He wasn't talking about CEOs. Are you disputing that companies that offer exorbitant salaries will have an easier time attracting top talent, all else being equal? My experience is that the people who are "really good" often know it and expect to be compensated at a high level. Not unreasonable levels, but in the top part of the range for whatever position they're seeking. If you offer only the median salary and won't budge then this type of candidate will often go elsewhere, unless your company has some fantastic intangibles working in its favor.
If 90% of a country's population is deemed unworthy of jobs, the country is doomed.
This sounds like a great reason to let more people immigrate to the U.S. and become citizens who are worthy of jobs. The way Canada and Australia are doing it, basically.
I'm sympathetic to their philosophy. One of the biggest irritants at my job is having to work with people who don't know how to do theirs. If they were aware of their own limitations that would be one thing, but they're not. And, yes, my employer offers all the silly "perks" like an Xbox in the break room, free beer, etc. I'd trade that stuff for a team full of "A" players any day.
Python and/or Django: Instagram, reddit, YouTube, Disqus, Pinterest, bitbucket, The Onion, New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, Yahoo Maps, Battlefield 2, Civilization 4, etc...
Ruby and/or Rails: Hulu, Funny or Die, github, Groupon, Twitter (dropped due to scalability concerns), etc...
Fair enough. Per PyPL's numbers PHP has the most market share, but Python is right behind. And, whereas PHP is trending negatively, Python has a fairly significant upward trend. If both trends continue then Python and PHP should have swapped places by this time next year. At least Ruby's trend is flat here instead of negative. However, it has only a quarter of Python's share and and the gap projects to grow wider still. Your mileage may vary, but if it were me choosing one of these three in which to invest my time...I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go with Ruby.
Which metric? I included four candidates. Let's look at how perl fares on each, in order:
1. Google trend data for perl programming. That certainly doesn't bear out the assertion that perl's where its at. In fact, it looks more like the trend line for Ruby and PHP. Which is to say asymptotically approaching zero.
2. TIOBE. Perl doesn't fare very well here either, ranking 12th in Dec. 2013 after having ranked 9th in Dec. 2012. Python is stead at 8th. PHP is steady at 6th. Ruby looks more like perl, falling from 10th to 13th.
3. Jobs at LinkedIn. Perl: 132 results. Better than Ruby, but vastly less than Python and PHP.
4. Programmer perception survey. Specifically, the question "This language is likely to be around for a very long time." Python is rated most likely to be around for a long time, followed by perl, then Ruby, then PHP.
So I gotta ask...how does even one of these metrics suggest that Perl's future "outshines them all"?
And the "programmer perception" survey Berkeley did a while back (that I think was covered at Slashdot). Check out the results for the question "This language is likely to be around for a very long time".
Logging what? Just knowing that a MAC address attached to a particular access point doesn't get you from the MAC address to an actual human identity. Did they log what sites he connected to? Even that wouldn't get you all the way there. Log the actual content of packets?
Or is Harvard's WiFi network one those where you have to "log on" with an actual username/password, similar to what you see in hotels?
Heat map by county seems like too blunt an instrument. In every county I've lived in there have been pockets of concentrated wealth and pockets of extreme poverty. In the same county. Not sure how useful a county-wide average is.
The weak number of sign-ups undercuts two major defenses of Obamacare from its supporters. One defense was that state-based exchanges were performing a lot better than the federal healthcare.gov website servicing 36 states.
The average # of signups (per capita) from states w/ state exchanges still exceeds the # of signups (per capita) from states w/o a state exchange. So, in the aggregate, the state exchanges are still performing a lot better than healthcare.gov.
Another defense of the Obama administration has attributed the troubled rollout of Obamacare to the obstruction of Republican governors who wanted to see the law fail as well as a lack of funding. But Oregon is a Democratic state that embraced Obamacare early and enthusiastically.
If Oregon has an extraordinarily low # of signups because its website, like healthcare.gov, is nigh-unusable, how does that disprove the claim that the PPACA roll-out suffered because of obstructionism on the part of Republican governors? Couldn't both be true?
But if NASA weren't already going there, would it be worth spending a couple billion to investigate the pink unicorn? Probably not. That's what the soviets did.
You're right. NASA should totally fund an expedition to disprove the existence of the magical pink unicorn that many people have theorized lives on the dark side of the moon. Point being: yes, experiment, but sometimes even the decision to pursue a particular avenue of investigation is questionable.
