I'm very suspicious of people who claim, without any shame at all, to be so narrow in their interests that their weekend hobbies are the exact same thing that they're doing at their day job all week.
If I got a job doing one of my hobbies full time... I'd switch my weekends to a different one. Duh.
There are lots of things that are challenging, thought provoking, and mentally stimulating. If a person can only find a small number of things, I question their ability to become mentally stimulated.
The reason for a programmer to find it challenging to learn a new programming language is that they're expected to use it at work. If they were using it as part of a hobby, it wouldn't be challenging in that way because they'd be going at whatever their own pace is. More like, they don't have a "spare" weekend to spend learning stuff their employer wants them to train on. If it was because of a hobby, there wouldn't be any complaint, or any need for somebody to "take [them]... and [train] them in strange languages." You do your hobby in one language or fifty, as you desire.
And I know from personal experience that some managers are deathly afraid of hippies. They frown on anything that could be construed as polite behavior, because it could lead to a slippery slope and in the end the company would be left with a bunch of lazy hippies and go out of business. Gosh darn Obama ruining everything!
Luckily, managers don't know enough about statistics to even figure out which charts are being produced from R. And it isn't used for applications, so even a product manager might never find out it is lurking in the other room.
I'd like to see expanded use of R because there is Postgres support these days, and it is really powerful. Statistics and data go together like peanut butter and bananas.
There is nothing to be afraid of though, because R is already entrenched in serious use cases that are not otherwise reliant on MS. And MS doesn't have a monopoly anymore.
As an R user who uses emacs, I see this as a good thing. Demand for R will increase, and the problems it is good at solving are real PITAs using C or Java or Python or whatever.
Sonny, I've been here long enough I don't have to estimate who I see around this dump. But I'm sure I misunderestimated at least a few of them.
And yes, if you want to know how secret a large companies HR data is, just go try to get access to it. It turns out that it is all either trade secrets, or buried in NDAs and other contract restrictions. Much of the data would be illegal for them to share with me in a useful format. So yeah. For the purposes of public discussion, it is not only secret, it is un-knowable. Reasonable conversations cannot be based on claims of knowledge of that data, and people with actual access to the data are not going to be making useful public statements about what it contains.
"indefinitely" means you don't know how long it will go on. It doesn't mean it goes on without ending. The wheels of justice grind, and money may slow that down, but they do keep grinding.
The problem with that theory is that this is an EU commission. They'd have to bribe somebody from each country, and the late recipients can demand increasing payments as the bribery scheme is spiraling out of control. You might end up paying double, and then still owing the original debt after the lid gets blown off of it.
Even European soccer is encountering difficulty maintaining their traditional corruption in this environment.
I can see it now... the anger building, the hyperbole boiling out of control, incitements to rash action from the crowd... and then it starts. One man just finally snaps. Throws his Earth Sugardrink right down onto the unprotected street surface. Complete chaos begins, with wailing and even littering. First one, then two, three [insured] iPhones go flying through the air and smash at the feet of the chuckling riot police, who covet this overtime in a land of short work-weeks.
The next day, two lawsuits accuse police of damaging rioters' turtleneck sweaters with their water canons.
The problem with that claim is that the accusation isn't that they were in the past out of compliance with a rule that didn't exist yet. If that was the situation, I'd understand your claims.
But the actual situation is that they're accused of imagining loopholes instead of doing their accounting by the rules, and so they didn't pay what they were supposed to. Very, very different accusation than the one you're trying to defend against.;)
As an American I have to point out, it would really benefit the US if Europe cracks down on this. The whole game was to avoid US taxes in the first place. Europe has higher taxes than the US, we shouldn't be losing tax revenue due to that competition. It is only because the US companies are not paying the local European taxes that these shenanigans benefit the practitioners. US and EU both lose out, and some rich investors around the world get a bunch of misappropriated loot.
We don't have "settlements" in EU like you do in the USA. When a case is presented to a legal court (consumer arbitral court is different) the matter can only get settled by the court itself, the parties cannot go around the court. The only thing they can do now it to appeal to an higher court.
