That doesn't mean she won't hire someone who doesn't rate diversity as their #1 life goal, but if someone point-blank denies (âoeWe ask [Reddit job candidates] what they think about diversity, and we did weed people out because of that.â) that equality has any value then perhaps they wouldn't work out
If "I am not concerned about diversity" is a reason for rejecting someone then I wouldn't get a job there.
I'm not concerned about diversity. I work in a very diverse organisation, with people representing most shades of human skin, almost every continent, multiple languages and at least three genders. Why would I be concerned, it's a total fucking non-issue.
After all, it's public info, and never changes per hire.
I should maybe RTFA but why would you assume that?
You apply for a job, you have two years experience in the role, four years experience with the technology, good educational credentials, you talk articulately, you have charm and gravitas, you demonstrate business acumen and you have great references. Some other twat applies for the same job, has the same role experience, similar education, comparable inter-personal skills, business understanding and references. They've just never touched that technology before.
If I need two people I may well offer you both a job, in the same role. I'm sure as shit not going to offer you the same salary.
Most roles includes elements of sales, marketing and other negotiation.
When my boss tells me, "Do this by tomorrow!" it's the opening of a negotiation. "Do this" tells me he doesn't think it's optional, "by tomorrow" means he has a deadline in mind.
I have 98 different ways of responding, only one of which is doing "this" by tomorrow, at least 60 of which retain a respectful professional courteous relationship with my boss. All are options and most require negotiation skills.
I got a massive payrise with my current job. Gross salary was mildly higher but average hours are 10 fewer a week.
Thing is, contracted hours are 35 hours a week, and I average nearer 45. But it's a salaried role, and it pays a decent amount, and 'getting the job done' is a core element of the role. So there's no explicit demand for long hours but it's something that was managed through gentle hints and acknowledgements from both sides during interview.
Similarly because I'm not paid by the hour, if I decide to go home at 2pm tomorrow my boss wont even notice. He doesn't care. The reality is that I wont, because I'm not even going into the office tomorrow. I'll get up, feed the cats, make some coffee, write a briefing for the COO, play with the cats, document a process, the way I'm going to optimise it and the benefits that provides then go and sit in the garden in the sun with the cats.
No idea whether that'll be 11am or 6pm but probably somewhere in between. What matters is getting those two documents complete, and I've already negotiated the deadline on one and planned in the other to give me the flexibility and time to deliver both while it's still sunny.
If they don't have another offer, are they sure they want that person?
I took my current job without even applying anywhere else. I knew I wanted to work here, I waited until they had the right role available, I set sensible expectations around the total package, and they set sensible expectations too.
They welcomed the fact that I'd applied directly to them, that I wasn't merely farming for a higher salary, that I knew and wanted to work there and that I could articulate the value they'd get from employing me.
Why would a lack of alternate offers be a factor in their decision whether to offer me a job?
There's a reason I'm averaging about 9% yearly raises.
Not a good one - just out of college you should be getting far more than 9% annual increments.
Incidentally, rewriting an existing system is far easier than building it the first time, with poor constantly changing requirements, resource shortages, new technology, inadequate data and four other concurrent tasks.
Almost all questions where CS 101 questions, like "How do you implement quicksort?"
How did they react to, "By calling the library that implements it" ?
To be fair to Google, they're one of the few companies that might need to implement a new algorithm because existing ones aren't sufficiently optimal. But then it wouldn't be quicksort..
Google was a technology company with software severely in advance of anybody else operating globally long before they ever had media services.
They continue to design and build their own hardware, and design, build, publish and share software that still breaks new ground, that other people rely on, that other companies buy and that underpins the traffic that generates their ad revenue.
To pretend they don't produce a technology product demonstrates a naivety and ignorance that makes it surprising you even got offered the interview.
Expensive research, inspired innovation and extensive testing to assure reliable, robust and effective radio equipment should definitely be worth more than fucking obvious "do more than accidentally touch the screen to unlock" elementary design.
So I agree entirely that there's a difference, and so do the standards bodies - they don't need a standard for sliding as it's such a trivial thing to think of, design and implement.
After all, nobody is forced to comply with the standards, and anybody that participated in the R&D efforts behind them will benefit from the shared patent pool incorporated within them so it's not an undue burden on the companies that invested in the technology behind the standard. Unlike something as asinine as slide to unlock, where any attempt to charge another company would be pathetic anti-competitive abuse of an illegitimate government granted monopoly.
Lovely to be able to agree with someone on Slashdot for once.
Avoiding use of land because random fuckwit thinks it's "holy" is asinine. My church says that a telescope is the pinnacle of sanctity and any holy site is utterly incomplete without one, and although I just invented my church is has every bit as much legitimacy as some millenia old superstition.
