Are you sure that you are talking about the server-to-server connections rather than client-to-server ones? The latter have been using TLS for a long time, yes.
I am sure they do... yet this feature is not visible to end-user really. Well, they will probably add a little line item or an icon to indicate that the inbound delivery was secured. Yet that has little to do with the email's content which, by definition, is either transferred from GMail's storage or transferred into it.
Well, that or just does not give a flying fuck to discuss their political values or believes. No one is going to extort your opinion, no one is going to try to convince you unless you get into a discussion yourself.
To be fair, that's how things start. After that, smart people can learn the Java framework of choice or the low-level kinks of the given OS (or piece of hardware).
Right, finally, the recruiters feel what the candidates have felt!
Before the angry comments start, I don't suggest that you behave like a bum when interviewing. Let me clarify my point. It is the buyers' market right now and, given that there is no shortage of offers, a few % of people turn out to be bums (not a big surprise, unfortunately). I have dealt with recruiters while seeking a job (and worked with them while hiring) and am happy to see that they get a taste of that coin they have routinely paid the candidates.
Well, the dynamics of this space are interesting - you have the normal human eye balls that consume the media and are recorded as "views", "likes", "+1s", etc. These stats drive the ads - their ranking, prices, shows as well as various charges/payments made against/to clients. All known, expected and documented. (all of that driven by Google's internal infrastructure)
Now enter 3rd-party software running on hundreds (thousands?) of hosts, programmatically doing what was initially deemed to be "for human eyes only". The economics go to shit and so the programs are now trying to tell humans apart from programs, while the other side is pretending to be human.
This entire thing looks like the never-ending "adblock" discussion, but elevated to the next level. While I have a strong option on the old topic, this new thing is obviously a lot more nuanced. There are probably fake/robotic Google accounts in play, a bunch of AWS instances and may be even a botnet - none of that is cool. Yet, sticking it to the Man (using software tools) is kinda cool.
Then they asked me how much I was making. I told them that as well. They said, "Well, it will be hard to justify what you are asking based on what you are making."
This. Exactly this.
That is why as a California resident I applaud the new law. I really see no point in giving this information away as it can only do harm in my negotiating round.
(a) An employer shall not rely on the salary history information of an applicant for employment as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant or what salary to offer an applicant. (b) An employer shall not, orally or in writing, personally or through an agent, seek salary history information, including compensation and benefits, about an applicant for employment.
The law states (and I quote) from the actual bill:
(a) An employer shall not rely on the salary history information of an applicant for employment as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant or what salary to offer an applicant. (b) An employer shall not, orally or in writing, personally or through an agent, seek salary history information, including compensation and benefits, about an applicant for employment.
There is no way for them to ask and they are not allowed to use the information. So, it is really hard for me to imagine a situation where I would feel compelled to voluntarily disclose this.
Right. Here in California every recruiter I have ever talked to asked "How much are you making right now?" at some point in the usual song and dance ritual. Some ask for a recent pay stub in addition to the number. Obviously it would be hard for the prospective employer to authenticate either one, yet I find lying uncomfortable and sometimes things like these can be verified through the grape vine to a reasonable degree of certainty.
That aside, as an applicant, I fail to see any point in disclosing this information, especially given that the stock-based compensation is not reflected in these baseline numbers. I applaud this new law and, as a California resident, look forward to a more reasonable negotiation for the next job.
And you can't outlaw the latter question. After all, your employer needs to know what you expect to get in return for your work. So be prepared for the negotiation game.
Yes. Yes. YES! The latter question is totally reasonable, non-binding and has always been implied. I really hated the situation as the HR staff would place a candidate into a certain "grade" based on the previous salary.
Negotiation has always been there yet the undue pressure to disclose the baseline number (which is failing to take the stock-based part of the compensation into the account) is gone. I am very happy with this rule.
My answer would be... "I'll provide my pay stub the moment you provide me with a genuine offer. If this unacceptable, would you be willing to propose an alternative that is fair to both sides?"
There is no way for them to answer the question without giving up something.
Whoa, wait a second here. You are trying to apply logic to the way HR processes work. While serving as an interesting thought experiment, this line of inquiry is completely pointless.
I said something along the lines of your statement to a Google recruiter who, without blinking, replied with "It's the process and there is nothing I can do". The very same thing came up with regards to references during the application. And then again more references while "they are putting an offer together".
The "employment" is a mutually beneficial thing, yet the recruitment is, from my experience, a very lob-sided, skewed affair. The employer is holding the cards, the fashionable/prestigious companies have a steady influx of candidates and so the HR staff are simply unwilling and unable to accommodate what you (and I) would consider to be fair to both sides.
California resident here. I have worked in the high tech industry for about 20 years and I applaud the new law.
This is great news. I have always hated this question when coming to the negotiation (or even starting a job application) as it puts the applicant in an awkward position. Obviously a "job offer" is a mutually beneficial affair, yet the employer's agent is always in a position of power while the applicant always comes around as asking.