That is exactly how it works in the US too, settlements are done through the court whenever a case has been filed, and a response also filed. So once you're past the very first step that happens before any court hearings, then the settlement has to go through the Court. Sometimes settlements are rejected by the Court, too.
However, in this case it is a Commission investigation, not a court case. That will follow. And most likely, there will indeed be a settlement, because that is how these things usually end. One side eventually agrees to quit fighting, in order to have the other side agree to introduce ambiguity into their public messaging about the resolution. Often there is also a middle ground set of numbers. In this case, there are a lot of different numbers and theories being floated that imply various levels of underpayment, so there is a lot of room for an agreement to be within what is accused, and still be a settlement that Apple would want to agree to if they think they're losing.
I guess it didn't enter into their thinking that if those loopholes really existed, the European companies would be paying less tax. Why would Apple think it would pay less local tax than the locals? It seems like an irrational expectation.
If Apple was being told to pay more than what average European competitors pay, then I might be more sympathetic to your point.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who was listening when he said that, because people keep thinking he said "Apple paid already every tax dollar it will owe for years in which we've already filed." But that isn't what he said. He said that they pay everything they owe. If their filing is rejected or revised afterwards, then his statement is just a statement of fact that they'll pay it after they're found to owe it. It was a complete non-statement. He could have said instead, "look, we're a business not an irrational tax protester, if we're wrong we'll have to pay up when they tell us what we really owe." But that wouldn't lead the sheep around by the nose well enough, so he said the other thing that means the same but sounds different.
As far as economics go it was a slam dunk. If there is room for complaint, it is in the area of communication; there are other even stronger refutations that might have been used.;)
And Apple isn't the "world's largest company." But the attempted demonstration using Aramco was a total failure. Hyundai would be a much better example, with about 70 times the market capitalization of Apple. Apple does tend to have the world's largest "war chest," because other companies re-invest more of what they're not using. Apple is run by the most elite of the elitists, who are simply more willing to sit on a cash hoard than anybody else. The other big companies are dominated by business people, who look at that money pile the way they look at a sloucher. "Get back to work!"
Meanwhile.... 2.39% of my "realcoin" disappeared on Wall Street today...
Unless you mean someone accessed your account and transferred out 2.39% of your fiat then no, you analogy is wrong. Price fluctuation != Coins/Fiat leaving your account. With price fluctuation nothing is lost unless you sell. Without a sale that down 2.39% is trivia, just like the up 2.xx% the day before.
That is true if it is a pure investment, but not if it is a currency. Are you attempting to agree that cryptocurrency is so awful as currency, that it is not reliably spendable?
Stocks are not supposed to be liquid assets. Currency is. If you have to wait to spend it in order to not lose money, it is not liquid, and is therefore a complete failure as a currency.
Stocks are intended as shared ownership of a company, there are real reasons why that is on a different time scale than currency. When I used a financial adviser, I was told not to invest in the stock market unless I was willing to wait at least 8 years to sell and get my money back, because you don't want to sell during a recession. And when approaching retirement, I was advised to plan to shift into more liquid investments not less than 8 years before I would need to access the money.
If we were talking about cryptobonds it would be a different discussion than it is for cryptocurrency.
It doesn't sound like you learned to act. Thinking that that is what happened might slow your progress.
What happened was, you discovered one part of "worker morale" that is considered part of having a good work ethic. A positive attitude isn't something that some people might randomly have; it is expected. And it includes being interested.
If you think about it from the perspective of the cat herder, it makes a lot more sense than when you think the good workers are acting. No, they're genuinely eager. In the same way that a kids sports team that is successful has kids who hustle; not just because they were told, but because they internalized hustling and paying attention to the ball as important parts of the activity. Kids who always try to hustle and be on task will make a much better team (and usually have more fun) than a team where each player just wants to score goals. Just wanting to score is like just wanting a paycheck; it doesn't score very well.
