Well, since Mary Barra worked in their human resources department at the time, I do find a little hard to believe that she was retroactively responsible for a fault in their engineering department.
The HR department would be responsible for the incentives, employee training and grievance processes, all of which directly contributes to the culture of the company when employees found problems -- report it or hide it?
Because the old GM is gone. The shareholders and management switched. It's a new company with the same name and it doesn't deserve to be liable for the past company.
Then they doesn't deserve the name and reputation of the "GM" name, and should just dissolved the company and start a new one. You can't have it both ways.
I'm pretty sure this engineer is actually a middle manager. This falls under his area of responsibility because it's not upper management's responsibility to worry about such granular details.
No, no, no, no, NO! *EVERYTHING* IS upper management's responsibility. You can delegate a task but you can never delegate your responsibility.
If a middle manager feels that it is to his best interest to hide a problem, rather than to put the spotlight on it so the problem get fixed, IT IS THE UPPER MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY, because it is the upper management that had created the incentives for the middle manager, and obviously there was no incentive for reporting problems.
For every case of a middle manager hiding a problem, you can be *damn sure* that there was precedence in the company where some middle manager got scapegoated in the past for reporting problems and rocking the boat.
When you have an *engineer* hiding a problem that have *safety* implications, you can be damn well sure that hiding problems has already become the pervasive company culture, and NO A SINGLE upper manager wants to hear about any real problems in the company.
What this public firing would accomplish is to enhance everyone's CYA activities, and little else, as the same group of upper managers that don't want to hear problems in the first place are still mostly there in the top.
OTOH, 100-level college humanities are useless if you are not continuing along the progression of studies, it's like learning the alphabet of a language and going no further. The only advantage might be that they could offer an opportunity for the kids to save themselves by switching majors, though those introductory classes usually test the resolve of even those committed to the subject. STEM majors don't need more distractions, they should be focused on qualifying for or conning their way into a job.
See, it works both ways.
BTW, GP was calling for Humanity majors to take 200+ level Math classes, not 100-level.
Sadly, these days - the only way to buy new release Ubisoft products (if you want to at all, that is) is to buy the console versions of the products.
But I just learned the hard way that, even the console version of games from Ubisoft will endlessly bug you for your UPlay account when you start the game. Every. Single. Time.
Child of Light is a great game, but getting a prompt for me to setup a UPlay account every time I play is ensuring that I won't buy another Ubisoft game for a LONG LONG time.
People who are not involved in the publishing industry think it would be great for authors to self publish. Interestingly, authors seem to think almost uniformly that it is a terrible idea.
Does that come from authors already having a publisher publishing for them? Or does that include authors still looking for a publisher willing to publish their first book?
The authors, who have a very good idea just what publishers can add to the book, mostly really really like what publishers do for them.
The authors also don't think that they will make more money by self publishing either, because they know how much less they will be writing because of the time spent on other tasks currently handled by the publisher.
While I do very much agree a publisher currently brings quite a lot to the table, but why can't an author buy similar services from editors/proof-readers directly, and then self-publish?
If authors are concerned about the cost, isn't that amounted to saying the authors are unwilling to take the risk to invest in their own creation? Don't they think the sales from the resulting book can cover the cost?
Unless publishers have a monopoly on all the editors and proof-readers, this doesn't add up. Eventually some editor is going to start a new company that only provides editing and proof-reading service, and then let authors self-publish electronically, then what do publishers bring to the table?
Learning from someone who knows their subject much better than I do who has taken the time to condense a part of their knowledge into a well structured lecture is the thing I miss most when comparing university to work.
Agreed. This difference is almost like the difference between people who read, and those who don't.
People who don't read will tell you how much more effective a movie can tell a story, blah, blah, compared to books. Books are boring. They can't stay focused on boring text. etc. etc.
People who read find books interesting and enjoy good reading.
If you do a study on the "effectiveness", by whatever measure, of books vs movie, the result will be skewed by those who don't read.
I will offer the caveat of things like theoretical physics, which have no useful application
I will offer this quote from Particle Fever by Kaplan: "When radio waves were discovered, they weren't called radio waves, because there was no radio at that time."
