locating the power receiving station as the reason they abandoned the plan.
Don't confuse prohibitive cost with technological barriers.
Intel prices this stuff carefully. You do hit a point where it's cheaper to build a 2-socket server system for the needed performance. I did all the math very carefully before ending up with a 28-core 2-socket Xeon system for video transcoding.
I rather suspect that if this CPU were priced normally, it would mess up the very careful price curve for Xeon, and end up cheaper for some loads that force you to Xeon today. Can't have that.
BTW, the lower per-core clock is all about thermal management, which is fine really if you're not planning to overclock your >$1000 CPUs. (I liked the fact that with heat sinks designed for the OC market, I could build a dead silent system even under full load).
A lot of money just to act like a big shot. I suppose it is like people who buy mansions or 100k sports cars.
It's an odd market. There are enthusiasts who push the limits on what's possible for overclocking, building ridiculous systems (e.g., liquid nitrogen cooling) with prices that are crazy, but still way cheaper than cars or photography as a middle-age-man hobby. Thing is, enthusiasts don't buy systems from integrators. Building your on is the entire point.
This is a dangerous marketing move for Intell IMO. These chips will go in systems for kids with rich parents. That could kill the enthusiast market for Intel. Chasing away your hardcore fans is rarely wise.
Samsung is on the "no jack" bandwagon with some new phones, though they're less committed to it than Apple. I got an LG because they went the other way, saying not only do they love the jack, they added audiophile DACs to it for music listening. Not sure that matters, but I like their spirit.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the non-degreed applications may contain the best candidates, and they're not even going to look at them. It's just another way to get out of actually doing the job for which HR employees were hired. They seem to have loads of them.
True, with an important exception: female coders. The big companies are so eager to hire women in tech that they'll consider anyone with the slightest plausibility to her resume. It's how it should work for everyone, really, being accepting to unusual paths to being good at software development. It's how it did work until the mid-90s or so, before colleges started churning out CS degrees like crazy. CS degrees weren't even the norm in the early years - it was mostly math degrees.
Without degree HR will screen you out and you will never get a chance to demonstrate your skills. With a few exceptions of world-class experts that are already known, you need a degree. Degree is also necessary if you are mediocre, as at that point you are just a replaceable cog.
It's damn hard to break into software development without a degree, to be sure. But once you have a few years experience, almost no one cares.
What appeals on a resume is a history of difficult or interesting problems that you've solved, or having worked at the big-name companies where it will just be assumed that you were solving hard problems. The ideal candidate is always someone who has already solved the problem you're faced with, or more realistically someone with a track record in the same problem domain (experience with the specific tech stack is usually "nice to have", at least at larger companies).
Beyond entry level, a track record demonstrating you can do good work is what managers generally look for (recruiters of course just do keyword searches, but that's a different topic).
. Education offers the foundational theoretical knowledge of a domain - deep understanding of relevant principles that allow for faster and more flexible skill development.
Yes. But I don't find that in university graduates. I find that in smart people who have finished the early years of their career, and took the initiative to learn and generalize along the way.
Perhaps that's because software engineering isn't yet a mature field, but I hear the same from other engineering fields.
But companies want practical skills, not foundational knowledge.
Every place I've worked looks for both. At entry level, practical skills matter more as you won't be designing much yourself, but you won't get far in your career without the foundational stuff.
And practical skills are the domain of work experience and trade schools, not colleges.
Where did that line of BS get started? It was when universities were for the children of rich nobles, who would never actually work in their lives. We live in a different time.
Can you afford to spend $60k-100k and four years of your life for a bunch of stuff that's interesting but has no practical value? Only if your family is rich enough to carry you. For the rest of us in the 99% colleges damn well better produce graduates with the skills to get a good job.
Experience has virtually no correlation with understanding or even skill. Concrete skills have a half life of about 2-3 years.
A senior engineer is someone who has that 2-3 years of depth, multiple times, and thus can generalize and form best practices that aren't specific to a given tech stack (and thus may be useful for the latest thing).
. We need to be fast, correct the first time, and our projects need to be easy for others to use/manage
Uh huh. Good, fast, and cheap: pick at most 2, and you're probably getting 1. But it's easy to deceive yourself about quality.
illennials make up possibly the most well-educated American generation ever.
No - they're the generation that spent the most time in schools. Education is related, but not the same.
Why would the IBM CEO feel the need to make this statement of opinion if it has already become a fact in HR?
Perhaps to emphasize their willingness to hire form diverse backgrounds. Diversity is all the fashion these days, after all.
Finally, if you were in charge of hiring for a new project that leveraged a new technology, would you rather hire someone with two year's experience in this new technology or someone with a four-year degree that they received at a university whose curriculum did not include said technology?
I'd rather hire someone who is "smart and gets things done", plus is not a jerk. New technologies are usually quick enough to ramp up on, and I don't care where someone picks up the tools of the trade: if they can both code and design, that's what matters. Design optional for entry-level hires.
