Moreover: because many Slashdot posters dispute the narrative, lawsuits like this are of interest to them. From their perspective the suit represents feminism and/or political correctness run amok. So, to them, stories like this are "newsworthy" for that reason. They "care" when, from their perspective, an aggrieved SJW tries to ruin the career of a successful Tech CEO by filing a frivolous sexual harassment suit.
You assume that the intent of posting the story was "to demonstrate...". Not sure I grant that. The narrative is a thing. This relates to the narrative. Ergo its news.
Because it happened at a Bay Area startup, and there is an ongoing narrative about how tech startups are especially bad about sexual harassment. Whether that narrative is true or not, that's why this is "news for nerds". Tech Crunch also thought so.
Duggan is no prize. Kim's LinkedIn page. Not that it matters w.r.t. to her allegations, but I'd rate her above him in terms of physical attractiveness.
You're missing the point. He's equating the denial of vaccines to the denial of life-saving medical care. Do you assert that a parent has a right to deny life-saving medical care? For instance, if your child gashes his arm and is going to bleed out, and you instruct medical personnel not to patch him up because you believe stitches cause cancer, and he then bleeds out and dies, that doesn't harm me or my children. But I still have an interest, because to my mind you harmed your own children. It's the same reason I support laws that criminalize child abuse. We both likely support "imposing our views" on parents who think it's okay to mutilate their daughters' genitals. Parents do not have a right to deny "medically necessary" care to their children when there is no credible reason to do so.
What makes vaccines tricky is that they're preventative and aren't addressing any immediate medical concern. So the question now becomes, do parents have a right to deny preventative care to their children that is designed to prevent conditions that are, in most cases, not life-threatening? Also possibly the question of whether there is any credible reason to opt out of specific vaccinations. In my case, with my first child, we opted not to vaccinate him for Hepatitis B until he was about to enter school. Reasoning: HepB is primarily transmitted by shared needles and sex, not likely modes of transmission for a toddler, and I'd read a peer-reviewed study showing an elevated risk of childhood asthma in children who received the HepB vaccination as infants. Both my wife and I already have asthma, so our children already have an elevated risk due to heredity.
From the point of view of "bodily integrity", which is frequently invoked in defense of legal abortion, I'm not sure how one can support this ruling. That said, France could ban unvaccinnated children from public schools (and/or adults from university) and that wouldn't violate anyone's bodily integrity.
If someone gets my CC# and charges stuff then my CC company absorbs the loss. By paying cash you're giving up 2% cash back. That's not a price I'm willing to pay. I'd love if it I could pay *everything* on my credit card. Mortgage, property tax, etc. Want those sweet, sweet rewards.
Plans can be somewhat small-scale. "I am going to college". Not sure where, not sure what I'll study, etc. Or possibly, "I'm going to get a job as a waiter." Something besides, "I'm going to spend a lot more time playing video games now that I don't have to go to school anymore."
I intended the question to be from the perspective of "I'm going to build a team" not "I already have a team". So, there's no current team whose skills need to be taken into consideration. The question basically boils down to: given set standards of quality, scalability and time-to-release, which language/framework allows me to spend the least amount of money on a team of developers. Both now, and five years from now. Wouldn't wan to pick a language/framework that's a flash in the pan and for which it will be difficult (read: expensive) to find devs 5-10 years down the road.
What would be your go-to language+framework if you wanted to build a web application + restful API that needed an ORM layer to an RDBMS? This is an honest question; I don't ask rhetorically in order to imply that RoR is still the best option. Just curious what people think is the best option in 2017 for this type of project.
1. Power-on password that's reasonably (but not stupidly) strong.
2. Full-disk encryption.
3. External backups of critical data.
4. Mitigate risk of theft happening in the first place.
To be fair, I only do #1 and #4 currently. Though I'm supposed to be doing #2 as part of company policy.
For sure, doing UI and/or numerical stuff in Java isn't great. Could definitely see Python taking over those situations. My point of reference is that of someone who's done Java and Ruby dev, but not Python per se. I find that when working with Ruby code I make stupid mistakes that a Java IDE+compiler would have caught immediately. I also find that refactoring is actually easier in Java land due to all the things most popular Java IDEs do for you. Renaming things, changing includes, etc.
