I started at $33k, but otherwise you were right. But i'm now reasonably near the top of my pay scale, so my ability to keep that up is probably going to be limited.
That's an interesting point of view. Most employers are going to measure productivity in widgets per day/week/month/year rather than per hour. It is well established that productivity per hour does go down as hours increase (which was why I only claimed a 10% increase on 25% more hours). Most employers (I think) are going to reward the employee with the greater long term productivity.
I think this is a matter of choosing the right employer. Don't work for big companies is the #1 rule. Small companies understand who really contributes to the bottom line. The visibility is much, much higher. Once a company hits about 1k employees, it becomes impossible for the leadership to see to the bottom, there's just too much information. At best, they can see what areas of the company are most effective. Individual contribution is lost in the volume.
Thanks for responding. That fits well with what i've heard about big companies, and is one of the key reasons I've avoided working for them. I've had about 9% average annual raise over the last 14 years, and would put my resume out for a new job the day after I received a 4%.
I'm fairly sure that salary raises do in fact impact salary.
And for productivity, there are metrics in many areas. Web design may not be one, I don't know, I'm not in web design. Even if there are not precise measures, there may yet be ways that management can reasonably gauge performance (peer review, supervisor review, blind code review, etc).
How does that very large company decide who to promote?
I've only worked for small and medium size companies so far (< 1k employees). So I don't know how the big companies do it, but all the (5) companies i've worked for decided raises and promotions based on performance and networking, both of which you can do better if you work a few extra hours.
If you're designing sql architecture, that's not web design in the conventional sense, and I doubt that is who they are considering in this salary survey. Our sql architects make 150k+. Our web designers make a lot less.
Salaried workers don't get paid overtime, but they get paid for overtime in the form of bonuses and salary raises that reflect on the perceived or real performance that results from extra hours worked.
If you have a man who works 50 hours, and a woman who works 40 hours all year, and the man is 10% more productive as a result of his 25% longer hours, which are you more likely to reward with a larger raise?
Those will continue to 'function', but without training, you may still suffer significant loss of control, and at high speed, that may mean death for the person driving next to you.
I'd say he was spot- on. If YOU personally lack the reaction time visual acuity, and depth perception to drive at speed, in little to no traffic, then, by all means, don't. If YOUR vehicle lacks proper tires and brakes, don't. If your vehicle isn't up on a rack every 2000 miles, or if your alignment is of the slightest bit, DON'T. If you are driving a vehicle not suited for post 100 MPH speeds, or if weather is inclement, or you can't focus 100% of your attention, then for GOD'S SAKES, DON'T speed. If there is moderate to heavy traffic, or if you are not on a limited access roadway..... you guessed it.... don't speed.
Or should we all call in those police officers that routinely weave through traffic at 80 to 100, not signalling, with no lights, or sirens, too? I'm not judging anyone here. I think it is ridiculous to place someone with bald tires, a cigarette in their hand, driving a 98 honda with worn brakes in the same category as someone driving a modern, well maintained vehicle, with new aftermarket tires, and brakes. The second person having the presence of mind to NOT smoke while driving.
Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do. Sometimes speed, due to weather, or traffic, etc is a bad decision. The fact remains that driver error, not speed, is the root cause of nearly ALL accidents. The problem, of course, is that speed increases the likelyhood of fatality in an accident by a worse than linear function. Does the driver next to you who makes an error deserve to die because of your choice to speed in violation of the laws?
The higher your speed, the higher the probability that a tire blowout due to a metal shard you can't see on the roadway will kill someone. It really is that simple. We accept a certain level of statistical risk for convenience, and we are unwilling to allow for that risk where it really starts climbing up the steep curve. This is not rocket science to understand. The debate about speed limits is all about where we are willing to trade risk for convenience, and people in the US are more risk averse (which also explains much of the preference for larger vehicles).
Well, if we keep going, we can get it up more than a few degrees c. And 15 c would probably suffice to kill us all (a small fraction might be able to make it by moving north, but the infrastructure isn't there, and the fires would probably end civilization, leaving us vulnerable to all the other issues).
We are all going to die. It's absolutely certain given our current knowledge of the laws of physics. However, chances are good that you will live out a normal lifespan.
Technically, only the global warming believers can persist in their claims in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The other side would be dead.
Re:no, we won't do it by brute force
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
Brief followup: A more careful reading of the article (by the article poster) might have noted that the 10^60 figure came from chess, not go. Go is indeed worse.
Re:Not artificial intelligence
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
I would be really interested in knowing how you think we know that. We know they aren't consciously considering a trillion moves per second. But how do we know what kind of work the cognitive engine is doing underneath the consciousness? What if your brain evaluates quadrillions of moves per second, leaving you aware of only the best few it can find?
no, we won't do it by brute force
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The best fp devices top out under 10^15 operations / second. in a computer sized box. Lets assume we can design a go-specialized device that can outperform that by another 10^20th power (ridiculous, but let's imagine). We build 10^9th such devices (a billion!), and wire them all together to play go. It will still take 10^16th seconds (317,097,919 years) to figure out go. So no, it won't happen that way. Worse, I don't think go is that simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_complexity
Slashdot Mirror
I started at $33k, but otherwise you were right. But i'm now reasonably near the top of my pay scale, so my ability to keep that up is probably going to be limited.