They used to say "if you let private companies build the roads, they'll all be toll roads". I havn't seen a government build a non-toll highway or bridge in over a decade.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I just want to know, besides washing, what 3 guys are doing, presumably in the bathtub, together... ;-)
Ask the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. Always wondered about those guys.
I'm glad people are downvoting this faggot. Fuck off with your "us folk in the south don't take too kind to your kind"... type attitude.
How do you get that from "if you move here, you might get the same pay and a lower cost of living"? Seriously, how do you get form "it's wonderful here, which is why you should move here" to "we don't want you"?
The fertilizer plant was there first. That's the moral of the story. The town grew up around the plant, often in very foolish ways.
You must have made a pretty shitty salary in ca then.
Employers will offer you similar salaries when you move to Texas, if you're good. It's all the same to a large company with offices around the country.
Plus it's really handy to have the ocean to your immediate east when you launch. Otherwise, like Russia, your mistakes rain fire form the sky onto whoever happens to live downrange.
The move was explicitly because transport was impractical. The rocket uses a 9m fuselage, IIRC, and would only be transportable through the Panama Canal. That was their first plan, then they had a blinding flash of the obvious.
I make as much in Texas as I did in Cali. Housing is half as much. You are a fool.
There is a price to freedom: fools suffer. There is a benefit to freedom: the wise prosper. It's a good trade-off.
Status symbol. Nothing else, really.
Well, I guess that is a job, now that I think about it.
Do you understand the difference between "less immigration" and "no immigration"? Assuming you believe in democracy, I'd assume you'd agree that the voting citizenry has the right to determine the rate, whatever it might be? A goal that is impossible before we secure the border.
During the summer fires in California, firefighting teams were organized as either "English" or "Spanish" so there would be no intra-team communication problems. 80% of the teams choose Spanish. So you want to deport the family of the guy who just saved your house?
I moved to a state less mindbogglingly fucking stupid in every way and every decision than California, and so my state is not on fire! But that's neither here nor there.
Fair point, but people get confused about the whole "speed of light" thing (and anyway, influence doesn't start with "c"). The key point is that c represents something more fundamental than the motion of light.
This post wins the internet for today.
Yes. You can launch things into space, you know? Thus the difference in cost.
Robots that work in a vaccum are difficult and expensive, but we have them (and some are used in fabs, humankind's most complex manufacturing). Fully automated production lines are rare because of the cost, but we have them, here and there where the economics work.
It's the cost that makes most of this a non-starter today. Power generation it the likely first step for orbital commerce, as there's a strong non-economic motive to move away from cheap fossil fuels. The lower launch costs get, the more will make sense to do IN SPACE, and there are several very successful billionaires competing with one another to lower launch costs.
People used to the exponential cost reduction for computer parts think this will all happen next year, but on the many-decade timeline of cost reduction for industrial processes it seems straightforward. Not "I can afford 64GB instead of 64K in my computer" fast, but "steel sure is cheaper than 100 years ago" fast.
Very few people are saying America shouldn't have immigration. Very many people are saying America shouldn't have illegal immigration. Lying assholes pretend to be confused about that.
Tools for jobs. Single core (and not GPU-bound) is a very narrow problem space these days.
What's the difference between an automated space factory and an automated ground factory? Cost, and you can't use rubber seals (which is non-trivial). Technology just isn't the limit any more, but the cost is, well, astronomical.
Fun fact: orbital solar power stations would be profitable at current launch prices, and we've been putting solar panels in orbit for almost 50 years now. However, they just cost a lot more than just doing the same in the desert, and more still than natural gas generators. But it's close enough that PG&E did a serious evaluation, and cited NIMBY difficulties in locating the power receiving station as the reason they abandoned the plan.
Don't confuse prohibitive cost with technological barriers.
Intel prices this stuff carefully. You do hit a point where it's cheaper to build a 2-socket server system for the needed performance. I did all the math very carefully before ending up with a 28-core 2-socket Xeon system for video transcoding.
I rather suspect that if this CPU were priced normally, it would mess up the very careful price curve for Xeon, and end up cheaper for some loads that force you to Xeon today. Can't have that.
BTW, the lower per-core clock is all about thermal management, which is fine really if you're not planning to overclock your >$1000 CPUs. (I liked the fact that with heat sinks designed for the OC market, I could build a dead silent system even under full load).
A lot of money just to act like a big shot. I suppose it is like people who buy mansions or 100k sports cars.
It's an odd market. There are enthusiasts who push the limits on what's possible for overclocking, building ridiculous systems (e.g., liquid nitrogen cooling) with prices that are crazy, but still way cheaper than cars or photography as a middle-age-man hobby. Thing is, enthusiasts don't buy systems from integrators. Building your on is the entire point.
This is a dangerous marketing move for Intell IMO. These chips will go in systems for kids with rich parents. That could kill the enthusiast market for Intel. Chasing away your hardcore fans is rarely wise.
Samsung is on the "no jack" bandwagon with some new phones, though they're less committed to it than Apple. I got an LG because they went the other way, saying not only do they love the jack, they added audiophile DACs to it for music listening. Not sure that matters, but I like their spirit.