When the electron was discovered, it was called "the most useless particle".
Quantum Mechanics give the basis of building up semiconductors.
"ou buy your stuff, in bulk if you one, pay $10 (1000-something yen IIRC), and voila they'll deliver it to your apartment. Every major train/subway station/nexus has a mall so shopping (and buying delivery) is also conveniently located.) Try to do that anywhere in the US."
You may know alot about Japan but your ignorance of the USA is showing here. What you describe is possible in many parts of the USA.
Our family hardly ever shops anymore, we just buy it all online and have it delivered. Groceries too. The only place we ever go out to is farmer's markets, because a) they don't deliver, and b) they're often more of an experience than just a shopping trip.
You are showing your ignorance here. Of course Japan also have online stores, but that's another thing entirely.
What the GP said was to be able to *physically* go to a store, *hand pick* what you want to pick (i.e. you can pick and choose, e.g., the fruits, one by one), and the pay at the counter THEN have the store deliver what you picked to your home.
Living in the US you might think that is stupid, why would you take the trouble to go (drive) to the mall and then not carry the stuff back home? The difference is, in Japan (and also applies to many Asian metropolis), as the GP mentioned, there are malls *everywhere*. Next to metro stations, around the corner, right beneath your home, etc.
So during the normal course of a work day, you would probably pass malls/shops on your way to work, during lunch break, and on your way home. Then it became natural for you to scan the shops and probably, once in a while, notice something you want to buy, but you are on your way to work/lunch break/dine with friends/etc and obviously *not driving*, so you don't want to carry the stuff with you around. THAT's where the delivery comes in to play. You pick, you pay, and they deliver while you go on your merry way, just 3 minutes spent.
That convenience of practically going through shopping malls along the way of everywhere you go is what GP meant. You are literally 10 minutes away from everything you need/want to buy, almost all the time, and you never need to "take time" to buy anything at all.
And no, Americans living in suburbs where they have to drive 10 minutes to buy toilet paper, and do a "shopping trip" to Walmart once a week just to stock up on groceries won't be able to imagine what it is like, the convenience of being able to buy a fresh apple (just one), on the way home, every day, by just stopping for 30 seconds at the grocery that you pass by daily anyway.
I can show them pretty consistent scientific studies that show people like being VALUED by their employer. And while it's true, there is a threshold for wealth that once you've gone over it, further raises have little impact on their dedication to work, there's is also a lower threshold where if they are consistently under paid, they'll also feel as if they're not valued.
I think you've missed the point here, it's not about what my expenses are. The basic idea is that I do a good job for the company, the company recognizes that and pays me a good salary - it's a win-win situation. Severely underpaying me means you're trying to exploit me, to pad your profit margins at my expense. Why should you stay with a company that's trying to screw you?
Exactly. Fools in HR like to parrot the idea that raises have little impact on morale, and use that as justification for not giving raises.
Guess what? Giving raises IS one of the most clear signal that the company VALUES a staff, regardless of whether that person need the extra money or not. And the opposite is also true - NOT giving a raise is a sure fire signal to the staff that the company DID NOT VALUE his contribution, regardless of what management said.
And if there really is a point where more money doesn't matter, why aren't there a maximum compensation for the CxOs?
People fled gaming-PCs because of all the bullshit: obtuse DRM, all the half-done buggy games that need to be patched to be playable, the annoying installations and so on.
I take it you don't play console games, else you would have known that people fled gaming-PC because of the constantly escalating system requirements (what? my 2 year old PC is too slow for this new game already?!), headaches about driver compatibilities ("My game crashes a lot" -> "which video card are you using?"), blatant and widespread cheating, and of course, buggy games that are partly due to wide variety of hardware/OS combinations that are impossible to test for.
Console, for better or worse, have uniform/very limited number of configurations (both hardware and OS level), and DRM-locked harder than a chastity belt, which naturally result in fewer bugs (fewer, not none), uniform performance for all players (no need to worry about minimum or optimal system requirements), and no hacks (at least not those within the machine).
When I buy a console game, say, for my PS3, I just need to check the "PS3" logo to be almost 100% sure it will "just work" on my PS3, even though it was years old. Can't say that if I wanted to buy a game for my years old PC.