It is not a reasonable argument; a person who doesn't want the job, shouldn't apply for it. There is nothing for you to prove. It doesn't matter if one of us thinks it is desirable job unless they applied. If they applied and didn't want it, they are doing something wrong.
You are confusing the fact that *you* haven't seen the data with it not existing or not being available to some of us for examination.
LOL, ok. Fair enough. ARE YOU claiming secret knowledge? Is that the basis for your statements, and do you believe that people should consider that as showing you to be an authority of some sort?
It is almost as if somebody cracked your account and wants to make you look foolish.
(And I stand by my claim; google has the data but hasn't told us what it says. We only have reason to believe that their choices match their goals. We do NOT have reason to believe we know their goals, or what their data says about their progress. All we know is that the system they have in place is probably consistent with whatever those goals are.)
This is somewhat like your example; seeing "with your own eyes" is a part of convincing yourself you have knowledge, but you didn't see what you didn't see. You may or may not have seen the part of the thing that explained it. You may instead have seen the part of it that is misleading. Knowing what data you have, and what data you don't have, assists in understanding this and not jumping beyond the known knowns.
If you choose to trust a statement, that should not lead you to adopt the view that it is proven. Believing loses predictive value when it masquerades as knowing.
There is no reason to believe that because google has data, and is believed to have high quality employees, that therefore their hiring process achieves that. It could be for other reasons. They have data, but because it is secret we can't evaluate it. Or to rephrase, we don't know the value of the data. You can't believe them, because they're not telling you. The reporter in your example is only asking you to believe the facts that they are reporting. The part that google reports is what they do, and how well they think it works for them. It is all conclusory. And they don't claim to actually tell the world their corporate goals; business planning is secret for reasons. It is irrational to believe everything a company says, when it is known they're expected to say what benefits them.
If a "reporter" for an organization that was known to follow corporate communication principles of truthfulness sends back a foreign report... nobody would reprint it, or assign it value.
If an employer isn't understanding of a new hire getting recruited away by somebody bigger... they might have a pretty toxic "Dilbert" style workplace. An employee isn't promising to stay, unless they did promise. But few valuable employees agree to indentured servitude. So generally, it was understood from the start by both parties that it might not work out, or last forever.
This is normal, and just, and shows only freedom and consensual relationships. A company wants new hires to stay, but that isn't an expectation. It is something they need to achieve. I can tell you this; if the pay is as good, the benefits as good, and the work as interesting, then why would they even leave? It seem implied in the scenario that google is the preferred employer. If the little guy provides the same pay and conditions as the big guy, usually people prefer the smaller company. It is because smaller companies don't provide the same compensation or work conditions that people are so likely to quit whatever they had to take the offer.
That leads to another question: Is it really a "dream job" under those conditions?
If not, then don't apply for it. And I'd apply that same logic to any well-known company. If you have something to offer as an employee other than being able to promise to cash your paychecks, then you have significant choice as to where to offer your services. It should be places that you approve of, places that you're fond enough of that you'll walk in the door with high morale and a chance to contribute.
A bored or disgruntled Einstein would sure be an awful employee. Just as, an engaged and interested Einstein would be a great advantage.
Morale and attitude is part of "work ethic." People who complain about a company's practices are not qualified to work there, and it would be unethical of them to attempt it or to pretend to want the job so they can hang out in the building long enough to pad their resume.
Didn't read past the first line. It might work better to understand what I said before trying to respond, or else to ask questions. By claiming in the first line that you both disagree, and didn't understand, you really give me no reason to wonder what your point of views is.;)
No they don't. They have okay pay, but there are at least half a dozen large companies that pay better, try to hire the same people, and will give them an answer sooner.
That is statistically unlikely. Why is google winning the hiring battle against them then? Such an outrageous claim requires, if not a citation, at least some analysis and not just the recital of an unlikely conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Same amount of time it took Visual Studio to kill gcc.
I'm very suspicious of people who claim, without any shame at all, to be so narrow in their interests that their weekend hobbies are the exact same thing that they're doing at their day job all week.
