I'm sure age discrimination is real, but that's not the issue here.
If she was 22, would she have gotten the job? That's the question. When I interview someone who is a fresh-out of college, I expect 0 industry experience and a highly academic background. I put the gloves on, and rate them according to their experience level (0, I don't care if they have a PhD or are a few days away from a GED). I *expect* that if they get the job, they will be offered a junior position with pay/benefits appropriate to that position and are prepared to learn. They will need significant coaching, and that's fine, having a top-heavy team is as bad as having a low experience team. College degrees mean absolutely nothing to me, nor does experience in academia. I've worked with several nuclear physicists who I couldn't trust to work their way out of a paper bag. They were smart, they had the right background to learn, but they needed to spend time in doing to become useful. When I interview a senior person though, it's totally different. I rate them based on an expectation they know their shit at least as well as I do, if not far better.
What I am never clear about is exactly how the feedback is interpreted and often exactly what job the candidate is being interviewed for. I'm on a panel, I sometimes get a days notice and told a topic. In theory applicants are applying to a specific opening with particular requirements, but I know from experience that is *always* shady. If you are in a big H1-B employer, they'll always try to shove candidates in the junior-most position whose salary they may accept: the interview process is intended to demoralize them and make them more willing to accept a low offer or decline and justify the H-1B. In companies that actually take themselves seriously, the opposite is true, they will assume seniority and if you can't pass the interview you don't get the job at all. In both cases as the interviewer I have to use judgement and what I see on the resume, which is often padded to get through the OCR/HR gauntlet. Thus a 60yo woman may appear to me to be "experienced" both based on her resume and physical appearance, and get the brutal interview, when she's actually applying to a junior position, and get tossed.
Personally I think age discrimination is a much, much larger issue than sexism or racism in the tech industry. I don't think it's intentional amongst the people doing the interviewing, but I'm sure it makes the exec's happy. A concern all of us should have, with the way technology moves, is that today we may be an expert in some thing, but tomorrow that thing is irrelevant/offshored and we need to find a new job: could we do it? It's really tough, I speak from experience, luck is often required. If you're smart, I have no doubt that it's possible to do the job, and to use your experience with old-thing to new-thing to bridge gaps, but if you're being interviewed by a panel of snappy-answers-to-stupid-questions you may fail the credibility gap until you can spend some time in those new shoes.
I think the article stands on its own as an attempt to show how (insert favorite "oppressed" group) was relevant in major events in history. You can hardly sit through a history course anymore without a somewhat distracting aside explaining that soandso was gay, and/or possibly a woman, or had some mixed heritage etc. While simultaneously trying to explain that history is about critical thinking, and distracting that critical thinking with irrelevant asides, a mixed message is sent.
There's no reason a woman could not have been a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but as it happens, a woman wasn't. Irrelevant housewives in a failed company don't really figure in. The article even points out that there were quite a few attempts at a PC back then, most of which failed when the IBM PC manifested. Even Apple almost did not survive it. I would argue, additionally, that even Apple had next to 0 influence on the PC market, except perhaps in encouraging Windows to exist before it was ready (but ultimately sealing Apple's fate as an also-ran in the PC market). Even very significant companies were destroyed that really did define direction at the time: Sun? SGI? Ironically even IBM is not in the business anymore, and it's big iron division is facing a lot of challenges from what IBM itself created. These were all the significant bits of computer history.
Talking about two housewives in a company that failed before it started is a feel-good story at best, a lame attempt at social justice at worst.
Well ignoring government facilities where lives are on the line and which don't pay well anyway, shadow IT is a way of life in most of the free world. IT policies are usually insane in most large Wall St. operations. It has been a game amongst many users to figure out how quickly we can circumvent some lame heavy handed rule from on-high. IT either works with us, or it works orthogonal to us, but either way what we want done gets done.
Finally I'm in a place where IT doesn't get in my way, and I don't have to do anything wrong. More importantly when I discover a problem in their network, they actually take me seriously and it turns out sometimes I'm even right and a router is misconfigured. We get along well. Of course my company probably does have both more IT personnel and more resources for them than your average wall st. smash & grab operation.
We definitely should start an investigation into possible geographic diversity issues, it's unclear if its cultural or if there is some clear bias against Europeans in math contests.
The point is that our team won. I find it absolutely stunning considering that as of second grade, my son's official curriculum still involves counting my N on the number line.