You need more context than that. There is no simple maximum number of pixels everyone can distinguish. There are limits, but limits are better expressed in DPI.
Nah, unnecessary. 4000 pixels will only fit into the main part of your vision (the part capable of picking out detail) within a certain distance.
If that distance is further than most (all?) humans can pick out individual pixels then automatically 4000 is more than anybody actually needs if they're using a fullscreen device.
There will be a specific number of pixels at which the distance from observer to keep them all in vision exceeds the distance at which pixel level detail can be discerned by the observer. That distance will vary by individual, but someone with the time to research human vision could calculate the number of pixels at which 99.99% of humans can't discern them.
The other 0.01% of humans would naturally be the noisy ones on the internet about it, but you can't win them all.
I'm using an Asus with 100% sRGB and it's perfectly adequate. Not noticed any banding in Lightroom or in the sRGB JPGs I publish to the web.
If anything displaying everything in sRGB kind of helps my workflow - I don't need a preview step to check the output still matches my expectations. But I don't use expensive printers that support a wider gamut than sRGB..
I'm only at 2560x1440 on a 27" screen from a distance of around 50cm and I can't tell individual pixels.
At that distance anything physically larger would require me to pan my head to view, so I'm happy sticking with a 27-28" screen size, so 4K might be useful but 8K doesn't seem to add any value at all.
I haven't even gone for 4K because I use my PC for gaming, and we're a card generation away from top-end 4K graphics, but I'm tempted anyway as it would be nice for photo editing.
As an individual response, rather than identifying and addressing the arguments and actions with which you disagree, yes it's lazy and a rather unconstructive contribution.
As identification of a group of people it's a useful categorisation - there definitely is a trend for contentious issues to draw attention from people that leap to conclusions, make false inferences, overreact to even genuine concerns and try to stifle debate and non-conformant voices. Where the contentious issues are related to race, female rights, sexual preference or other fashionable causes it's useful to be able to group the diverse and complex mix of people as a homogenous viewpoint and SJW facilitates that.
When the issue is male rights the equivalent term is MRA, and the fact that there is a different term to cover the same behaviour kind of underlines why it's useful to be able to challenge the whole SJW/MRA culture without needing to make it personal by attacking the individuals within it.
I think where some people go wrong (usually those in one of those two groups, but not necessarily those accused of so being) is in thinking that anybody proposing equal treatment across gender, race, etc must be a SJW/MRA. A lot of women still pursue equality but fear and reject third wave feminism and a number of men are concerned by the marginalisation and lack of opportunity for boys and young men in particular, while also supporting egalitarianism and gender equality.
It's those voices that add value to the debate but get increasingly attacked by.. well, by SJWs and MRAs. See, useful label and not just because I'm being lazy.
If 80% of the people at the water fight soak whoever they see, everyone gets a bit wet and has fun. If the other 20% focus their fire on one individual, that person has no fun and get soaked.
Bringing a water cannon is the reasonable response, and if it kills the event, they've lost nothing - they weren't getting anything from the event in the first place.
You're complaining that Sad Puppies have retaliated with a potentially nuclear option, instead of acknowledging that they're just retaliating.
Looks like the Hugo award is doomed to be suspect and less relevant already anyway - not because of the Sad Puppies activity, but because it's highlighted the extant flaws in the whole process.
Labelling them, yes, and I agree with you, most of them probably don't self identify.
I'm not sure use of the label is to shut down debate though. Calling out idiocy is easier if you can classify it; that doesn't prevent the idiots attempting to explain or justify their apparent idiocy, and if anything it gives them a greater understanding of why you think they're being idiots.
Hmm. The labs at my university were open around 355 days of the year, 24 hours.
There was a nominal "no eating" rule but that was generally acknowledged to mean "get the pizza delivered to the lobby and eat there". Snacks, up to and including takeaway sausage and chips were fine after hours, and there were so many drinks we'd help the cleaner gather up the empties when she arrived at 7am.
Of course, this was back when the university computers were seriously more powerful than anything people could afford at home..
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mean she won't hire someone who doesn't rate diversity as their #1 life goal, but if someone point-blank denies (âoeWe ask [Reddit job candidates] what they think about diversity, and we did weed people out because of that.â) that equality has any value then perhaps they wouldn't work out
If "I am not concerned about diversity" is a reason for rejecting someone then I wouldn't get a job there.
I'm not concerned about diversity. I work in a very diverse organisation, with people representing most shades of human skin, almost every continent, multiple languages and at least three genders. Why would I be concerned, it's a total fucking non-issue.
Well, they have restructured the negotiation process. It's now extremely streamlined, and entirely gender neutral.