If I got a job doing one of my hobbies full time... I'd switch my weekends to a different one. Duh.
There are lots of things that are challenging, thought provoking, and mentally stimulating. If a person can only find a small number of things, I question their ability to become mentally stimulated.
The reason for a programmer to find it challenging to learn a new programming language is that they're expected to use it at work. If they were using it as part of a hobby, it wouldn't be challenging in that way because they'd be going at whatever their own pace is. More like, they don't have a "spare" weekend to spend learning stuff their employer wants them to train on. If it was because of a hobby, there wouldn't be any complaint, or any need for somebody to "take [them] ... and [train] them in strange languages." You do your hobby in one language or fifty, as you desire.
And I know from personal experience that some managers are deathly afraid of hippies. They frown on anything that could be construed as polite behavior, because it could lead to a slippery slope and in the end the company would be left with a bunch of lazy hippies and go out of business. Gosh darn Obama ruining everything!
Luckily, managers don't know enough about statistics to even figure out which charts are being produced from R. And it isn't used for applications, so even a product manager might never find out it is lurking in the other room.
I'd like to see expanded use of R because there is Postgres support these days, and it is really powerful. Statistics and data go together like peanut butter and bananas.
R already embraced, extended and extinguished S.
There is nothing to be afraid of though, because R is already entrenched in serious use cases that are not otherwise reliant on MS. And MS doesn't have a monopoly anymore.
As an R user who uses emacs, I see this as a good thing. Demand for R will increase, and the problems it is good at solving are real PITAs using C or Java or Python or whatever.
Sonny, I've been here long enough I don't have to estimate who I see around this dump. But I'm sure I misunderestimated at least a few of them.
And yes, if you want to know how secret a large companies HR data is, just go try to get access to it. It turns out that it is all either trade secrets, or buried in NDAs and other contract restrictions. Much of the data would be illegal for them to share with me in a useful format. So yeah. For the purposes of public discussion, it is not only secret, it is un-knowable. Reasonable conversations cannot be based on claims of knowledge of that data, and people with actual access to the data are not going to be making useful public statements about what it contains.
Ah, the famous "you're wrong because... hippies!" argument. Slam dunk, right?
"indefinitely" means you don't know how long it will go on. It doesn't mean it goes on without ending. The wheels of justice grind, and money may slow that down, but they do keep grinding.
The problem with that theory is that this is an EU commission. They'd have to bribe somebody from each country, and the late recipients can demand increasing payments as the bribery scheme is spiraling out of control. You might end up paying double, and then still owing the original debt after the lid gets blown off of it.
Even European soccer is encountering difficulty maintaining their traditional corruption in this environment.
I can see it now... the anger building, the hyperbole boiling out of control, incitements to rash action from the crowd... and then it starts. One man just finally snaps. Throws his Earth Sugardrink right down onto the unprotected street surface. Complete chaos begins, with wailing and even littering. First one, then two, three [insured] iPhones go flying through the air and smash at the feet of the chuckling riot police, who covet this overtime in a land of short work-weeks.
The next day, two lawsuits accuse police of damaging rioters' turtleneck sweaters with their water canons.
The problem with that claim is that the accusation isn't that they were in the past out of compliance with a rule that didn't exist yet. If that was the situation, I'd understand your claims.
But the actual situation is that they're accused of imagining loopholes instead of doing their accounting by the rules, and so they didn't pay what they were supposed to. Very, very different accusation than the one you're trying to defend against. ;)
As an American I have to point out, it would really benefit the US if Europe cracks down on this. The whole game was to avoid US taxes in the first place. Europe has higher taxes than the US, we shouldn't be losing tax revenue due to that competition. It is only because the US companies are not paying the local European taxes that these shenanigans benefit the practitioners. US and EU both lose out, and some rich investors around the world get a bunch of misappropriated loot.
We don't have "settlements" in EU like you do in the USA. When a case is presented to a legal court (consumer arbitral court is different) the matter can only get settled by the court itself, the parties cannot go around the court. The only thing they can do now it to appeal to an higher court.