On the other hand, you probably just want your phone back and don't give a crap about the rest. If you were a big believer in calling the cops you wouldn't be there at his door. But if you turn up dead and anyone at all knows where you were going, now he's looking at some serious trouble that will bring the cops around.
True, but are you willing to bet your life or limb that the thug is (1) has a brain smart enough to figure that out, and (2) not on some drugs impairing his thinking at that time?
Yup, it hurts to lose something worth $500-$1000, but is it worth getting serious injury or killed over?
Even if you just got into a fight and won with, say, a couple broken fingers (due to a missed punch), the thug fled and you managed to get back your phone. Would you think it worth it 20 years later when your fingers still hurts whenever it rained? What if you won but lost an eye instead, is that worth it even though the thug were eventually caught and rotting in jail?
If you care that much about losing your phone due to its price, is it wise for you to buy such an expensive phone (which you pretty much expected to carry around everywhere on your person, all the time) to begin with?
Let police officers take care of it. We have backup, guns, radio, jackets — all that stuff civilians don't have.
But obviously civilians have one thing the police officers don't - the WILL to take action.
If the police have been taking these thefts seriously and had sent officers to thief's home instead, then no one would be foolish enough to do it himself.
Yes, it is foolish to confront the thief at his home. What do you think would happen? "Ha ha, you got me, here's your phone."? More likely is the thief would know giving you the phone just proved he stolen your stuff, and now you know where to lead the police to him, thief would be thinking how is he going to silence you?
Maybe after the first few fools got killed, the police will finally take a visit to the locations of stolen phones?
There will be no point to having a "youthful" old age if we will still become more conservative as we grow old, and in our misguided attempts to stay relevant, end up preventing the world from changing, just to keep things familiar.
So, even before the technology is available, you have already concluded it won't give real improvement to the world, so you think there is no point to this technology, so you would rather have one less change in the world, to kept things familiar to you.
Oh, what irony. Clearly, you just demonstrated that people don't need to grow exceptionally old before they start to prevent the world from changing in order to keep things familiar.
Well, I would think that this is mostly to do with publicity. Once someone calls your software into question in a very public light, you will be more willing to go through your project with a fine toothed comb and clean up all that old cruft you've been meaning to clear out.
This is not a sign of inherent insecurity, but one of obvious house cleaning.
And how many bugs and vulnerabilities will they put in with such high volume of commits in such short time?
- If a change is only "house cleaning" which is unrelated to security, why do it in such a rush?
- If a change is security related, and obviously needed, then why wasn't it made earlier? Didn't that make a mockery of all the "many eyes" arguments oft touted in favor of Open Source?
- If a change is security related and non-obvious, then won't doing it in such a rush probably introduce new bugs/vulnerability into the code?
No matter how you look at it, making so many changes in a rush is not a good idea.
Lecturing is an ineffective way to teach because most people cannot pay attention to and retain a traditional lecture.
That's why students are told to take notes. That's why students are told to study outside lectures; tutorials and — where appropriate for the course — practical sessions in labs reinforce the lecture. You don't learn by just listening to someone, but it is part of how you learn.
THIS. Students that have problem learning from lectures most likely are treating the lecture as a movie (as the article alluded to), they expected to be passively entertained (a.k.a. spoon fed), instead of making an effort to learn actively. Then they wonder why they didn't learn anything and complained the lectures are too boring (i.e. not entertaining).
Lecturing is an ineffective way to teach because most people [nowadays] cannot pay attention to and retain a traditional lecture.
There, corrected it for you. 20 years ago, most people in college have had no problem paying attention to lectures. YMMV.
Someone who has been giving the same lecture for 20 years was teaching sub-optimally 20 years ago and has not improved. You are correct that they may not have gotten worse either.
That's your prejudice showing. All the great teachers in college in the past century had no problem doing their great teaching with lectures (among other means).
If you have trouble paying attention to lectures and learning from it, have you considered that, perhaps, you shouldn't be in college to begin with?
Similarly, there are faculty who want to do research and get in front of a lecture hall and regurgitate the same lecture they've been giving for 20 years.
