They were trying to monetize the web way before that, in 1995 I worked for some company whose entire business was about charging people for access to their repository of technical manuals. And needless to say AOL and Prodigy made sure your ad exposure was as much as relatively primitive displays would allow (whereas compuserve was frequently more pay as you go).
It's probably true that ad revenue on the world wide web became a noticeable force somewhere around 2000 (mostly clickbait adds and that "punch the monkey" nonsense), and google probably turned it into an institution a few years later. But the legions of desperate entrepreneurs all saw money in this from the very start, it's just that this dubya dubya dubya thing was not ideal: they couldn't own it from the top down in any practical sense, they felt a lot of value was destroyed in its existence. It took a few years before they found a way to monetize it in a workable way.
The message I received is "We're doing the nasty because if public perception, not because we made terrible decisions. We reserve the right to make terrible decisions again in the future, when public perception can be adequately silenced."
If I learned anything from the Simpsons it's that nuclear workers eat donuts. The nuclear shutdown would naturally have led to job loss in the donut sector. Now that I think about it, pregnant women not being able to get their donut fix could result in lower birth rates. So maybe the nuclear shutdown really was the cause of the lower birth weights.
Your analysis overlooked beer, which you should *never* do. According to your same source they also drink a lot of beer. Fewer beer swilling nuclear workers means fewer babies born addicted to beer, that means fewer beer bellied babies.
Barriers to entry are almost always used in the same breath as "requires high investment factor". Masters and PhD (or even B.S.) degrees all require a very significant investment. These degrees represent dubious qualifications. They are academic certifications, which may or may not have applicability in the corporate world. I'm not sure how many of my professors could hack it outside of academia, but not so many.
And I disagree, very often those things are requirements that are not actual qualifications, just ways of shrinking the candidate pool. I interview people with those degrees who don't know what they're doing, and I know people without them I'd hire in a heartbeat (but cannot interview or hire because HR). The two best software people I've worked with had GEDs and learned their job in the Army of all places, but I can't hire them. Whatever dicking around they did as teenagers is well behind them, but they're barred.
Diversity for the sake of diversity is just about as arbitrary of a barrier as academic degrees. While white people can't acquire black to get a job, in theory someone of another race can acquire a degree. However often people of other races have a hard time acquiring the money to make it over the barrier, it is as impossible for them as for me to become a black lesbian woman. If this were not true why are we acquiring so many people from India and China, when there are plenty of Americans who do not have jobs. Those countries do a much better job at providing the degrees needed to overcome these barriers.
there are zero barriers for entry in the workforce today
Just try to apply to my job without a masters or PhD in a relevant field. At best you will never hear from anyone again. At worst they'll bring you in for sport, and some of these people are just enough assholes to do it, if HR didn't get in the way.
There are lots of barriers. The mistake is thinking management cares about what people think. Instead they should buy a share, group up, then start forcing votes at the shareholder level.
The reason why email isn't dying is that it is general purpose and enduring
It's exactly the app we need for the problem we want to solve. I doubt it will ever die, it's too useful.
I don't know who comes up with this is dying thing that justifies the articles suggesting it's a well known fact. Desktops are still around and my preferred platform for 99% of computing. Laptops are foisted on me by my employer (and no doubt drive sales volumes), but I don't care about them, they're too anemic to do things I enjoy, and barely tolerable in most cases for things I am paid to do. I have yet to work for anyone where I didn't ultimately make them buy me a powerful desktop, or scrounge one out of parts IT thought it had disposed of.
The kinds that corporations are buying rank and file employees could be replaced by a mobile phone or tablet, except that the people making them don't want them to be used that way (because margins -> 0). This all sounds desperately like marketing astroturf disguised as reporting.
They're never going to pay you 4x, it's probably not even worth your time to talk to them. If you consider a move like that, you are banking on equity you have built up being applied to your future home so that the cost is lower: basically you are going to front the cost of moving and absorb the risk that the higher wages make it profitable before the inevitable downsizing and layoffs begin.
It really doesn't pay to move there for most people, which is why most of those companies, even the hold-outs have been opening satellite offices in other places.
I don't know who these people are or where they live. Technically I live in Round Rock (far north austin, let's not kid ourselves), but my commute, should I go in during rush hour is more like 1:30. If there is 0 traffic, it is still 30 minutes. I work in South Austin (presently). When I worked in North Austin it was 15 minutes out of rush hour, but still about an hour in rush hour, because our roads are poorly structured. I could probably cut this in half if I lived in west lake or spicewood, but then we're back in to the $600k+ homes, removing any particular advantage of living in Austin.