Consider. You are just starting the usual song and dance with the recruiter who has a list of open jobs, thinks that they can understand bullet points on an engineer's resume and feels that he/she is qualified to "vet". The first question they ask after the the introduction is "So, how much are you currently making?". What can the applicant do at this point? Really, you don't want to close down, weaseling out is awkward and there is no good way to say "well, a market, yet I am looking for you to impress me". I've tried, this just backfires as there are other (easier) conversations that the recruiter would rather be having. Another few, more grounded points that are excluded from this $$$ question: what about the X units or stock that I received over the last year? What about the value of the private company and my exercised stock's value? What about the RSUs of the public company that I got, sold and made some extra money? Or kept in order to minimize the income tax? They never ask about total compensation, just the core salary.
So, yes, this is a very useful question for the recruiter to ask, yet is a pain for the applicant. I am very happy that the Governor has just signed this bill and I will not have to wince during my next interview.
Right. The following water cooler dialogue comes to mind:
- How goes it, Joe?
- Alright, just scored a 3% raise.
- How come?
- Well, Bob, it turns out my great-great-grand-mother was Japanese. So, I ticked the right box on the "race" questionnaire as there are just so very few of us here in the Mid West.
If so, pursue it. Don't do it because all your friends are becoming managers.
This, IMO, is the single hardest question that a software engineer will face in his career. The choice is hard and the situation is really confusing, because different shops attach a different meaning to the manager title. Sometimes these are just leads that get promoted and they still own their respective projects. Sometimes they are just projects managers. Yet sometimes the whole thing is blurred into madness by insanely tall hierarchies and inapt managers who want to micromanage their staff.
My advice is to sample the lead role and then learn what the manager really means in your company.
I do think you should be able to list all major STL container classes when interviewing for a C++ programming position. This is akin to being able to read, as you would not even know what to search for otherwise.
I then ask candidates about the data structures the containers represent: memory layout and consumption, optimal usage, etc. Note, this is not about having to remember N overloads of the insert() member function, but rather about knowing what the container does and how to use it optimally.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure that you are talking about the server-to-server connections rather than client-to-server ones? The latter have been using TLS for a long time, yes.
Skeptic in me says they have ulterior motives
I am sure they do... yet this feature is not visible to end-user really. Well, they will probably add a little line item or an icon to indicate that the inbound delivery was secured. Yet that has little to do with the email's content which, by definition, is either transferred from GMail's storage or transferred into it.
Yes, that follows logically. Do you think the sentiment will stand in Californian court?
Yes, this a sound, logical argument that makes sense to a lay man. When was the last time such sentiment made a difference in a tech-related law suit?
Well, that or just does not give a flying fuck to discuss their political values or believes. No one is going to extort your opinion, no one is going to try to convince you unless you get into a discussion yourself.
To be fair, that's how things start. After that, smart people can learn the Java framework of choice or the low-level kinks of the given OS (or piece of hardware).
Right, finally, the recruiters feel what the candidates have felt! Before the angry comments start, I don't suggest that you behave like a bum when interviewing. Let me clarify my point. It is the buyers' market right now and, given that there is no shortage of offers, a few % of people turn out to be bums (not a big surprise, unfortunately). I have dealt with recruiters while seeking a job (and worked with them while hiring) and am happy to see that they get a taste of that coin they have routinely paid the candidates.
Well, the dynamics of this space are interesting - you have the normal human eye balls that consume the media and are recorded as "views", "likes", "+1s", etc. These stats drive the ads - their ranking, prices, shows as well as various charges/payments made against/to clients. All known, expected and documented. (all of that driven by Google's internal infrastructure)
Now enter 3rd-party software running on hundreds (thousands?) of hosts, programmatically doing what was initially deemed to be "for human eyes only". The economics go to shit and so the programs are now trying to tell humans apart from programs, while the other side is pretending to be human.
This entire thing looks like the never-ending "adblock" discussion, but elevated to the next level. While I have a strong option on the old topic, this new thing is obviously a lot more nuanced. There are probably fake/robotic Google accounts in play, a bunch of AWS instances and may be even a botnet - none of that is cool. Yet, sticking it to the Man (using software tools) is kinda cool.
"One does not simply disposed of a nuclear aircraft carrier".
We have seen this before - Microsoft called it "Embrace and exrend".
Actually, I am having trouble forming an opinion on this feature:
Impossible speeds they say? Didn't Putin mention hypersonic weapons in his speech?
The product is "100 percent fatal," says McIntyre. "That is why we are uniquely situated among the Y Combinator companies."
OK. So, can I order that for an enemy of mine?
and can you get a DUI in driverless car?
I would hope not! Otherwise, my single most important reason for wanting these self-driving vehicles disappears.
OK, let's imagine this next-get call center:
"Hello, my name is Naveendra, how may I direct your vehicle?"
Then they asked me how much I was making. I told them that as well. They said, "Well, it will be hard to justify what you are asking based on what you are making."
This. Exactly this.
That is why as a California resident I applaud the new law. I really see no point in giving this information away as it can only do harm in my negotiating round.
