Not really. Or else every customer service rep could sue the employer that put him on the phone with a pissed off customer for the express purpose of receiving that customer's verbal abuse.
In my 14 years of working as a software developer I've never been the subject of a rant on the level of those Torvalds frequently dishes out. Per your conditional, perhaps that means I've never worked anywhere work was actually done. But I don't think that's the case.
Yes, that stuff happens. No, that stuff is not caused by treating people properly, as was requested of Torvalds. You can chew someone out for gross incompetence (which needs to happen sometimes) without being a jackass about it. Torvalds doesn't seem to think that's possible. Because he's a jackass.
He could do a fork and get ignored, regardless how effective a manager and/or developer he is. Torvalds' kernel is the official one. It's the one the committers are going to commit to, not some random guy's fork. There's inertia.
This. It's passive aggressive, but one option is to do whatever additional work is asked of you and just be late. When asked why the release was late, be honest: because {guy} told me to do {X}. Either some other stakeholder will tell {guy} to cool it with the requests, or, if {guy} is the only stakeholder and cares about releases being on time then he'll self-moderate. If he doesn't then he must not care about releases being on time.
It shouldn't. The only alternative I see is to handle requests on a FIFO basis (with no respect to how long a given request is going to take, since we don't want to sacrifice the minimal overhead of doing time estimates) and then just drop releases every so often and call whatever happened to get done between drops the contents of a given release. If a request originator asks you "What release do you expect will contain my request," you have no real way of answering, since you have no idea how long the other requests in the queue are going to take. You basically have to tell the originator, "We'll get to it when we get to it."
1. Before any work is done with respect to a given request it is first assigned to a developer.
2. The developer's first job is to estimate how long it will take to satisfy the request.
3. If the request is too vague for an estimate to be made then the developer conferences with the request's originator to get the information he needs.
4. Once a time estimate has been made, the developer communicates it to a project manager.
5. If the request can be accommodated without delaying the release then the project manager gives the go ahead for the work to begin.
6. If the request cannot be accommodated without delaying the release then the project manager conferences with its originator (and the originators of any other requests currently slated for the current release) to determine which will be dropped.
Might pay to make your resume as age-oblique as possible. Don't list what year you got your degree(s). Maybe leave off the dates of your work experience if your last 3-4 positions span a wide enough period to suggest your age. This is more disruptive, obviously, but if the market for tech jobs in your area was especially bad, maybe make your job search a nationwide one. The startup I was working for when the recession happened went kaput in March 2010, when national unemployment was 9.9%.. I spoke to a recruiter at the time, and his claim was that the local tech job market (Austin) was as good as its ever been over the various periods I've been between jobs. All that to say, that the national numbers are bad doesn't mean there isn't a market somewhere with jobs to be had.
The issue of age discrimination in the tech sector comes up a lot on Slashdot. Maybe it's just a Silicon Valley thing? I've worked in Austin my entire career, since leaving school, and finding jobs has gotten no more difficult as I've aged. In my current position and the couple that immediately precede it there's been someone in his late 40s or early 50s. And not in an architect level or managerial role, either.
In general, my experience is that employers will go with whoever presents the best value proposition regardless of that person's age. If you're only as valuable as a recent college graduate but cost 1.5x as much then, yeah, you're going to have trouble getting hired.
Puh-lease. And I say this as someone with a Maths degree: the vast, vast majority of college graduates would derive zero benefit from two semesters of calculus, even if they passed with top marks.
If anything, I'd rather them take a probability and statistics class. Discrete math. Something with a proof or two. But calculus? No thanks.
How big is the variance in profitability by store? That is to say, how much ground could B&N recover by simply closing all its unprofitable (or marginally profitable) locations? It would lose some economy of scale, but how much? Also curious to what extent Wal-Mart (and to a lesser extent Costco and Sam's) are to blame for B&N's troubles and not of Amazon. For instance, how has Wal-Mart's revenue (from books) changed over this same period?
I wonder where the sweet spot is in terms of efficiency. Carrying lots of batteries lets you more consistently provide power to your engines. At night, obviously, but also during cloud cover. But it also makes you a lot heavier. On land, that would mean you'd need to spend a lot more power to move yourself. Maybe not as big of a deal for craft that travel in water?
I'm curious what sort of time one could make with a small(ish) craft with a small(ish) battery that combines solar powered electric engines with traditional wind power.
Here's the full paragraph where she mentions "I'm a boring person...":
Perhaps I was not making myself clear, “No!” “Stop!” “I don’t want to do this!” Though the guy in question had carried on a conversation in English just fine as well as performed talks and training in English, perhaps he just couldn’t understand me when I tried to explain I’m a boring person who likes to get to know someone before intimacy. Also I like to begin with kissing and work my way up to the pants down action he was trying to initiate. Once he had my pants down and his pants down and was completely ignoring my shouting for him to stop, it suddenly became clear to me what was about to go down. If I didn’t do something I was going to be raped without protection in a foreign country.