The "tech" companies, at least of the variety that would hire an electrical/computer engineer or even a systems SW engineer, are either considerably north of Austin, or considerably south. Unless you moved in near where you work and have changed neither thing, you probably have a hike to get to work. Maybe young 20 somethings who rent an apartment can always move when they change jobs, but that describes precisely nobody I know.
Anyone who wants to call bullshit on this should simply look at google maps with the traffic layer on between 7AM and 10AM, or 4PM and 7PM. That dark red shows the story of actual life here, and there are no solutions on the way.
In theory a manager does this when he is dissatisfied with teamwork and wants to find a way to get everyone to contribute, even if the contributions of everyone in particular are shit, it at least invests them in the goal. At work, even in really good companies, we often put up with sub-standard solutions to enlist the support of others in an effort that is simply too big for one person. It's the seedy side of teamwork, but about the only way to get things done amongst highly creative, easily distracted people. Possibly down the road when the project is mostly finished and enlisted help has moved on, you can go back and throw their shit out, at least in good companies where everything isn't bare-bones (i've worked in only one of these).
The really dumb manager believes brainstorming is about the idea themselves...
It's wrong for (white) men to subjugate women, demean them, or harass them in the office.
Yes, period.
Except if you are into BDSM involving fantasies of sexual slavery of women. Or you're a muslim. Or non-white.
What you do on your own time with willing participants is your deal. Don't assume all, most or many people you interact with are willing participants. Acting out your sex fantasies on strangers usually gets you in trouble, not sure why this would be any different except less trouble.
I'm not selling anything, and loud office spaces make it hard to get work done. I end up trying to work from home as much as possible, even when it is theoretically less efficient.
If they want to pack us in like sardines, fine, but: 1) Make cube walls go up to the ceiling, and give us doors and that both of these are reasonably sound-proof, 2) Make sure there is adequate parking for the number of employees you intend to pack in, 3) Make sure there are adequate restrooms for the number of employees you intend to pack in, and that those restrooms are cleaned frequently (ideally by same-gender janitor, so they don't shut down for 15 minutes every 15 minutes), 4) Make sure HVAC is capable of cooling an office with thousands of employees, thousands of computers, inbound sunlight, etc.
I guess I'm not sure the entire market for this are vegans. If they could make good quality meat that tastes good more efficiently than the current method, that might solve a lot of problems.
I enumerated what those costs were...babysitting the sweatshop and making sure they couldn't cut corners, being there when things go wrong and putting them right, doing post assy quality control and having the arrangements necessary to force quality issues back on the factory. It's easy to argue your way out of needing to pay for the babysitters, why should you have to pay your own people what you are paying someone else to be doing, particularly when that company's salesman is telling you all the great things they will do for you, and selling your boss on how much you will save doing business with them.
But you can't listen to that, you have to build this into the cost of the bid and ignore them. Many, many companies, particularly of the variety where wall st. is more directly involved with management, have a hard time doing this.
Yes/no. The burden is on Nintendo, that burden is not necessarily clear up front and in fact may be hidden beneath surprises and "well shit, you're stuck with us now". To some degree Nintendo will have to furnish employees to basically live over there and force them to do the right job.
Nintendo does make hardware, I've heard, so they must know some of this. I'm just not sure their finances are able to support a first rate hand held device, particularly in a world where superior hand held devices are all over.
I don't know how much is what people want, and how much is what the various owners of platforms want to intentionally make their environments different to try to lock their competitors out.
I am not sure if he's talking about the increased static power draw in the silicon itself from having more silicon area, or if he's envisioning doubling up on the die size without also increasing the ball count on the BGA package, which would cause increased resistance due to the extra heat. Those BGA's can't be made infinitely large, as it is the larger ones do not always self-align during volume mfg and end up falling out.
Not all algorithms can be parallelized. Some things must be done serially. Also trying to teach some of the programmers out there how to program effectively on the various parallel platforms is harder than trying to alter physics.
I charge my phone once a night, I charge my headphones every 3-4 nights. I don't plan to use either device while I sleep, I assume everyone sleeps, I haven't researched it carefully.
Its not about the jack going away for everyone, but the how apple claimed to be progressive and having much courage to remove it. Which means apple as usual is being a dick about things. What about this is hard to understand?