In engineering we call them poles and zeros, and when it comes to stability analysis, it's always important to remember to try to stick your poles on the zeros.
Question them, but don't expect them to respond. Looking at her "resume" of people and places she goes, I'd be suspicious too. Certainly she willingly associates with people who, for better or worse, are breaking laws. She may very well be innocent of any crime herself, but she associates with people who are not.
She probably will just have to suck this one up and make it a point of pride, she's clearly touching nerves.
I prefer to try to draw parallels between these reviews and audiophile nonsense phrases.
" KDE doesn't feel like it has a direction its moving in, it doesn't feel like a full experience. KDE feels like its a bunch of pieces that are moving in a bunch of different directions
And here's some audiophile blather I yanked out of the internet's anus:
Pulling harmonics together from a jumbled auditory stream to form a coherent harmonic envelope.
That said, it's really only the summary that is bad, the article actually provides something more of a detailed comparison of what exactly he didn't like. The summary however makes the article sound like drivel.
On mopac during rush hour? It takes none. You turn the car off, get out, lay in the median and try to wake up before 5pm so you can turn around and go home.
If I had to see to the overall health and well being of my family, I would not click on a link for a $200K+ job either. I know that such jobs are not conducive to work/life balance and that I will have to depend on my spouse to provide that care.
Is the algorithm broken, or is it highlighting an existing preference? My understanding of our culture suggests the algorithm is doing exactly what it was written to do: serve ads to people based on their likelihood of wanting to click them. Men are still expected to have the "big jobs", women are expected to take care of the kids and, frequently, also have a 9-5 job. Men who stay at home with the kids are disrespected, and families with two parents with big jobs need nannies.
I don't consider background checks and mental health investigations as "gun control", that falls into the bucket of "people control". The reason I think this falls short is if we admit we have a problem with lunatics running around in society, we also admit we have a very expensive problem we should fix.
Reddit, and SOE don't have the market cornered on fucking over their customers because $$$. Look at Blizzard, they removed a key in-game feature, people screamed, cried alienation, quit, pounded chests, then they put the feature sorta back in, in the future if you jump through all these hoops no one will jump through, which was their plan all along but actually pacified a few very dumb people. And Microsoft? How many times over the past 30 years have they fucked up and fucked over their customers? The other thread is all of these people are (more or less) still in business, only SOE is more or less gone but that's less due to SWG and more due to continuous outages and security breaches.
All the blah blah always signifies to me, and I suspect a few executives, that people aren't actually willing to stop using their product. As such, the money keeps flowing in and the company keeps going. The boss can spin that. The boss has a harder time spinning people simply walking off and finding another, competing product.
TL;DR: stop bad mouthing Pao who only looks good if you keep generating page hits, and start finding another website
"extremely" high is an exaggeration. Quite a lot of us who are liberal are also against gun control, I can't say I've met more than a handful of true gun control advocates in my travels. There are a number of people who want strong gun control, but I'm not sure how large this group of people is. I usually equate them to Mother's Against Drunk Driving, who continue to try to essentially ban alcohol sales or consumption any time the issue is raised, and are very effective at keeping old anti-alcohol laws on the books (in several different states I've lived). They remain a minority, but a powerful one in that they can be relied upon to consistently fight for their beliefs, even though it is usually a losing battle.
The way I started, was I read books from people who were successful. Then messed around with their code. Then realized I wanted a new feature and added my own code, and then it was broken and I read more, etc.
I cannot imagine how watching someone type for hours is instructional, you could get well in to a book by that point.
I understand, I actually debugged an issue in my sleep three days ago. The solution came to me a few hours before my alarm went off, I opened my laptop, typed some stuff, problem solved. Back to blissful sleep.
I don't know who does this, but I'm waiting for the market of "watching paint dry" to start picking up, then I'm buying a can of paint and charging $300 for an hour of viewing.
There's always idiots who want to make money running studies and put themselves in a position of being the arbiters of what should or should not be, but in most cases we can safely ignore them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure age discrimination is real, but that's not the issue here.