I mentioned "guy who does phone tech support" as an example of someone we might not want to fast-track for citizenship. That is to say, if all the tech companies want to do is import "grunts" then those folks might not do much to increase the average productivity of "people living and working in the United States". The case for allowing unlimited immigration of less-than-superlatively-productive folks isn't quite as strong as the case for allowing unlimited immigration of superlatively-productive folks, so I went with the latter in an effort to find middle ground. Even someone who generally opposes increased ease-of-immigration should be able to recognize the benefit of importing a bunch of M.D.s, Ph.D.'s and highly-skilled tech workers.
Those guys apparently offer better ROI than your friend. If your friend worked for H1B money then he might have a job. Also, I call B.S. on not being able to get a job at Starbucks or Target. I regularly see older folks working in those positions. Maybe he should parlay his film experience and get a job at a specialty camera store? Or hell, somewhere like Fry's or Best Buy?
I've been in the software job market 14 years. Everyone I know who's good at what he or she does has a job. The two folks I know who have trouble staying employed are, not coincidentally, not that great at what they do. Nice people, just not great coders. And even they manage to stay employed 90% of the time. Both are over 45, btw.
Or allow employers to offer insurance that only pays out what Medicare doesn't cover first, for employes who are covered by Medicare. If Medicare is on the hook first then the expected health expenditures of an older employee (from the insurer's point of view) shouldn't be that out-of-whack compared to younger employees.
Attracting the best talent is good for an organization. The U.S. is an organization. If we suppose "increasing GDP per capita" is a worthwhile goal, then bringing in a bunch of highly productive people isn't a bad way to go about it. Now, "guy who does phone tech support" may not qualify, but "guy who earned a STEM Ph.D. or M.D. at a U.S. university" almost surely does. Those folks should be automatically fast-tracked for citizenship if it's something they're interested in.
Ah, but a monopoly scenario is a special case, and not something the person to whom I was replying specified. He wrote, "In what for-profit industry are profits deliberately left on the table? I'd like one admission to whatever planet you live on, please!" This seems to imply that a reduction in cost will never translate to a reduction in price because for-profit companies never "leave profits on the table". While that may be true in the case of a monopoly, it's not true in the general case.
Slashdot Mirror
He wasn't talking about CEOs. Are you disputing that companies that offer exorbitant salaries will have an easier time attracting top talent, all else being equal? My experience is that the people who are "really good" often know it and expect to be compensated at a high level. Not unreasonable levels, but in the top part of the range for whatever position they're seeking. If you offer only the median salary and won't budge then this type of candidate will often go elsewhere, unless your company has some fantastic intangibles working in its favor.
Conclusion: you did not, in fact, have an "A player". But you thought you did. Second conclusion: it's not always easy to identify true "A players".
This sounds like a great reason to let more people immigrate to the U.S. and become citizens who are worthy of jobs. The way Canada and Australia are doing it, basically.
I'm sympathetic to their philosophy. One of the biggest irritants at my job is having to work with people who don't know how to do theirs. If they were aware of their own limitations that would be one thing, but they're not. And, yes, my employer offers all the silly "perks" like an Xbox in the break room, free beer, etc. I'd trade that stuff for a team full of "A" players any day.
Python and/or Django: Instagram, reddit, YouTube, Disqus, Pinterest, bitbucket, The Onion, New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, Yahoo Maps, Battlefield 2, Civilization 4, etc...
Ruby and/or Rails: Hulu, Funny or Die, github, Groupon, Twitter (dropped due to scalability concerns), etc...
Instagram is Python apparently. Search for "Python" on that page.
Fair enough. Per PyPL's numbers PHP has the most market share, but Python is right behind. And, whereas PHP is trending negatively, Python has a fairly significant upward trend. If both trends continue then Python and PHP should have swapped places by this time next year. At least Ruby's trend is flat here instead of negative. However, it has only a quarter of Python's share and and the gap projects to grow wider still. Your mileage may vary, but if it were me choosing one of these three in which to invest my time...I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go with Ruby.
Which metric? I included four candidates. Let's look at how perl fares on each, in order:
1. Google trend data for perl programming. That certainly doesn't bear out the assertion that perl's where its at. In fact, it looks more like the trend line for Ruby and PHP. Which is to say asymptotically approaching zero.
2. TIOBE. Perl doesn't fare very well here either, ranking 12th in Dec. 2013 after having ranked 9th in Dec. 2012. Python is stead at 8th. PHP is steady at 6th. Ruby looks more like perl, falling from 10th to 13th.
3. Jobs at LinkedIn. Perl: 132 results. Better than Ruby, but vastly less than Python and PHP.
4. Programmer perception survey. Specifically, the question "This language is likely to be around for a very long time." Python is rated most likely to be around for a long time, followed by perl, then Ruby, then PHP.