1) Wrong, this headphone hoopla started before Tim Cook's "courage" line. I wouldn't be surprised if the pre-emptive hostility to this move motivated him to say that thing.
2) I still do not understand why anyone wants a wire on their mobile device. I was upset with Apple's iPhone originally because I could not use BT headphones with it, but my Android device worked just fine with it.
3) Maybe HTC or Samsung should incorporate a turntable on their phone as well, who did Sony think it was with that walkman nonsense.
I've been asked to implement bubblesort, by a processor design team, in verilog. I haven't done bubblesort since HS while learning examples of slow sorts.
I passed the interview, not because I had memorized this algorithm (which is certainly irrelevant to my career and the job I was applying for), because I reinvented bubblesort on the fly in pseudocode. The interviewer was willing to entertain my speculation about what bubblesort meant, he just wanted to watch me flail around.
I'm fairly certain he couldn't care less about bubblesort, he wanted to give me a problem and watch me solve it, what kind of questions I asked and what mistakes I made. Then he wanted to critique my solution and see how I handled his critique.
It's very hard to interview technical people, different people have different philosophies. Plenty of people will point to the exhaustive list of experience on their resume, which is meaningless since you can spend a lot of years doing absolutely nothing. Others will point to their degrees, which is meaningless since even a degree from an accredited university only means you took some required courses and the professor gave you a passing grade. Fundamentally we are there to solve problems though, so you should be trying to find a way to gauge problem solving.
My objections to bubblesort is that it's a well defined algorithm and people may get stuck on implementing it in some canonical way. Reversing a linked list is a better question, if you're going to go that route (although well trod and certainly H1B prep schools teach it by now). The question should take common knowledge from your field and basic problem solving. You should not be asking problems that require real brainpower, the interviewee is nervous and under-pressure in bad ways and not likely going to respond optimally.
The real problem with these tough interviews is that mostly they're being used to justify the lack of qualified people in the country. Turn down enough natives and HR starts suppling well coached shills from abroad, who once you get them turn out not to be very good, but knew quite well what they were to be asked.
Slashdot Mirror
They were trying to monetize the web way before that, in 1995 I worked for some company whose entire business was about charging people for access to their repository of technical manuals. And needless to say AOL and Prodigy made sure your ad exposure was as much as relatively primitive displays would allow (whereas compuserve was frequently more pay as you go).
It's probably true that ad revenue on the world wide web became a noticeable force somewhere around 2000 (mostly clickbait adds and that "punch the monkey" nonsense), and google probably turned it into an institution a few years later. But the legions of desperate entrepreneurs all saw money in this from the very start, it's just that this dubya dubya dubya thing was not ideal: they couldn't own it from the top down in any practical sense, they felt a lot of value was destroyed in its existence. It took a few years before they found a way to monetize it in a workable way.
The message I received is "We're doing the nasty because if public perception, not because we made terrible decisions. We reserve the right to make terrible decisions again in the future, when public perception can be adequately silenced."
If I learned anything from the Simpsons it's that nuclear workers eat donuts. The nuclear shutdown would naturally have led to job loss in the donut sector. Now that I think about it, pregnant women not being able to get their donut fix could result in lower birth rates. So maybe the nuclear shutdown really was the cause of the lower birth weights.
Your analysis overlooked beer, which you should *never* do. According to your same source they also drink a lot of beer. Fewer beer swilling nuclear workers means fewer babies born addicted to beer, that means fewer beer bellied babies.
Not widely. I've never heard of this.
Not surprising considering how few people actually use twitter.
I guess now people are free to include enormous tweets that contain every username they know.
Design them to be seen on my TV, I have no interest in theaters. kthxbai
Barriers to entry are almost always used in the same breath as "requires high investment factor". Masters and PhD (or even B.S.) degrees all require a very significant investment. These degrees represent dubious qualifications. They are academic certifications, which may or may not have applicability in the corporate world. I'm not sure how many of my professors could hack it outside of academia, but not so many.
And I disagree, very often those things are requirements that are not actual qualifications, just ways of shrinking the candidate pool. I interview people with those degrees who don't know what they're doing, and I know people without them I'd hire in a heartbeat (but cannot interview or hire because HR). The two best software people I've worked with had GEDs and learned their job in the Army of all places, but I can't hire them. Whatever dicking around they did as teenagers is well behind them, but they're barred.