This may sound bad (as Nelson no doubt intended) for subjects that are relatively recent, such as anything IT related, or the more advanced courses. But tell me, how much meaningful changes were there in the past 20 years for introductory subjects like algebra or calculus? Or the introductory to intermediate courses for most physical sciences?
Go read the Feynman Lectures and tell me how much change was needed due to advances since it was given? Except for maybe a mention of Higgs and LHC somewhere?
Education is not entertainment, if the subject matter have not changed, why should a good lecture needs to change for the sake of change? It's not like we are giving the lecture to the same audience 20 times. Except, maybe, due to the decrease in competency of the students?
Based on your information no one can give you solid advice.
IMHO the question is deliberately designed to be vague. iPhones and Android devices, PHP and Ruby On Rails.. that is such a shotgun blast of specifications that are totally unrelated to the DB use on the back end that the entire question smells of click bait to me.
Either that, or the OP simply have no idea how databases work at all.
If OP has any idea how database (any database, not just relational) works, he would be talking about data and transaction volumes, access patterns, transactional requirements, data integrity constraints, retention and housekeeping requirements, etc.
Instead, as you said, he talked about devices platforms, communication protocols, language and runtime environment which are all irrelevant to choosing database. (ok, the last may be a bit relevant depending on which database used)
Basically, if you're running mainframes, then your business is large enough (heck the individual computers are expensive enough) that you can afford to pay top dollar to motivate some very solid programmers to work for you.
That's your problem right there. Obviously, the unsaid assumption is that, by someone "new", they really mean someone "cheap".
There was never any difficulty in finding motivated and smart people when companies are willing to pay. The problem is most companies are NOT willing to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
What do the top executives have to do with ignition switches? Why would they have known anything about the problem?
They should have known about the lack of change management, and the company culture of hiding problems.
Why pay the top executives so much if they are NOT responsible for the screw-ups?
Well, since Mary Barra worked in their human resources department at the time, I do find a little hard to believe that she was retroactively responsible for a fault in their engineering department.
The HR department would be responsible for the incentives, employee training and grievance processes, all of which directly contributes to the culture of the company when employees found problems -- report it or hide it?
Because the old GM is gone. The shareholders and management switched. It's a new company with the same name and it doesn't deserve to be liable for the past company.
Then they doesn't deserve the name and reputation of the "GM" name, and should just dissolved the company and start a new one. You can't have it both ways.
15 people so far have been fired, not just this guy. 5 more have been disciplined, but not fired.
And how many of those 15 are in the C-level, or PR/HR departments?
I'm pretty sure this engineer is actually a middle manager. This falls under his area of responsibility because it's not upper management's responsibility to worry about such granular details.
No, no, no, no, NO! *EVERYTHING* IS upper management's responsibility. You can delegate a task but you can never delegate your responsibility.
If a middle manager feels that it is to his best interest to hide a problem, rather than to put the spotlight on it so the problem get fixed, IT IS THE UPPER MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY, because it is the upper management that had created the incentives for the middle manager, and obviously there was no incentive for reporting problems.
For every case of a middle manager hiding a problem, you can be *damn sure* that there was precedence in the company where some middle manager got scapegoated in the past for reporting problems and rocking the boat.
When you have an *engineer* hiding a problem that have *safety* implications, you can be damn well sure that hiding problems has already become the pervasive company culture, and NO A SINGLE upper manager wants to hear about any real problems in the company.
What this public firing would accomplish is to enhance everyone's CYA activities, and little else, as the same group of upper managers that don't want to hear problems in the first place are still mostly there in the top.
OTOH, 100-level college humanities are useless if you are not continuing along the progression of studies, it's like learning the alphabet of a language and going no further. The only advantage might be that they could offer an opportunity for the kids to save themselves by switching majors, though those introductory classes usually test the resolve of even those committed to the subject. STEM majors don't need more distractions, they should be focused on qualifying for or conning their way into a job.
See, it works both ways.
BTW, GP was calling for Humanity majors to take 200+ level Math classes, not 100-level.
Sadly, these days - the only way to buy new release Ubisoft products (if you want to at all, that is) is to buy the console versions of the products.