So we have her telling the guy "No!". "Stop!". "I don't want to do this." He, having gotten both their pants down, ignores her "shouting for him to stop" and continues trying to penetrate her. According to the story, that's when she bites him and he responds by punching her in the face. Maybe her story is complete crap; but I don't see how you can read her version of events and come away with the impression that her use of violence wasn't self-defense against rape.
Not really. Her story is that he was continuing to undress her and/or trying to penetrate her after she told him in no uncertain terms to stop. Ergo he was in the process of committing a violent act (sexual assault) when she hit him. Again, if the story is accurate, her hitting him would be considered self-defense.
Maybe she wanted to have a drink? Maybe she thought they'd talk about the conference they were both attending. Maybe (gasp) she had considered having sex with him, but not in the scenario where he jumps on her as soon as the door's closed. Regardless, it's hard to envision the scenario where him punching her in the face is appropriate. His reaction is also strange. If someone accused me of rape (and especially if the accuser is the one who actually initiated the sexual encounter and/or attacked me first) I would raise hell to clear my name. I wouldn't just call her a nutjob and decline to comment.
There's also the matter that (if Weidman is to be believed) other women have found the guy similarly creepy in the past. That's by no means proof of anything, but it makes his denial of the current accusations somewhat less credible.
I think it's possible to rape someone as a pure power play without being aroused. In the majority of cases, however, I think the rapist gets is sexually aroused by the notion of dominating and humiliating the victim.
Gont's on camera going into her room. They both have injuries. Cops verified hers shortly after Gont left the scene. So you have a situation in which a guy goes into a woman's room, then gets into a brawl with her. I can't think of many ways that goes down without sexual assault being involved. Let's say he's totally in the clear and she attacked him for some unknown reason. Maybe she wanted sex and he didn't so she clocked him with a coffee mug. Okay. If a woman did that to me, I would probably not respond by punching her in the face. I'd just leave. Given Gont's and Weidman's relative builds, it's not like she could have stopped him.
While we don't have irrefutable proof that sexual assault occurred, it certainly fits the circumstances, and I'm at a loss to come up with an explanation in which Gont comes out clean.
Sure. But, then, one could argue the odds of a given person suffering due to (or even being inconvenienced by) algorithmic sifting of call metadata is also vanishingly small. Even lower if said person is not someone who engages in behaviors likely to increase his odds of being singled out.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Or else every customer service rep could sue the employer that put him on the phone with a pissed off customer for the express purpose of receiving that customer's verbal abuse.
In my 14 years of working as a software developer I've never been the subject of a rant on the level of those Torvalds frequently dishes out. Per your conditional, perhaps that means I've never worked anywhere work was actually done. But I don't think that's the case.
Yes, that stuff happens. No, that stuff is not caused by treating people properly, as was requested of Torvalds. You can chew someone out for gross incompetence (which needs to happen sometimes) without being a jackass about it. Torvalds doesn't seem to think that's possible. Because he's a jackass.
He could do a fork and get ignored, regardless how effective a manager and/or developer he is. Torvalds' kernel is the official one. It's the one the committers are going to commit to, not some random guy's fork. There's inertia.
This. It's passive aggressive, but one option is to do whatever additional work is asked of you and just be late. When asked why the release was late, be honest: because {guy} told me to do {X}. Either some other stakeholder will tell {guy} to cool it with the requests, or, if {guy} is the only stakeholder and cares about releases being on time then he'll self-moderate. If he doesn't then he must not care about releases being on time.
It shouldn't. The only alternative I see is to handle requests on a FIFO basis (with no respect to how long a given request is going to take, since we don't want to sacrifice the minimal overhead of doing time estimates) and then just drop releases every so often and call whatever happened to get done between drops the contents of a given release. If a request originator asks you "What release do you expect will contain my request," you have no real way of answering, since you have no idea how long the other requests in the queue are going to take. You basically have to tell the originator, "We'll get to it when we get to it."
1. Before any work is done with respect to a given request it is first assigned to a developer.
2. The developer's first job is to estimate how long it will take to satisfy the request.
3. If the request is too vague for an estimate to be made then the developer conferences with the request's originator to get the information he needs.
4. Once a time estimate has been made, the developer communicates it to a project manager.
5. If the request can be accommodated without delaying the release then the project manager gives the go ahead for the work to begin.
6. If the request cannot be accommodated without delaying the release then the project manager conferences with its originator (and the originators of any other requests currently slated for the current release) to determine which will be dropped.
Jay. I worked on the "Inventory" product from 99-04. It was part of "Configuration Manager". I miss the foosball.