Diversity for the sake of diversity is just about as arbitrary of a barrier as academic degrees. While white people can't acquire black to get a job, in theory someone of another race can acquire a degree. However often people of other races have a hard time acquiring the money to make it over the barrier, it is as impossible for them as for me to become a black lesbian woman. If this were not true why are we acquiring so many people from India and China, when there are plenty of Americans who do not have jobs. Those countries do a much better job at providing the degrees needed to overcome these barriers.
there are zero barriers for entry in the workforce today
Just try to apply to my job without a masters or PhD in a relevant field. At best you will never hear from anyone again. At worst they'll bring you in for sport, and some of these people are just enough assholes to do it, if HR didn't get in the way.
There are lots of barriers. The mistake is thinking management cares about what people think. Instead they should buy a share, group up, then start forcing votes at the shareholder level.
The reason why email isn't dying is that it is general purpose and enduring
It's exactly the app we need for the problem we want to solve. I doubt it will ever die, it's too useful.
I don't know who comes up with this is dying thing that justifies the articles suggesting it's a well known fact. Desktops are still around and my preferred platform for 99% of computing. Laptops are foisted on me by my employer (and no doubt drive sales volumes), but I don't care about them, they're too anemic to do things I enjoy, and barely tolerable in most cases for things I am paid to do. I have yet to work for anyone where I didn't ultimately make them buy me a powerful desktop, or scrounge one out of parts IT thought it had disposed of.
The kinds that corporations are buying rank and file employees could be replaced by a mobile phone or tablet, except that the people making them don't want them to be used that way (because margins -> 0). This all sounds desperately like marketing astroturf disguised as reporting.
They're never going to pay you 4x, it's probably not even worth your time to talk to them. If you consider a move like that, you are banking on equity you have built up being applied to your future home so that the cost is lower: basically you are going to front the cost of moving and absorb the risk that the higher wages make it profitable before the inevitable downsizing and layoffs begin.
It really doesn't pay to move there for most people, which is why most of those companies, even the hold-outs have been opening satellite offices in other places.
Who lives in Austin and has a 16 minute commute?
I don't know who these people are or where they live. Technically I live in Round Rock (far north austin, let's not kid ourselves), but my commute, should I go in during rush hour is more like 1:30. If there is 0 traffic, it is still 30 minutes. I work in South Austin (presently). When I worked in North Austin it was 15 minutes out of rush hour, but still about an hour in rush hour, because our roads are poorly structured. I could probably cut this in half if I lived in west lake or spicewood, but then we're back in to the $600k+ homes, removing any particular advantage of living in Austin.
The "tech" companies, at least of the variety that would hire an electrical/computer engineer or even a systems SW engineer, are either considerably north of Austin, or considerably south. Unless you moved in near where you work and have changed neither thing, you probably have a hike to get to work. Maybe young 20 somethings who rent an apartment can always move when they change jobs, but that describes precisely nobody I know.
Anyone who wants to call bullshit on this should simply look at google maps with the traffic layer on between 7AM and 10AM, or 4PM and 7PM. That dark red shows the story of actual life here, and there are no solutions on the way.
In theory a manager does this when he is dissatisfied with teamwork and wants to find a way to get everyone to contribute, even if the contributions of everyone in particular are shit, it at least invests them in the goal. At work, even in really good companies, we often put up with sub-standard solutions to enlist the support of others in an effort that is simply too big for one person. It's the seedy side of teamwork, but about the only way to get things done amongst highly creative, easily distracted people. Possibly down the road when the project is mostly finished and enlisted help has moved on, you can go back and throw their shit out, at least in good companies where everything isn't bare-bones (i've worked in only one of these).
The really dumb manager believes brainstorming is about the idea themselves...
It's wrong for (white) men to subjugate women, demean them, or harass them in the office.
Yes, period.
Except if you are into BDSM involving fantasies of sexual slavery of women. Or you're a muslim. Or non-white.
What you do on your own time with willing participants is your deal. Don't assume all, most or many people you interact with are willing participants. Acting out your sex fantasies on strangers usually gets you in trouble, not sure why this would be any different except less trouble.
I'm not selling anything, and loud office spaces make it hard to get work done. I end up trying to work from home as much as possible, even when it is theoretically less efficient.
If they want to pack us in like sardines, fine, but: 1) Make cube walls go up to the ceiling, and give us doors and that both of these are reasonably sound-proof, 2) Make sure there is adequate parking for the number of employees you intend to pack in, 3) Make sure there are adequate restrooms for the number of employees you intend to pack in, and that those restrooms are cleaned frequently (ideally by same-gender janitor, so they don't shut down for 15 minutes every 15 minutes), 4) Make sure HVAC is capable of cooling an office with thousands of employees, thousands of computers, inbound sunlight, etc.