But I just learned the hard way that, even the console version of games from Ubisoft will endlessly bug you for your UPlay account when you start the game. Every. Single. Time.
Child of Light is a great game, but getting a prompt for me to setup a UPlay account every time I play is ensuring that I won't buy another Ubisoft game for a LONG LONG time.
People who are not involved in the publishing industry think it would be great for authors to self publish. Interestingly, authors seem to think almost uniformly that it is a terrible idea.
Does that come from authors already having a publisher publishing for them? Or does that include authors still looking for a publisher willing to publish their first book?
The authors, who have a very good idea just what publishers can add to the book, mostly really really like what publishers do for them.
The authors also don't think that they will make more money by self publishing either, because they know how much less they will be writing because of the time spent on other tasks currently handled by the publisher.
While I do very much agree a publisher currently brings quite a lot to the table, but why can't an author buy similar services from editors/proof-readers directly, and then self-publish?
If authors are concerned about the cost, isn't that amounted to saying the authors are unwilling to take the risk to invest in their own creation? Don't they think the sales from the resulting book can cover the cost?
Unless publishers have a monopoly on all the editors and proof-readers, this doesn't add up. Eventually some editor is going to start a new company that only provides editing and proof-reading service, and then let authors self-publish electronically, then what do publishers bring to the table?
So... donating to the campaigns of congressmen that'll vote for things you want is now bribery?
In most other civilized countries, it IS.
...but I liked lectures...
Learning from someone who knows their subject much better than I do who has taken the time to condense a part of their knowledge into a well structured lecture is the thing I miss most when comparing university to work.
Agreed. This difference is almost like the difference between people who read, and those who don't.
People who don't read will tell you how much more effective a movie can tell a story, blah, blah, compared to books. Books are boring. They can't stay focused on boring text. etc. etc.
People who read find books interesting and enjoy good reading.
If you do a study on the "effectiveness", by whatever measure, of books vs movie, the result will be skewed by those who don't read.
I will offer the caveat of things like theoretical physics, which have no useful application
I will offer this quote from Particle Fever by Kaplan: "When radio waves were discovered, they weren't called radio waves, because there was no radio at that time."
When the electron was discovered, it was called "the most useless particle".
Quantum Mechanics give the basis of building up semiconductors.
Yeah, right, no useful application.
"ou buy your stuff, in bulk if you one, pay $10 (1000-something yen IIRC), and voila they'll deliver it to your apartment. Every major train/subway station/nexus has a mall so shopping (and buying delivery) is also conveniently located.) Try to do that anywhere in the US."
You may know alot about Japan but your ignorance of the USA is showing here. What you describe is possible in many parts of the USA.
Our family hardly ever shops anymore, we just buy it all online and have it delivered. Groceries too. The only place we ever go out to is farmer's markets, because a) they don't deliver, and b) they're often more of an experience than just a shopping trip.
You are showing your ignorance here. Of course Japan also have online stores, but that's another thing entirely.
What the GP said was to be able to *physically* go to a store, *hand pick* what you want to pick (i.e. you can pick and choose, e.g., the fruits, one by one), and the pay at the counter THEN have the store deliver what you picked to your home.
Living in the US you might think that is stupid, why would you take the trouble to go (drive) to the mall and then not carry the stuff back home? The difference is, in Japan (and also applies to many Asian metropolis), as the GP mentioned, there are malls *everywhere*. Next to metro stations, around the corner, right beneath your home, etc.
So during the normal course of a work day, you would probably pass malls/shops on your way to work, during lunch break, and on your way home. Then it became natural for you to scan the shops and probably, once in a while, notice something you want to buy, but you are on your way to work/lunch break/dine with friends/etc and obviously *not driving*, so you don't want to carry the stuff with you around. THAT's where the delivery comes in to play. You pick, you pay, and they deliver while you go on your merry way, just 3 minutes spent.
That convenience of practically going through shopping malls along the way of everywhere you go is what GP meant. You are literally 10 minutes away from everything you need/want to buy, almost all the time, and you never need to "take time" to buy anything at all.