I worked for IBM for five years. Tivoli, actually, but same difference. Fwiw I wore cargo shorts, Birkenstocks and t-shirts the whole time. :)
Might pay to make your resume as age-oblique as possible. Don't list what year you got your degree(s). Maybe leave off the dates of your work experience if your last 3-4 positions span a wide enough period to suggest your age. This is more disruptive, obviously, but if the market for tech jobs in your area was especially bad, maybe make your job search a nationwide one. The startup I was working for when the recession happened went kaput in March 2010, when national unemployment was 9.9%.. I spoke to a recruiter at the time, and his claim was that the local tech job market (Austin) was as good as its ever been over the various periods I've been between jobs. All that to say, that the national numbers are bad doesn't mean there isn't a market somewhere with jobs to be had.
Northern California also has many tech jobs (obviously), so in that sense they're similar.
I'm guessing its a reference to IBM having a sizable presence in the area?
The issue of age discrimination in the tech sector comes up a lot on Slashdot. Maybe it's just a Silicon Valley thing? I've worked in Austin my entire career, since leaving school, and finding jobs has gotten no more difficult as I've aged. In my current position and the couple that immediately precede it there's been someone in his late 40s or early 50s. And not in an architect level or managerial role, either.
In general, my experience is that employers will go with whoever presents the best value proposition regardless of that person's age. If you're only as valuable as a recent college graduate but cost 1.5x as much then, yeah, you're going to have trouble getting hired.
Puh-lease. And I say this as someone with a Maths degree: the vast, vast majority of college graduates would derive zero benefit from two semesters of calculus, even if they passed with top marks. If anything, I'd rather them take a probability and statistics class. Discrete math. Something with a proof or two. But calculus? No thanks.
How big is the variance in profitability by store? That is to say, how much ground could B&N recover by simply closing all its unprofitable (or marginally profitable) locations? It would lose some economy of scale, but how much? Also curious to what extent Wal-Mart (and to a lesser extent Costco and Sam's) are to blame for B&N's troubles and not of Amazon. For instance, how has Wal-Mart's revenue (from books) changed over this same period?
I wonder where the sweet spot is in terms of efficiency. Carrying lots of batteries lets you more consistently provide power to your engines. At night, obviously, but also during cloud cover. But it also makes you a lot heavier. On land, that would mean you'd need to spend a lot more power to move yourself. Maybe not as big of a deal for craft that travel in water?
I'm curious what sort of time one could make with a small(ish) craft with a small(ish) battery that combines solar powered electric engines with traditional wind power.
Here's the full paragraph where she mentions "I'm a boring person...":
So we have her telling the guy "No!". "Stop!". "I don't want to do this." He, having gotten both their pants down, ignores her "shouting for him to stop" and continues trying to penetrate her. According to the story, that's when she bites him and he responds by punching her in the face. Maybe her story is complete crap; but I don't see how you can read her version of events and come away with the impression that her use of violence wasn't self-defense against rape.
Not everyone's standards are as high as yours.
Not really. Her story is that he was continuing to undress her and/or trying to penetrate her after she told him in no uncertain terms to stop. Ergo he was in the process of committing a violent act (sexual assault) when she hit him. Again, if the story is accurate, her hitting him would be considered self-defense.
Maybe she wanted to have a drink? Maybe she thought they'd talk about the conference they were both attending. Maybe (gasp) she had considered having sex with him, but not in the scenario where he jumps on her as soon as the door's closed. Regardless, it's hard to envision the scenario where him punching her in the face is appropriate. His reaction is also strange. If someone accused me of rape (and especially if the accuser is the one who actually initiated the sexual encounter and/or attacked me first) I would raise hell to clear my name. I wouldn't just call her a nutjob and decline to comment.
There's also the matter that (if Weidman is to be believed) other women have found the guy similarly creepy in the past. That's by no means proof of anything, but it makes his denial of the current accusations somewhat less credible.
I think it's possible to rape someone as a pure power play without being aroused. In the majority of cases, however, I think the rapist gets is sexually aroused by the notion of dominating and humiliating the victim.
Not even.
I'd say it's about both. Some people get off on exerting power over and/or humiliating others.
Gont's on camera going into her room. They both have injuries. Cops verified hers shortly after Gont left the scene. So you have a situation in which a guy goes into a woman's room, then gets into a brawl with her. I can't think of many ways that goes down without sexual assault being involved. Let's say he's totally in the clear and she attacked him for some unknown reason. Maybe she wanted sex and he didn't so she clocked him with a coffee mug. Okay. If a woman did that to me, I would probably not respond by punching her in the face. I'd just leave. Given Gont's and Weidman's relative builds, it's not like she could have stopped him.
While we don't have irrefutable proof that sexual assault occurred, it certainly fits the circumstances, and I'm at a loss to come up with an explanation in which Gont comes out clean.
Sure. But, then, one could argue the odds of a given person suffering due to (or even being inconvenienced by) algorithmic sifting of call metadata is also vanishingly small. Even lower if said person is not someone who engages in behaviors likely to increase his odds of being singled out.