If she was 22, would she have gotten the job? That's the question. When I interview someone who is a fresh-out of college, I expect 0 industry experience and a highly academic background. I put the gloves on, and rate them according to their experience level (0, I don't care if they have a PhD or are a few days away from a GED). I *expect* that if they get the job, they will be offered a junior position with pay/benefits appropriate to that position and are prepared to learn. They will need significant coaching, and that's fine, having a top-heavy team is as bad as having a low experience team. College degrees mean absolutely nothing to me, nor does experience in academia. I've worked with several nuclear physicists who I couldn't trust to work their way out of a paper bag. They were smart, they had the right background to learn, but they needed to spend time in doing to become useful. When I interview a senior person though, it's totally different. I rate them based on an expectation they know their shit at least as well as I do, if not far better.
What I am never clear about is exactly how the feedback is interpreted and often exactly what job the candidate is being interviewed for. I'm on a panel, I sometimes get a days notice and told a topic. In theory applicants are applying to a specific opening with particular requirements, but I know from experience that is *always* shady. If you are in a big H1-B employer, they'll always try to shove candidates in the junior-most position whose salary they may accept: the interview process is intended to demoralize them and make them more willing to accept a low offer or decline and justify the H-1B. In companies that actually take themselves seriously, the opposite is true, they will assume seniority and if you can't pass the interview you don't get the job at all. In both cases as the interviewer I have to use judgement and what I see on the resume, which is often padded to get through the OCR/HR gauntlet. Thus a 60yo woman may appear to me to be "experienced" both based on her resume and physical appearance, and get the brutal interview, when she's actually applying to a junior position, and get tossed.
Personally I think age discrimination is a much, much larger issue than sexism or racism in the tech industry. I don't think it's intentional amongst the people doing the interviewing, but I'm sure it makes the exec's happy. A concern all of us should have, with the way technology moves, is that today we may be an expert in some thing, but tomorrow that thing is irrelevant/offshored and we need to find a new job: could we do it? It's really tough, I speak from experience, luck is often required. If you're smart, I have no doubt that it's possible to do the job, and to use your experience with old-thing to new-thing to bridge gaps, but if you're being interviewed by a panel of snappy-answers-to-stupid-questions you may fail the credibility gap until you can spend some time in those new shoes.
I think the article stands on its own as an attempt to show how (insert favorite "oppressed" group) was relevant in major events in history. You can hardly sit through a history course anymore without a somewhat distracting aside explaining that soandso was gay, and/or possibly a woman, or had some mixed heritage etc. While simultaneously trying to explain that history is about critical thinking, and distracting that critical thinking with irrelevant asides, a mixed message is sent.
There's no reason a woman could not have been a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but as it happens, a woman wasn't. Irrelevant housewives in a failed company don't really figure in. The article even points out that there were quite a few attempts at a PC back then, most of which failed when the IBM PC manifested. Even Apple almost did not survive it. I would argue, additionally, that even Apple had next to 0 influence on the PC market, except perhaps in encouraging Windows to exist before it was ready (but ultimately sealing Apple's fate as an also-ran in the PC market). Even very significant companies were destroyed that really did define direction at the time: Sun? SGI? Ironically even IBM is not in the business anymore, and it's big iron division is facing a lot of challenges from what IBM itself created. These were all the significant bits of computer history.
Talking about two housewives in a company that failed before it started is a feel-good story at best, a lame attempt at social justice at worst.
Self laser hair removal? The right to bare arms? (and legs, and ...)
Well ignoring government facilities where lives are on the line and which don't pay well anyway, shadow IT is a way of life in most of the free world. IT policies are usually insane in most large Wall St. operations. It has been a game amongst many users to figure out how quickly we can circumvent some lame heavy handed rule from on-high. IT either works with us, or it works orthogonal to us, but either way what we want done gets done.
Finally I'm in a place where IT doesn't get in my way, and I don't have to do anything wrong. More importantly when I discover a problem in their network, they actually take me seriously and it turns out sometimes I'm even right and a router is misconfigured. We get along well. Of course my company probably does have both more IT personnel and more resources for them than your average wall st. smash & grab operation.
The ones who can afford them are the ones most in need of monitoring.
You may be overqualified. You should be looking at executive positions.
The mafia has used "drug overdose" for at least the past 30 years. We all know what the RIAA really is...
We definitely should start an investigation into possible geographic diversity issues, it's unclear if its cultural or if there is some clear bias against Europeans in math contests.
I think it's fair to look for the reasons why women are not making the team.
I think it's totally irrelevant. The US has its first win in forever, that's relevant.