I could see it supplanting Java in some situations and utterly obliterating Ruby and PHP. That said, I like compilers, even if they're compiling to byte code. And I don't find refactoring to be a chore. Especially when your IDE does some of the more mundane tasks for you.
Wow. You're me. I actually ask that "what happens when you type a URL into your web browser" question in interviews. Though, I don't expect to get back quite the level of detail you do. In fact, I'm not sure I could produce that level of detail myself. The main things I'm looking for are knowledge of the fact that name resolution happens, that the TCP handshake happens, TLS handshake happens, that a HTTP request of a certain form is encrypted and sent over the now-secure connection, that a response is read and decrypted, which then prompts subsequent requests.
Personally I'm somewhat poor at interviewing, so I tend to cut people some slack in that regard. But the distinction between an employer that knows they're not doing a great job and one that's completely clueless is important. I'm also a fan of being slightly less selective during the interview process and just bringing people on-board as contract-to-hire, with the understanding that less than 100% of people who arrive that way are eventually going to matriculate as full-time employees. I get that candidates don't like that, though, and in a competitive market it might not be feasible to expect.
Like you I'm pushing my employer to upgrade our GitLab installation. We currently run a really old version (7.10) that's not omnibus and wasn't even installed via the OS package manager, so it's a nightmare to upgrade. I've tried and failed a couple times. Consequently I'm recommending we ditch our local instance altogether and migrate to the hosted offering at gitlab.com, saving me the hassle of maintaining the thing.
They seem to be rated highly on the sites that track that stuff, but I guess it could be astroturfing. I plugged my info into their calculator and the high end of what it spit out was ~$5k less than I make now. Good point on relocating; seems like they'd have to adjust, or people would just game the process. What makes me consider applying is that one of the positions they have open matches my skill set better than probably any job I've ever had or applied for. Which would be nice for a change.
Only companies I've heard of paying $500k for "developers" (i.e. not "Director of Development" or "CTO") are trading firms doing quant stuff. Even then it's a stretch. But I should have been clearer: companies prefer "high-ROI" to "low-ROI". Not absolute cheap vs. absolute expensive. And employers' ROI formula differs from older workers' formula in that employers value experience less than older workers do. Hence the angst.
In my experience if you do mediocre quality work, are personable and have a good attitude, don't ask for too much money, and don't insist on doing the most exciting work, then you can almost always find a development job regardless of age. That description fits many of my coworkers.
Yeah. Disagree with almost everything you said. Almost everywhere I've worked, going to your manager with an offer in hand and issuing an ultimatum gets you fired. Even if they like you. Because it demonstrates a lack of loyalty, and suggests that you're probably pretty close to leaving anyway. You might get your demands met in the short term, if you're indispensable, but you can guarantee the first order of business will be to make you dispensable so that you can be replaced.
On the other hand, if I make a case during my annual review that I deserve to be compensated at a higher level, and can actually support that argument, and don't phrase it as an ultimatum, then I'm much more likely to get something in return. Maybe not exactly what I asked for, but something.
Younger people can work much, much longer hours than you.
They can, yes. Do they? Not in my experience. The technical staff where I work (Fin Tech) is pretty diverse age-wise. Many of the younger folks are the out-by-5pm type. Some of the older folks are the committing-stuff-at-2am type. This particular employer doesn't expect people to work crazy hours, so to the extent people do, it's purely a personal choice.
If I make an offer to you, am I being greedy to offer you $100k instead of $110k? $110k instead of $120k? Etc.? Where does it stop? Employers always want to pay their staff as little as possible. Staff want to be paid as much as possible. Hence the dance of negotiation, trying to estimate what those similar to one's self are being paid, etc. It seems stupid to characterize "wanting to lower personnel costs" as "greed".
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover: because many Slashdot posters dispute the narrative, lawsuits like this are of interest to them. From their perspective the suit represents feminism and/or political correctness run amok. So, to them, stories like this are "newsworthy" for that reason. They "care" when, from their perspective, an aggrieved SJW tries to ruin the career of a successful Tech CEO by filing a frivolous sexual harassment suit.
