We have basically three requirements for our jobs: good java skills, smart, friendly. On some occasions we have been known to compromise a little bit on friendly. This doesn't seem like an obscenely high bar to me. Our bar wouldn't change if there was a flood of applicants, though we'd probably be more consistently picky on friendly.
We hire directly out of college whenever we can find a solid applicant. We go to recruiting fairs quarterly. Inevitably everyone wants to go to Google (Facebook,Zynga, etc.), even when we offer significantly more money because Google (etc.) is cool.
Btw, if you have the three requirements and are either in SV or willing to relocate let me know.
It's definitely true that over 50 is trouble in the valley. But for the under 50 crowd, there are a lot of jobs. And my company has hired a number of people over 50, so you may just have to luck into the right one.
BTW, if you have good java skills you should let me know. I'd love to talk to you.
I would argue that represents a skill shortage. If wages are in an upward spiral because all the companies who want the skilled workers keep bidding each other up on the same pool of workers, that's a shortage. More trained people would yield more employment in this scenario.
(This is what's happening to developers in silicon valley right now. There is basically zero unemployment for good software developers right now. Things are so bad I can't even find qualified people to take interviews, which is sort of a prerequisite to make them that upwardly spiraling offer. As another point of evidence, new grad offers are now roughly 2.5X the national average for other BS degrees.)
IMO a lottery isn't corrupt by definition. It's a form of gambling, which can be a fair, legitimate entertainment. By corrupt I specifically meant that you can have an unfair lottery in which the lottery operators are picking their friends to be winners, rather than choosing the winners randomly.
Staying rich does NOT require above average performance, in fact, the leverage that being rich offers allows you to stay rich with well below average performance.
I'd have no complaint if 1% of the top 1% came from 1% parents. I'd say that was meritocracy in action.
But the reality is that your benefit is NOT typically the result of your action. The most probable way to become rich in our society is to be born that way. That's the opposite of meritocracy, assuming you subscribe to the standard definition of meritocracy.
We ran a chemical level model that was sufficiently accurate to model the effects. For a single neuron, the chemistry is actually pretty well understood.
1) There are medical projects whose explicit aim is to reduce the need for animal model testing. 2) Academia pays pretty well in CS. Your salary there will have 6 figures and start with 2, maybe 3 if you're sufficiently talented. You won't make a ton more than that unless you get lucky at a startup or go into finance. As far as I've seen, neither medical nor defense actually pays better than academia.
Mod parent up. I was just coming to point this out too. I did neural simulation software at the beginning of my career. The explicit goal of the project was to reduce the need for carving up mouse brains. There are lots of projects like that out there. Go find one.
It depends on the industry. My company is starving for good program managers, product managers, and developers. The only area where we see a glut of qualified applicants is in QA.
The obesity worriers don't think that fruit juice is actually better. Does it really matter whether you drink 1600 calories a day of grape juice or corn juice?
And I thought in this thread we were talking about cigarettes. I'm not sure what the healthy thing that you can smoke to stimulate your nicotine receptors is.
Slashdot Mirror
We have basically three requirements for our jobs: good java skills, smart, friendly. On some occasions we have been known to compromise a little bit on friendly. This doesn't seem like an obscenely high bar to me. Our bar wouldn't change if there was a flood of applicants, though we'd probably be more consistently picky on friendly.
We hire directly out of college whenever we can find a solid applicant. We go to recruiting fairs quarterly. Inevitably everyone wants to go to Google (Facebook,Zynga, etc.), even when we offer significantly more money because Google (etc.) is cool.
Btw, if you have the three requirements and are either in SV or willing to relocate let me know.
Absolutely agree it is a regional problem.
It's definitely true that over 50 is trouble in the valley. But for the under 50 crowd, there are a lot of jobs. And my company has hired a number of people over 50, so you may just have to luck into the right one.
BTW, if you have good java skills you should let me know. I'd love to talk to you.
Salaries are rising 10% year over year in my area. I'm certainly aware this is not true for most fields or most of the country.
I would argue that represents a skill shortage. If wages are in an upward spiral because all the companies who want the skilled workers keep bidding each other up on the same pool of workers, that's a shortage. More trained people would yield more employment in this scenario.
(This is what's happening to developers in silicon valley right now. There is basically zero unemployment for good software developers right now. Things are so bad I can't even find qualified people to take interviews, which is sort of a prerequisite to make them that upwardly spiraling offer. As another point of evidence, new grad offers are now roughly 2.5X the national average for other BS degrees.)
IMO a lottery isn't corrupt by definition. It's a form of gambling, which can be a fair, legitimate entertainment. By corrupt I specifically meant that you can have an unfair lottery in which the lottery operators are picking their friends to be winners, rather than choosing the winners randomly.
Nah, understanding how the world really works, and using that to manipulate people is a recipe for success.
Staying rich does NOT require above average performance, in fact, the leverage that being rich offers allows you to stay rich with well below average performance.
I'd have no complaint if 1% of the top 1% came from 1% parents. I'd say that was meritocracy in action.
But the reality is that your benefit is NOT typically the result of your action. The most probable way to become rich in our society is to be born that way. That's the opposite of meritocracy, assuming you subscribe to the standard definition of meritocracy.
I wish life were a meritocracy. It'd be so much better a world to live in. The actuality is closer to a corrupt lottery.
Exactly. A VC is a person who got lucky, once. It doesn't qualify them to judge startups, but allows them to do so.
The market will take care of telling them that.
And the good news is, mine is equally as accredited as the one from Udacity.
Noam Chomsky, renowned internet expert.
When Digg was about to implode, there was a sudden influx of high UIDs making positive comments on slashdot about digg too.
We ran a chemical level model that was sufficiently accurate to model the effects. For a single neuron, the chemistry is actually pretty well understood.
I defy you to define how my post could have been any more of a direct response to yours.
1) There are medical projects whose explicit aim is to reduce the need for animal model testing.
2) Academia pays pretty well in CS. Your salary there will have 6 figures and start with 2, maybe 3 if you're sufficiently talented. You won't make a ton more than that unless you get lucky at a startup or go into finance. As far as I've seen, neither medical nor defense actually pays better than academia.
Mod parent up. I was just coming to point this out too. I did neural simulation software at the beginning of my career. The explicit goal of the project was to reduce the need for carving up mouse brains. There are lots of projects like that out there. Go find one.
Guidewire. We're hiring. A lot.
Our QA department is highly successful, and the proof of that is in the low rates of customer issues and defections.
Worked for me, twice. And I got subsequent promotions both times (by which I mean to indicate that it didn't result in later retribution).
It depends on the industry. My company is starving for good program managers, product managers, and developers. The only area where we see a glut of qualified applicants is in QA.
There already is one.
The obesity worriers don't think that fruit juice is actually better. Does it really matter whether you drink 1600 calories a day of grape juice or corn juice?
And I thought in this thread we were talking about cigarettes. I'm not sure what the healthy thing that you can smoke to stimulate your nicotine receptors is.