That's an interesting point of view. Most employers are going to measure productivity in widgets per day/week/month/year rather than per hour. It is well established that productivity per hour does go down as hours increase (which was why I only claimed a 10% increase on 25% more hours). Most employers (I think) are going to reward the employee with the greater long term productivity.
I think this is a matter of choosing the right employer. Don't work for big companies is the #1 rule. Small companies understand who really contributes to the bottom line. The visibility is much, much higher. Once a company hits about 1k employees, it becomes impossible for the leadership to see to the bottom, there's just too much information. At best, they can see what areas of the company are most effective. Individual contribution is lost in the volume.
While I'm sure women do work as hard, I'm fairly sure the statistics show they do not work as long.
Here's a couple of citations for that:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/jul/wk1/art01.htm
http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/135/5/637 (specific to dentists)
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06302/
I'm pretty sure there are a lot more, but there's some term for this I can't recall that would probably turn them up.
Thanks for responding. That fits well with what i've heard about big companies, and is one of the key reasons I've avoided working for them. I've had about 9% average annual raise over the last 14 years, and would put my resume out for a new job the day after I received a 4%.
I'm fairly sure that salary raises do in fact impact salary.
And for productivity, there are metrics in many areas. Web design may not be one, I don't know, I'm not in web design. Even if there are not precise measures, there may yet be ways that management can reasonably gauge performance (peer review, supervisor review, blind code review, etc).
How does that very large company decide who to promote?
I've only worked for small and medium size companies so far (< 1k employees). So I don't know how the big companies do it, but all the (5) companies i've worked for decided raises and promotions based on performance and networking, both of which you can do better if you work a few extra hours.
I'm not talking about get and select, that's sql development, not sql architecture.
If you're designing sql architecture, that's not web design in the conventional sense, and I doubt that is who they are considering in this salary survey. Our sql architects make 150k+. Our web designers make a lot less.
Salaried workers don't get paid overtime, but they get paid for overtime in the form of bonuses and salary raises that reflect on the perceived or real performance that results from extra hours worked.
If you have a man who works 50 hours, and a woman who works 40 hours all year, and the man is 10% more productive as a result of his 25% longer hours, which are you more likely to reward with a larger raise?
Those will continue to 'function', but without training, you may still suffer significant loss of control, and at high speed, that may mean death for the person driving next to you.
I'd be interested in knowing just how much toilet paper 25 people would be willing to consume as an alternative to eating at Taco Bell.
What sort of challenge is that? Seriously, has a spammer/troll ever posted anything even remotely surprising?
If you think it's safe to say that a professor remembers something from Comp Sci 101, man did you ever choose the right university.
Fast != dangerous.
Two words: tire blowout.
Fast == dangerous. The kinetic energy involved means that if something goes wrong, your odds of killing someone go up (worse than linearly) with fast.
Or should we all call in those police officers that routinely weave through traffic at 80 to 100, not signalling, with no lights, or sirens, too? I'm not judging anyone here. I think it is ridiculous to place someone with bald tires, a cigarette in their hand, driving a 98 honda with worn brakes in the same category as someone driving a modern, well maintained vehicle, with new aftermarket tires, and brakes. The second person having the presence of mind to NOT smoke while driving.
Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do. Sometimes speed, due to weather, or traffic, etc is a bad decision. The fact remains that driver error, not speed, is the root cause of nearly ALL accidents. The problem, of course, is that speed increases the likelyhood of fatality in an accident by a worse than linear function. Does the driver next to you who makes an error deserve to die because of your choice to speed in violation of the laws?
The higher your speed, the higher the probability that a tire blowout due to a metal shard you can't see on the roadway will kill someone. It really is that simple. We accept a certain level of statistical risk for convenience, and we are unwilling to allow for that risk where it really starts climbing up the steep curve. This is not rocket science to understand. The debate about speed limits is all about where we are willing to trade risk for convenience, and people in the US are more risk averse (which also explains much of the preference for larger vehicles).
I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that we encourage our 18 year old gun toting drivers to drink before we send them out on the road?
Well, if we keep going, we can get it up more than a few degrees c. And 15 c would probably suffice to kill us all (a small fraction might be able to make it by moving north, but the infrastructure isn't there, and the fires would probably end civilization, leaving us vulnerable to all the other issues).
I was going for definition 4a. ;-)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/normal
More seriously, I was really emphasizing the contrast vs the proposition in the first half of my post.
We are all going to die. It's absolutely certain given our current knowledge of the laws of physics.
However, chances are good that you will live out a normal lifespan.
Technically, only the global warming believers can persist in their claims in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The other side would be dead.
Brief followup:
A more careful reading of the article (by the article poster) might have noted that the 10^60 figure came from chess, not go.
Go is indeed worse.
I would be really interested in knowing how you think we know that. We know they aren't consciously considering a trillion moves per second. But how do we know what kind of work the cognitive engine is doing underneath the consciousness? What if your brain evaluates quadrillions of moves per second, leaving you aware of only the best few it can find?
The best fp devices top out under 10^15 operations / second. in a computer sized box.
Lets assume we can design a go-specialized device that can outperform that by another 10^20th power (ridiculous, but let's imagine).
We build 10^9th such devices (a billion!), and wire them all together to play go.
It will still take 10^16th seconds (317,097,919 years) to figure out go.
So no, it won't happen that way.
Worse, I don't think go is that simple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_complexity