You assume that the intent of posting the story was "to demonstrate ...". Not sure I grant that. The narrative is a thing. This relates to the narrative. Ergo its news.
Because it happened at a Bay Area startup, and there is an ongoing narrative about how tech startups are especially bad about sexual harassment. Whether that narrative is true or not, that's why this is "news for nerds". Tech Crunch also thought so.
Duggan is no prize. Kim's LinkedIn page. Not that it matters w.r.t. to her allegations, but I'd rate her above him in terms of physical attractiveness.
You're missing the point. He's equating the denial of vaccines to the denial of life-saving medical care. Do you assert that a parent has a right to deny life-saving medical care? For instance, if your child gashes his arm and is going to bleed out, and you instruct medical personnel not to patch him up because you believe stitches cause cancer, and he then bleeds out and dies, that doesn't harm me or my children. But I still have an interest, because to my mind you harmed your own children. It's the same reason I support laws that criminalize child abuse. We both likely support "imposing our views" on parents who think it's okay to mutilate their daughters' genitals. Parents do not have a right to deny "medically necessary" care to their children when there is no credible reason to do so.
What makes vaccines tricky is that they're preventative and aren't addressing any immediate medical concern. So the question now becomes, do parents have a right to deny preventative care to their children that is designed to prevent conditions that are, in most cases, not life-threatening? Also possibly the question of whether there is any credible reason to opt out of specific vaccinations. In my case, with my first child, we opted not to vaccinate him for Hepatitis B until he was about to enter school. Reasoning: HepB is primarily transmitted by shared needles and sex, not likely modes of transmission for a toddler, and I'd read a peer-reviewed study showing an elevated risk of childhood asthma in children who received the HepB vaccination as infants. Both my wife and I already have asthma, so our children already have an elevated risk due to heredity.
From the point of view of "bodily integrity", which is frequently invoked in defense of legal abortion, I'm not sure how one can support this ruling. That said, France could ban unvaccinnated children from public schools (and/or adults from university) and that wouldn't violate anyone's bodily integrity.
If someone gets my CC# and charges stuff then my CC company absorbs the loss. By paying cash you're giving up 2% cash back. That's not a price I'm willing to pay. I'd love if it I could pay *everything* on my credit card. Mortgage, property tax, etc. Want those sweet, sweet rewards.
Plans can be somewhat small-scale. "I am going to college". Not sure where, not sure what I'll study, etc. Or possibly, "I'm going to get a job as a waiter." Something besides, "I'm going to spend a lot more time playing video games now that I don't have to go to school anymore."
I intended the question to be from the perspective of "I'm going to build a team" not "I already have a team". So, there's no current team whose skills need to be taken into consideration. The question basically boils down to: given set standards of quality, scalability and time-to-release, which language/framework allows me to spend the least amount of money on a team of developers. Both now, and five years from now. Wouldn't wan to pick a language/framework that's a flash in the pan and for which it will be difficult (read: expensive) to find devs 5-10 years down the road.
Python + Django? Node.js + Meteor? Node.js + Sails? Java + Spring? Java + Tapestry? Whatever Microsoft's solution is?
What would be your go-to language+framework if you wanted to build a web application + restful API that needed an ORM layer to an RDBMS? This is an honest question; I don't ask rhetorically in order to imply that RoR is still the best option. Just curious what people think is the best option in 2017 for this type of project.
1. Power-on password that's reasonably (but not stupidly) strong.
2. Full-disk encryption.
3. External backups of critical data.
4. Mitigate risk of theft happening in the first place.
To be fair, I only do #1 and #4 currently. Though I'm supposed to be doing #2 as part of company policy.
For sure, doing UI and/or numerical stuff in Java isn't great. Could definitely see Python taking over those situations. My point of reference is that of someone who's done Java and Ruby dev, but not Python per se. I find that when working with Ruby code I make stupid mistakes that a Java IDE+compiler would have caught immediately. I also find that refactoring is actually easier in Java land due to all the things most popular Java IDEs do for you. Renaming things, changing includes, etc.