The point is that our team won. I find it absolutely stunning considering that as of second grade, my son's official curriculum still involves counting my N on the number line.
In engineering we call them poles and zeros, and when it comes to stability analysis, it's always important to remember to try to stick your poles on the zeros.
That's all I remember from that class really.
Or AM/FM radio transmission. I wish they would at least be honest and say "I'm not making enough money on streaming".
Question them, but don't expect them to respond. Looking at her "resume" of people and places she goes, I'd be suspicious too. Certainly she willingly associates with people who, for better or worse, are breaking laws. She may very well be innocent of any crime herself, but she associates with people who are not.
She probably will just have to suck this one up and make it a point of pride, she's clearly touching nerves.
I prefer to try to draw parallels between these reviews and audiophile nonsense phrases.
" KDE doesn't feel like it has a direction its moving in, it doesn't feel like a full experience. KDE feels like its a bunch of pieces that are moving in a bunch of different directions
And here's some audiophile blather I yanked out of the internet's anus:
Pulling harmonics together from a jumbled auditory stream to form a coherent harmonic envelope.
That said, it's really only the summary that is bad, the article actually provides something more of a detailed comparison of what exactly he didn't like. The summary however makes the article sound like drivel.
On mopac during rush hour? It takes none. You turn the car off, get out, lay in the median and try to wake up before 5pm so you can turn around and go home.
If I had to see to the overall health and well being of my family, I would not click on a link for a $200K+ job either. I know that such jobs are not conducive to work/life balance and that I will have to depend on my spouse to provide that care.
Is the algorithm broken, or is it highlighting an existing preference? My understanding of our culture suggests the algorithm is doing exactly what it was written to do: serve ads to people based on their likelihood of wanting to click them. Men are still expected to have the "big jobs", women are expected to take care of the kids and, frequently, also have a 9-5 job. Men who stay at home with the kids are disrespected, and families with two parents with big jobs need nannies.
I don't consider background checks and mental health investigations as "gun control", that falls into the bucket of "people control". The reason I think this falls short is if we admit we have a problem with lunatics running around in society, we also admit we have a very expensive problem we should fix.
Instead, we blame inanimate objects.
We stand and deliver.
Reddit, and SOE don't have the market cornered on fucking over their customers because $$$. Look at Blizzard, they removed a key in-game feature, people screamed, cried alienation, quit, pounded chests, then they put the feature sorta back in, in the future if you jump through all these hoops no one will jump through, which was their plan all along but actually pacified a few very dumb people. And Microsoft? How many times over the past 30 years have they fucked up and fucked over their customers? The other thread is all of these people are (more or less) still in business, only SOE is more or less gone but that's less due to SWG and more due to continuous outages and security breaches.
All the blah blah always signifies to me, and I suspect a few executives, that people aren't actually willing to stop using their product. As such, the money keeps flowing in and the company keeps going. The boss can spin that. The boss has a harder time spinning people simply walking off and finding another, competing product.
TL;DR: stop bad mouthing Pao who only looks good if you keep generating page hits, and start finding another website
A real stand-up commedian
"extremely" high is an exaggeration. Quite a lot of us who are liberal are also against gun control, I can't say I've met more than a handful of true gun control advocates in my travels. There are a number of people who want strong gun control, but I'm not sure how large this group of people is. I usually equate them to Mother's Against Drunk Driving, who continue to try to essentially ban alcohol sales or consumption any time the issue is raised, and are very effective at keeping old anti-alcohol laws on the books (in several different states I've lived). They remain a minority, but a powerful one in that they can be relied upon to consistently fight for their beliefs, even though it is usually a losing battle.
The way I started, was I read books from people who were successful. Then messed around with their code. Then realized I wanted a new feature and added my own code, and then it was broken and I read more, etc.
I cannot imagine how watching someone type for hours is instructional, you could get well in to a book by that point.
I understand, I actually debugged an issue in my sleep three days ago. The solution came to me a few hours before my alarm went off, I opened my laptop, typed some stuff, problem solved. Back to blissful sleep.
Exciting stuff.
I don't know who does this, but I'm waiting for the market of "watching paint dry" to start picking up, then I'm buying a can of paint and charging $300 for an hour of viewing.
There's always idiots who want to make money running studies and put themselves in a position of being the arbiters of what should or should not be, but in most cases we can safely ignore them.