I guess I'm not sure the entire market for this are vegans. If they could make good quality meat that tastes good more efficiently than the current method, that might solve a lot of problems.
SMS is not free to all people, it is heavily pwnt by the bandwidth providers.
I enumerated what those costs were...babysitting the sweatshop and making sure they couldn't cut corners, being there when things go wrong and putting them right, doing post assy quality control and having the arrangements necessary to force quality issues back on the factory. It's easy to argue your way out of needing to pay for the babysitters, why should you have to pay your own people what you are paying someone else to be doing, particularly when that company's salesman is telling you all the great things they will do for you, and selling your boss on how much you will save doing business with them.
But you can't listen to that, you have to build this into the cost of the bid and ignore them. Many, many companies, particularly of the variety where wall st. is more directly involved with management, have a hard time doing this.
nothing you can do without a lift I can't do myself.
so maybe I am not the audience
Yes.
Yes/no. The burden is on Nintendo, that burden is not necessarily clear up front and in fact may be hidden beneath surprises and "well shit, you're stuck with us now". To some degree Nintendo will have to furnish employees to basically live over there and force them to do the right job.
Nintendo does make hardware, I've heard, so they must know some of this. I'm just not sure their finances are able to support a first rate hand held device, particularly in a world where superior hand held devices are all over.
I don't know how much is what people want, and how much is what the various owners of platforms want to intentionally make their environments different to try to lock their competitors out.
I am not sure if he's talking about the increased static power draw in the silicon itself from having more silicon area, or if he's envisioning doubling up on the die size without also increasing the ball count on the BGA package, which would cause increased resistance due to the extra heat. Those BGA's can't be made infinitely large, as it is the larger ones do not always self-align during volume mfg and end up falling out.
Not all algorithms can be parallelized. Some things must be done serially. Also trying to teach some of the programmers out there how to program effectively on the various parallel platforms is harder than trying to alter physics.
I charge my phone once a night, I charge my headphones every 3-4 nights. I don't plan to use either device while I sleep, I assume everyone sleeps, I haven't researched it carefully.
Its not about the jack going away for everyone, but the how apple claimed to be progressive and having much courage to remove it. Which means apple as usual is being a dick about things. What about this is hard to understand?
1) Wrong, this headphone hoopla started before Tim Cook's "courage" line. I wouldn't be surprised if the pre-emptive hostility to this move motivated him to say that thing.
2) I still do not understand why anyone wants a wire on their mobile device. I was upset with Apple's iPhone originally because I could not use BT headphones with it, but my Android device worked just fine with it.
3) Maybe HTC or Samsung should incorporate a turntable on their phone as well, who did Sony think it was with that walkman nonsense.
I've been asked to implement bubblesort, by a processor design team, in verilog. I haven't done bubblesort since HS while learning examples of slow sorts.
I passed the interview, not because I had memorized this algorithm (which is certainly irrelevant to my career and the job I was applying for), because I reinvented bubblesort on the fly in pseudocode. The interviewer was willing to entertain my speculation about what bubblesort meant, he just wanted to watch me flail around.
I'm fairly certain he couldn't care less about bubblesort, he wanted to give me a problem and watch me solve it, what kind of questions I asked and what mistakes I made. Then he wanted to critique my solution and see how I handled his critique.
It's very hard to interview technical people, different people have different philosophies. Plenty of people will point to the exhaustive list of experience on their resume, which is meaningless since you can spend a lot of years doing absolutely nothing. Others will point to their degrees, which is meaningless since even a degree from an accredited university only means you took some required courses and the professor gave you a passing grade. Fundamentally we are there to solve problems though, so you should be trying to find a way to gauge problem solving.
My objections to bubblesort is that it's a well defined algorithm and people may get stuck on implementing it in some canonical way. Reversing a linked list is a better question, if you're going to go that route (although well trod and certainly H1B prep schools teach it by now). The question should take common knowledge from your field and basic problem solving. You should not be asking problems that require real brainpower, the interviewee is nervous and under-pressure in bad ways and not likely going to respond optimally.
The real problem with these tough interviews is that mostly they're being used to justify the lack of qualified people in the country. Turn down enough natives and HR starts suppling well coached shills from abroad, who once you get them turn out not to be very good, but knew quite well what they were to be asked.