What would be significantly more interesting to see is how they determine the salary offered :)
After all, it's public info, and never changes per hire.
I should maybe RTFA but why would you assume that?
You apply for a job, you have two years experience in the role, four years experience with the technology, good educational credentials, you talk articulately, you have charm and gravitas, you demonstrate business acumen and you have great references.
Some other twat applies for the same job, has the same role experience, similar education, comparable inter-personal skills, business understanding and references. They've just never touched that technology before.
If I need two people I may well offer you both a job, in the same role. I'm sure as shit not going to offer you the same salary.
Most roles includes elements of sales, marketing and other negotiation.
When my boss tells me, "Do this by tomorrow!" it's the opening of a negotiation. "Do this" tells me he doesn't think it's optional, "by tomorrow" means he has a deadline in mind.
I have 98 different ways of responding, only one of which is doing "this" by tomorrow, at least 60 of which retain a respectful professional courteous relationship with my boss. All are options and most require negotiation skills.
I got a massive payrise with my current job. Gross salary was mildly higher but average hours are 10 fewer a week.
Thing is, contracted hours are 35 hours a week, and I average nearer 45. But it's a salaried role, and it pays a decent amount, and 'getting the job done' is a core element of the role. So there's no explicit demand for long hours but it's something that was managed through gentle hints and acknowledgements from both sides during interview.
Similarly because I'm not paid by the hour, if I decide to go home at 2pm tomorrow my boss wont even notice. He doesn't care. The reality is that I wont, because I'm not even going into the office tomorrow. I'll get up, feed the cats, make some coffee, write a briefing for the COO, play with the cats, document a process, the way I'm going to optimise it and the benefits that provides then go and sit in the garden in the sun with the cats.
No idea whether that'll be 11am or 6pm but probably somewhere in between. What matters is getting those two documents complete, and I've already negotiated the deadline on one and planned in the other to give me the flexibility and time to deliver both while it's still sunny.
If they don't have another offer, are they sure they want that person?
I took my current job without even applying anywhere else. I knew I wanted to work here, I waited until they had the right role available, I set sensible expectations around the total package, and they set sensible expectations too.
They welcomed the fact that I'd applied directly to them, that I wasn't merely farming for a higher salary, that I knew and wanted to work there and that I could articulate the value they'd get from employing me.
Why would a lack of alternate offers be a factor in their decision whether to offer me a job?
There's a reason I'm averaging about 9% yearly raises.
Not a good one - just out of college you should be getting far more than 9% annual increments.
Incidentally, rewriting an existing system is far easier than building it the first time, with poor constantly changing requirements, resource shortages, new technology, inadequate data and four other concurrent tasks.
Almost all questions where CS 101 questions, like "How do you implement quicksort?"
How did they react to, "By calling the library that implements it" ?
To be fair to Google, they're one of the few companies that might need to implement a new algorithm because existing ones aren't sufficiently optimal. But then it wouldn't be quicksort..
Fucking hell, how young are you?
Google was a technology company with software severely in advance of anybody else operating globally long before they ever had media services.
They continue to design and build their own hardware, and design, build, publish and share software that still breaks new ground, that other people rely on, that other companies buy and that underpins the traffic that generates their ad revenue.
To pretend they don't produce a technology product demonstrates a naivety and ignorance that makes it surprising you even got offered the interview.
Oh, it's easy to design and build a fairly safe and secure manhole cover.
Making it as cheap and idiot proof as a simple round one however..
This is an excellent point.
Expensive research, inspired innovation and extensive testing to assure reliable, robust and effective radio equipment should definitely be worth more than fucking obvious "do more than accidentally touch the screen to unlock" elementary design.
So I agree entirely that there's a difference, and so do the standards bodies - they don't need a standard for sliding as it's such a trivial thing to think of, design and implement.
After all, nobody is forced to comply with the standards, and anybody that participated in the R&D efforts behind them will benefit from the shared patent pool incorporated within them so it's not an undue burden on the companies that invested in the technology behind the standard. Unlike something as asinine as slide to unlock, where any attempt to charge another company would be pathetic anti-competitive abuse of an illegitimate government granted monopoly.
Lovely to be able to agree with someone on Slashdot for once.
Avoiding use of land because random fuckwit thinks it's "holy" is asinine. My church says that a telescope is the pinnacle of sanctity and any holy site is utterly incomplete without one, and although I just invented my church is has every bit as much legitimacy as some millenia old superstition.
You need more context than that. There is no simple maximum number of pixels everyone can distinguish. There are limits, but limits are better expressed in DPI.
Nah, unnecessary. 4000 pixels will only fit into the main part of your vision (the part capable of picking out detail) within a certain distance.