I could see it supplanting Java in some situations and utterly obliterating Ruby and PHP. That said, I like compilers, even if they're compiling to byte code. And I don't find refactoring to be a chore. Especially when your IDE does some of the more mundane tasks for you.
See (b) (1) B, C and D here.
Wow. You're me. I actually ask that "what happens when you type a URL into your web browser" question in interviews. Though, I don't expect to get back quite the level of detail you do. In fact, I'm not sure I could produce that level of detail myself. The main things I'm looking for are knowledge of the fact that name resolution happens, that the TCP handshake happens, TLS handshake happens, that a HTTP request of a certain form is encrypted and sent over the now-secure connection, that a response is read and decrypted, which then prompts subsequent requests.
Personally I'm somewhat poor at interviewing, so I tend to cut people some slack in that regard. But the distinction between an employer that knows they're not doing a great job and one that's completely clueless is important. I'm also a fan of being slightly less selective during the interview process and just bringing people on-board as contract-to-hire, with the understanding that less than 100% of people who arrive that way are eventually going to matriculate as full-time employees. I get that candidates don't like that, though, and in a competitive market it might not be feasible to expect.
Like you I'm pushing my employer to upgrade our GitLab installation. We currently run a really old version (7.10) that's not omnibus and wasn't even installed via the OS package manager, so it's a nightmare to upgrade. I've tried and failed a couple times. Consequently I'm recommending we ditch our local instance altogether and migrate to the hosted offering at gitlab.com, saving me the hassle of maintaining the thing.
I have zero problem with this. In fact, I wish more schools did this. Maybe people wouldn't be such idiots online.
They seem to be rated highly on the sites that track that stuff, but I guess it could be astroturfing. I plugged my info into their calculator and the high end of what it spit out was ~$5k less than I make now. Good point on relocating; seems like they'd have to adjust, or people would just game the process. What makes me consider applying is that one of the positions they have open matches my skill set better than probably any job I've ever had or applied for. Which would be nice for a change.
Any GitLab employees here? Would be interested to know your experience working for a 100% remote company.
Word salad. Though, this kind of makes me want to print up a T-shirt that says "Proud Globalist" and wear it around town.
Austin. 5 year old FinTech startup with ~100 employees. Literally nobody works 80/wk. Maybe 55/wk tops.
Only companies I've heard of paying $500k for "developers" (i.e. not "Director of Development" or "CTO") are trading firms doing quant stuff. Even then it's a stretch. But I should have been clearer: companies prefer "high-ROI" to "low-ROI". Not absolute cheap vs. absolute expensive. And employers' ROI formula differs from older workers' formula in that employers value experience less than older workers do. Hence the angst.
In my experience if you do mediocre quality work, are personable and have a good attitude, don't ask for too much money, and don't insist on doing the most exciting work, then you can almost always find a development job regardless of age. That description fits many of my coworkers.
Yeah. Disagree with almost everything you said. Almost everywhere I've worked, going to your manager with an offer in hand and issuing an ultimatum gets you fired. Even if they like you. Because it demonstrates a lack of loyalty, and suggests that you're probably pretty close to leaving anyway. You might get your demands met in the short term, if you're indispensable, but you can guarantee the first order of business will be to make you dispensable so that you can be replaced.
On the other hand, if I make a case during my annual review that I deserve to be compensated at a higher level, and can actually support that argument, and don't phrase it as an ultimatum, then I'm much more likely to get something in return. Maybe not exactly what I asked for, but something.
They can, yes. Do they? Not in my experience. The technical staff where I work (Fin Tech) is pretty diverse age-wise. Many of the younger folks are the out-by-5pm type. Some of the older folks are the committing-stuff-at-2am type. This particular employer doesn't expect people to work crazy hours, so to the extent people do, it's purely a personal choice.
If I make an offer to you, am I being greedy to offer you $100k instead of $110k? $110k instead of $120k? Etc.? Where does it stop? Employers always want to pay their staff as little as possible. Staff want to be paid as much as possible. Hence the dance of negotiation, trying to estimate what those similar to one's self are being paid, etc. It seems stupid to characterize "wanting to lower personnel costs" as "greed".