And no, Americans living in suburbs where they have to drive 10 minutes to buy toilet paper, and do a "shopping trip" to Walmart once a week just to stock up on groceries won't be able to imagine what it is like, the convenience of being able to buy a fresh apple (just one), on the way home, every day, by just stopping for 30 seconds at the grocery that you pass by daily anyway.
I can show them pretty consistent scientific studies that show people like being VALUED by their employer. And while it's true, there is a threshold for wealth that once you've gone over it, further raises have little impact on their dedication to work, there's is also a lower threshold where if they are consistently under paid, they'll also feel as if they're not valued.
I think you've missed the point here, it's not about what my expenses are. The basic idea is that I do a good job for the company, the company recognizes that and pays me a good salary - it's a win-win situation. Severely underpaying me means you're trying to exploit me, to pad your profit margins at my expense. Why should you stay with a company that's trying to screw you?
Exactly. Fools in HR like to parrot the idea that raises have little impact on morale, and use that as justification for not giving raises.
Guess what? Giving raises IS one of the most clear signal that the company VALUES a staff, regardless of whether that person need the extra money or not. And the opposite is also true - NOT giving a raise is a sure fire signal to the staff that the company DID NOT VALUE his contribution, regardless of what management said.
And if there really is a point where more money doesn't matter, why aren't there a maximum compensation for the CxOs?
People fled gaming-PCs because of all the bullshit: obtuse DRM, all the half-done buggy games that need to be patched to be playable, the annoying installations and so on.
I take it you don't play console games, else you would have known that people fled gaming-PC because of the constantly escalating system requirements (what? my 2 year old PC is too slow for this new game already?!), headaches about driver compatibilities ("My game crashes a lot" -> "which video card are you using?"), blatant and widespread cheating, and of course, buggy games that are partly due to wide variety of hardware/OS combinations that are impossible to test for.
Console, for better or worse, have uniform/very limited number of configurations (both hardware and OS level), and DRM-locked harder than a chastity belt, which naturally result in fewer bugs (fewer, not none), uniform performance for all players (no need to worry about minimum or optimal system requirements), and no hacks (at least not those within the machine).
When I buy a console game, say, for my PS3, I just need to check the "PS3" logo to be almost 100% sure it will "just work" on my PS3, even though it was years old. Can't say that if I wanted to buy a game for my years old PC.
On the other hand, you probably just want your phone back and don't give a crap about the rest. If you were a big believer in calling the cops you wouldn't be there at his door. But if you turn up dead and anyone at all knows where you were going, now he's looking at some serious trouble that will bring the cops around.
True, but are you willing to bet your life or limb that the thug is (1) has a brain smart enough to figure that out, and (2) not on some drugs impairing his thinking at that time?
Yup, it hurts to lose something worth $500-$1000, but is it worth getting serious injury or killed over?
Even if you just got into a fight and won with, say, a couple broken fingers (due to a missed punch), the thug fled and you managed to get back your phone. Would you think it worth it 20 years later when your fingers still hurts whenever it rained? What if you won but lost an eye instead, is that worth it even though the thug were eventually caught and rotting in jail?
If you care that much about losing your phone due to its price, is it wise for you to buy such an expensive phone (which you pretty much expected to carry around everywhere on your person, all the time) to begin with?
Let police officers take care of it. We have backup, guns, radio, jackets — all that stuff civilians don't have.
But obviously civilians have one thing the police officers don't - the WILL to take action.
If the police have been taking these thefts seriously and had sent officers to thief's home instead, then no one would be foolish enough to do it himself.
Yes, it is foolish to confront the thief at his home. What do you think would happen? "Ha ha, you got me, here's your phone."? More likely is the thief would know giving you the phone just proved he stolen your stuff, and now you know where to lead the police to him, thief would be thinking how is he going to silence you?
Maybe after the first few fools got killed, the police will finally take a visit to the locations of stolen phones?
Only complete idiots/tools think this way about any profession.
Agree, but it seems like the whole world is filled with idiots...
There will be no point to having a "youthful" old age if we will still become more conservative as we grow old, and in our misguided attempts to stay relevant, end up preventing the world from changing, just to keep things familiar.
So, even before the technology is available, you have already concluded it won't give real improvement to the world, so you think there is no point to this technology, so you would rather have one less change in the world, to kept things familiar to you.