If that distance is further than most (all?) humans can pick out individual pixels then automatically 4000 is more than anybody actually needs if they're using a fullscreen device.
There will be a specific number of pixels at which the distance from observer to keep them all in vision exceeds the distance at which pixel level detail can be discerned by the observer. That distance will vary by individual, but someone with the time to research human vision could calculate the number of pixels at which 99.99% of humans can't discern them.
The other 0.01% of humans would naturally be the noisy ones on the internet about it, but you can't win them all.
No. This is why none of the 4K standards are 4000 pixels across.
On the flipside, as an interim measure 3840x2160 should provide easier higher quality upscaling of 1920x1080 source material.
Not much use if you want to watch 4K films though, agreed.
Hmm. Apple don't offer a wide-gamut monitor?
I'm using an Asus with 100% sRGB and it's perfectly adequate. Not noticed any banding in Lightroom or in the sRGB JPGs I publish to the web.
If anything displaying everything in sRGB kind of helps my workflow - I don't need a preview step to check the output still matches my expectations. But I don't use expensive printers that support a wider gamut than sRGB..
I'm only at 2560x1440 on a 27" screen from a distance of around 50cm and I can't tell individual pixels.
At that distance anything physically larger would require me to pan my head to view, so I'm happy sticking with a 27-28" screen size, so 4K might be useful but 8K doesn't seem to add any value at all.
I haven't even gone for 4K because I use my PC for gaming, and we're a card generation away from top-end 4K graphics, but I'm tempted anyway as it would be nice for photo editing.
As an individual response, rather than identifying and addressing the arguments and actions with which you disagree, yes it's lazy and a rather unconstructive contribution.
As identification of a group of people it's a useful categorisation - there definitely is a trend for contentious issues to draw attention from people that leap to conclusions, make false inferences, overreact to even genuine concerns and try to stifle debate and non-conformant voices. Where the contentious issues are related to race, female rights, sexual preference or other fashionable causes it's useful to be able to group the diverse and complex mix of people as a homogenous viewpoint and SJW facilitates that.
When the issue is male rights the equivalent term is MRA, and the fact that there is a different term to cover the same behaviour kind of underlines why it's useful to be able to challenge the whole SJW/MRA culture without needing to make it personal by attacking the individuals within it.
I think where some people go wrong (usually those in one of those two groups, but not necessarily those accused of so being) is in thinking that anybody proposing equal treatment across gender, race, etc must be a SJW/MRA. A lot of women still pursue equality but fear and reject third wave feminism and a number of men are concerned by the marginalisation and lack of opportunity for boys and young men in particular, while also supporting egalitarianism and gender equality.
It's those voices that add value to the debate but get increasingly attacked by.. well, by SJWs and MRAs. See, useful label and not just because I'm being lazy.
If 80% of the people at the water fight soak whoever they see, everyone gets a bit wet and has fun. If the other 20% focus their fire on one individual, that person has no fun and get soaked.
Bringing a water cannon is the reasonable response, and if it kills the event, they've lost nothing - they weren't getting anything from the event in the first place.
You're complaining that Sad Puppies have retaliated with a potentially nuclear option, instead of acknowledging that they're just retaliating.
Looks like the Hugo award is doomed to be suspect and less relevant already anyway - not because of the Sad Puppies activity, but because it's highlighted the extant flaws in the whole process.
Labelling them, yes, and I agree with you, most of them probably don't self identify.
I'm not sure use of the label is to shut down debate though. Calling out idiocy is easier if you can classify it; that doesn't prevent the idiots attempting to explain or justify their apparent idiocy, and if anything it gives them a greater understanding of why you think they're being idiots.
It has for those of us that don't live there and don't see the difference between one bit of California and another.
Who are "YOU FOLKS"? Do you know which nationality sydocon is? Does he own a horse and go Yeehaw! while roping cattle?
And just what the fuck does any of that have to do with Chinese government abuses of its population?
It means we don't give a flying fuck which flavour of corrupt cocksucker is in office.
Why do you? You think putting (R) after someone's name makes them fucking perfection personified, the second coming of Jesus and above all critique?
Just fucking get over it.
Pair programming is one of those ideas so awful that it could only come from a university.
It came from highly experienced software engineers working professionally in the private sector.
Universities are great for advancing computer science, but software engineering develops in the workplace.
Hmm. The labs at my university were open around 355 days of the year, 24 hours.
There was a nominal "no eating" rule but that was generally acknowledged to mean "get the pizza delivered to the lobby and eat there". Snacks, up to and including takeaway sausage and chips were fine after hours, and there were so many drinks we'd help the cleaner gather up the empties when she arrived at 7am.
Of course, this was back when the university computers were seriously more powerful than anything people could afford at home..