So I gotta ask...how does even one of these metrics suggest that Perl's future "outshines them all"?
In the domain of language in which Ruby plays, I'd say Python has by far the brightest future.
Some graphs from google trends: ruby programming, python programming and php programming. Which one of these things is not like the others? (Hint: Python).
TIOBE data, questionable as it is.
Search for jobs at LinkedIn:
Ruby: 112 results
Python: 5,151 results
PHP: 3,046 results
And the "programmer perception" survey Berkeley did a while back (that I think was covered at Slashdot). Check out the results for the question "This language is likely to be around for a very long time".
I'm an American and, honestly, the NSA stuff ranks pretty low in the pantheon of "things to be concerned and/or outraged about".
Logging what? Just knowing that a MAC address attached to a particular access point doesn't get you from the MAC address to an actual human identity. Did they log what sites he connected to? Even that wouldn't get you all the way there. Log the actual content of packets?
Or is Harvard's WiFi network one those where you have to "log on" with an actual username/password, similar to what you see in hotels?
How did they get from "a MAC address connected to our wireless network that's accessing Tor" to "Mr. Kim"?
Heat map by county seems like too blunt an instrument. In every county I've lived in there have been pockets of concentrated wealth and pockets of extreme poverty. In the same county. Not sure how useful a county-wide average is.
That may all be true. If so, however, the lack of Republican obstructionism is not proven by blue-state Oregon's exchange failing to work properly.
The average # of signups (per capita) from states w/ state exchanges still exceeds the # of signups (per capita) from states w/o a state exchange. So, in the aggregate, the state exchanges are still performing a lot better than healthcare.gov.
If Oregon has an extraordinarily low # of signups because its website, like healthcare.gov, is nigh-unusable, how does that disprove the claim that the PPACA roll-out suffered because of obstructionism on the part of Republican governors? Couldn't both be true?
But if NASA weren't already going there, would it be worth spending a couple billion to investigate the pink unicorn? Probably not. That's what the soviets did.
You're right. NASA should totally fund an expedition to disprove the existence of the magical pink unicorn that many people have theorized lives on the dark side of the moon. Point being: yes, experiment, but sometimes even the decision to pursue a particular avenue of investigation is questionable.
I guess this goes to show you don't need religion to believe in nutty pseudoscience.
Was making a separate point. Regardless of the H1B situation, the U.S. should fast-track the most desirable would-be immigrants.
I mentioned "guy who does phone tech support" as an example of someone we might not want to fast-track for citizenship. That is to say, if all the tech companies want to do is import "grunts" then those folks might not do much to increase the average productivity of "people living and working in the United States". The case for allowing unlimited immigration of less-than-superlatively-productive folks isn't quite as strong as the case for allowing unlimited immigration of superlatively-productive folks, so I went with the latter in an effort to find middle ground. Even someone who generally opposes increased ease-of-immigration should be able to recognize the benefit of importing a bunch of M.D.s, Ph.D.'s and highly-skilled tech workers.
Those guys apparently offer better ROI than your friend. If your friend worked for H1B money then he might have a job. Also, I call B.S. on not being able to get a job at Starbucks or Target. I regularly see older folks working in those positions. Maybe he should parlay his film experience and get a job at a specialty camera store? Or hell, somewhere like Fry's or Best Buy?
I've been in the software job market 14 years. Everyone I know who's good at what he or she does has a job. The two folks I know who have trouble staying employed are, not coincidentally, not that great at what they do. Nice people, just not great coders. And even they manage to stay employed 90% of the time. Both are over 45, btw.
Or allow employers to offer insurance that only pays out what Medicare doesn't cover first, for employes who are covered by Medicare. If Medicare is on the hook first then the expected health expenditures of an older employee (from the insurer's point of view) shouldn't be that out-of-whack compared to younger employees.
Attracting the best talent is good for an organization. The U.S. is an organization. If we suppose "increasing GDP per capita" is a worthwhile goal, then bringing in a bunch of highly productive people isn't a bad way to go about it. Now, "guy who does phone tech support" may not qualify, but "guy who earned a STEM Ph.D. or M.D. at a U.S. university" almost surely does. Those folks should be automatically fast-tracked for citizenship if it's something they're interested in.
Ah, but a monopoly scenario is a special case, and not something the person to whom I was replying specified. He wrote, "In what for-profit industry are profits deliberately left on the table? I'd like one admission to whatever planet you live on, please!" This seems to imply that a reduction in cost will never translate to a reduction in price because for-profit companies never "leave profits on the table". While that may be true in the case of a monopoly, it's not true in the general case.