And let me quote from the actual bill:
(a) An employer shall not rely on the salary history information of an applicant for employment as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant or what salary to offer an applicant.
(b) An employer shall not, orally or in writing, personally or through an agent, seek salary history information, including compensation and benefits, about an applicant for employment.
Umm... why is that?
The law states (and I quote) from the actual bill:
(a) An employer shall not rely on the salary history information of an applicant for employment as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant or what salary to offer an applicant.
(b) An employer shall not, orally or in writing, personally or through an agent, seek salary history information, including compensation and benefits, about an applicant for employment.
There is no way for them to ask and they are not allowed to use the information. So, it is really hard for me to imagine a situation where I would feel compelled to voluntarily disclose this.
Right. Here in California every recruiter I have ever talked to asked "How much are you making right now?" at some point in the usual song and dance ritual. Some ask for a recent pay stub in addition to the number. Obviously it would be hard for the prospective employer to authenticate either one, yet I find lying uncomfortable and sometimes things like these can be verified through the grape vine to a reasonable degree of certainty.
That aside, as an applicant, I fail to see any point in disclosing this information, especially given that the stock-based compensation is not reflected in these baseline numbers. I applaud this new law and, as a California resident, look forward to a more reasonable negotiation for the next job.
And you can't outlaw the latter question. After all, your employer needs to know what you expect to get in return for your work. So be prepared for the negotiation game.
Yes. Yes. YES! The latter question is totally reasonable, non-binding and has always been implied. I really hated the situation as the HR staff would place a candidate into a certain "grade" based on the previous salary.
Negotiation has always been there yet the undue pressure to disclose the baseline number (which is failing to take the stock-based part of the compensation into the account) is gone. I am very happy with this rule.
My answer would be ... "I'll provide my pay stub the moment you provide me with a genuine offer. If this unacceptable, would you be willing to propose an alternative that is fair to both sides?"
There is no way for them to answer the question without giving up something.
Whoa, wait a second here. You are trying to apply logic to the way HR processes work. While serving as an interesting thought experiment, this line of inquiry is completely pointless.
I said something along the lines of your statement to a Google recruiter who, without blinking, replied with "It's the process and there is nothing I can do". The very same thing came up with regards to references during the application. And then again more references while "they are putting an offer together".
The "employment" is a mutually beneficial thing, yet the recruitment is, from my experience, a very lob-sided, skewed affair. The employer is holding the cards, the fashionable/prestigious companies have a steady influx of candidates and so the HR staff are simply unwilling and unable to accommodate what you (and I) would consider to be fair to both sides.
California resident here. I have worked in the high tech industry for about 20 years and I applaud the new law.
This is great news. I have always hated this question when coming to the negotiation (or even starting a job application) as it puts the applicant in an awkward position. Obviously a "job offer" is a mutually beneficial affair, yet the employer's agent is always in a position of power while the applicant always comes around as asking.
Consider. You are just starting the usual song and dance with the recruiter who has a list of open jobs, thinks that they can understand bullet points on an engineer's resume and feels that he/she is qualified to "vet". The first question they ask after the the introduction is "So, how much are you currently making?". What can the applicant do at this point? Really, you don't want to close down, weaseling out is awkward and there is no good way to say "well, a market, yet I am looking for you to impress me". I've tried, this just backfires as there are other (easier) conversations that the recruiter would rather be having. Another few, more grounded points that are excluded from this $$$ question: what about the X units or stock that I received over the last year? What about the value of the private company and my exercised stock's value? What about the RSUs of the public company that I got, sold and made some extra money? Or kept in order to minimize the income tax? They never ask about total compensation, just the core salary.
So, yes, this is a very useful question for the recruiter to ask, yet is a pain for the applicant. I am very happy that the Governor has just signed this bill and I will not have to wince during my next interview.
Right. The following water cooler dialogue comes to mind:
- How goes it, Joe?
- Alright, just scored a 3% raise.
- How come?
- Well, Bob, it turns out my great-great-grand-mother was Japanese. So, I ticked the right box on the "race" questionnaire as there are just so very few of us here in the Mid West.
Hmm... Revenge porn you said? Do you have sample links?
If so, pursue it. Don't do it because all your friends are becoming managers.
This, IMO, is the single hardest question that a software engineer will face in his career. The choice is hard and the situation is really confusing, because different shops attach a different meaning to the manager title. Sometimes these are just leads that get promoted and they still own their respective projects. Sometimes they are just projects managers. Yet sometimes the whole thing is blurred into madness by insanely tall hierarchies and inapt managers who want to micromanage their staff.
My advice is to sample the lead role and then learn what the manager really means in your company.
I do think you should be able to list all major STL container classes when interviewing for a C++ programming position. This is akin to being able to read, as you would not even know what to search for otherwise.
I then ask candidates about the data structures the containers represent: memory layout and consumption, optimal usage, etc. Note, this is not about having to remember N overloads of the insert() member function, but rather about knowing what the container does and how to use it optimally.
So, should I stop feeling blue?..