Oh, what irony. Clearly, you just demonstrated that people don't need to grow exceptionally old before they start to prevent the world from changing in order to keep things familiar.
Well, I would think that this is mostly to do with publicity. Once someone calls your software into question in a very public light, you will be more willing to go through your project with a fine toothed comb and clean up all that old cruft you've been meaning to clear out.
This is not a sign of inherent insecurity, but one of obvious house cleaning.
And how many bugs and vulnerabilities will they put in with such high volume of commits in such short time?
- If a change is only "house cleaning" which is unrelated to security, why do it in such a rush?
- If a change is security related, and obviously needed, then why wasn't it made earlier? Didn't that make a mockery of all the "many eyes" arguments oft touted in favor of Open Source?
- If a change is security related and non-obvious, then won't doing it in such a rush probably introduce new bugs/vulnerability into the code?
No matter how you look at it, making so many changes in a rush is not a good idea.
Lecturing is an ineffective way to teach because most people cannot pay attention to and retain a traditional lecture.
That's why students are told to take notes. That's why students are told to study outside lectures; tutorials and — where appropriate for the course — practical sessions in labs reinforce the lecture. You don't learn by just listening to someone, but it is part of how you learn.
THIS. Students that have problem learning from lectures most likely are treating the lecture as a movie (as the article alluded to), they expected to be passively entertained (a.k.a. spoon fed), instead of making an effort to learn actively. Then they wonder why they didn't learn anything and complained the lectures are too boring (i.e. not entertaining).
Lecturing is an ineffective way to teach because most people [nowadays] cannot pay attention to and retain a traditional lecture.
There, corrected it for you. 20 years ago, most people in college have had no problem paying attention to lectures. YMMV.
Someone who has been giving the same lecture for 20 years was teaching sub-optimally 20 years ago and has not improved. You are correct that they may not have gotten worse either.
That's your prejudice showing. All the great teachers in college in the past century had no problem doing their great teaching with lectures (among other means).
If you have trouble paying attention to lectures and learning from it, have you considered that, perhaps, you shouldn't be in college to begin with?
Similarly, there are faculty who want to do research and get in front of a lecture hall and regurgitate the same lecture they've been giving for 20 years.
This may sound bad (as Nelson no doubt intended) for subjects that are relatively recent, such as anything IT related, or the more advanced courses. But tell me, how much meaningful changes were there in the past 20 years for introductory subjects like algebra or calculus? Or the introductory to intermediate courses for most physical sciences?
Go read the Feynman Lectures and tell me how much change was needed due to advances since it was given? Except for maybe a mention of Higgs and LHC somewhere?
Education is not entertainment, if the subject matter have not changed, why should a good lecture needs to change for the sake of change? It's not like we are giving the lecture to the same audience 20 times. Except, maybe, due to the decrease in competency of the students?
Did the researchers also study aggression that result from job experience?
In my experience, frustration coming from you job is usually many times that which can come from a game, any game.
With a game, you can just give up and play another game if the frustration reached a certain level. With you job, most people don't have that luxury.
Based on your information no one can give you solid advice.
IMHO the question is deliberately designed to be vague. iPhones and Android devices, PHP and Ruby On Rails .. that is such a shotgun blast of specifications that are totally unrelated to the DB use on the back end that the entire question smells of click bait to me.
Either that, or the OP simply have no idea how databases work at all.
If OP has any idea how database (any database, not just relational) works, he would be talking about data and transaction volumes, access patterns, transactional requirements, data integrity constraints, retention and housekeeping requirements, etc.
Instead, as you said, he talked about devices platforms, communication protocols, language and runtime environment which are all irrelevant to choosing database. (ok, the last may be a bit relevant depending on which database used)
Basically, if you're running mainframes, then your business is large enough (heck the individual computers are expensive enough) that you can afford to pay top dollar to motivate some very solid programmers to work for you.
That's your problem right there. Obviously, the unsaid assumption is that, by someone "new", they really mean someone "cheap".
There was never any difficulty in finding motivated and smart people when companies are willing to pay. The problem is most companies are NOT willing to pay.