That is exactly how it works in the US too, settlements are done through the court whenever a case has been filed, and a response also filed. So once you're past the very first step that happens before any court hearings, then the settlement has to go through the Court. Sometimes settlements are rejected by the Court, too.
However, in this case it is a Commission investigation, not a court case. That will follow. And most likely, there will indeed be a settlement, because that is how these things usually end. One side eventually agrees to quit fighting, in order to have the other side agree to introduce ambiguity into their public messaging about the resolution. Often there is also a middle ground set of numbers. In this case, there are a lot of different numbers and theories being floated that imply various levels of underpayment, so there is a lot of room for an agreement to be within what is accused, and still be a settlement that Apple would want to agree to if they think they're losing.
I guess it didn't enter into their thinking that if those loopholes really existed, the European companies would be paying less tax. Why would Apple think it would pay less local tax than the locals? It seems like an irrational expectation.
If Apple was being told to pay more than what average European competitors pay, then I might be more sympathetic to your point.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who was listening when he said that, because people keep thinking he said "Apple paid already every tax dollar it will owe for years in which we've already filed." But that isn't what he said. He said that they pay everything they owe. If their filing is rejected or revised afterwards, then his statement is just a statement of fact that they'll pay it after they're found to owe it. It was a complete non-statement. He could have said instead, "look, we're a business not an irrational tax protester, if we're wrong we'll have to pay up when they tell us what we really owe." But that wouldn't lead the sheep around by the nose well enough, so he said the other thing that means the same but sounds different.
As far as economics go it was a slam dunk. If there is room for complaint, it is in the area of communication; there are other even stronger refutations that might have been used. ;)
And Apple isn't the "world's largest company." But the attempted demonstration using Aramco was a total failure. Hyundai would be a much better example, with about 70 times the market capitalization of Apple. Apple does tend to have the world's largest "war chest," because other companies re-invest more of what they're not using. Apple is run by the most elite of the elitists, who are simply more willing to sit on a cash hoard than anybody else. The other big companies are dominated by business people, who look at that money pile the way they look at a sloucher. "Get back to work!"
And real commercial banks don't debit the depositors for the money that was taken.
In Cyprus they did, and in Europe they will. Like the flu, it will hit these shores soon.
No, you're confusing the hyperbole with the facts. They're not interchangeable.
No, no, the news is that it's a backdoor Trojan.
You're a decade late on anybody caring, though.
The internet is saving the world, through pr0n.
Meanwhile.... 2.39% of my "realcoin" disappeared on Wall Street today...
Unless you mean someone accessed your account and transferred out 2.39% of your fiat then no, you analogy is wrong. Price fluctuation != Coins/Fiat leaving your account. With price fluctuation nothing is lost unless you sell. Without a sale that down 2.39% is trivia, just like the up 2.xx% the day before.
That is true if it is a pure investment, but not if it is a currency. Are you attempting to agree that cryptocurrency is so awful as currency, that it is not reliably spendable?
Stocks are not supposed to be liquid assets. Currency is. If you have to wait to spend it in order to not lose money, it is not liquid, and is therefore a complete failure as a currency.
Stocks are intended as shared ownership of a company, there are real reasons why that is on a different time scale than currency. When I used a financial adviser, I was told not to invest in the stock market unless I was willing to wait at least 8 years to sell and get my money back, because you don't want to sell during a recession. And when approaching retirement, I was advised to plan to shift into more liquid investments not less than 8 years before I would need to access the money.
If we were talking about cryptobonds it would be a different discussion than it is for cryptocurrency.
No, they buy high and sell low whenever the TV tells them to be interested, or afraid.
It doesn't sound like you learned to act. Thinking that that is what happened might slow your progress.
What happened was, you discovered one part of "worker morale" that is considered part of having a good work ethic. A positive attitude isn't something that some people might randomly have; it is expected. And it includes being interested.
If you think about it from the perspective of the cat herder, it makes a lot more sense than when you think the good workers are acting. No, they're genuinely eager. In the same way that a kids sports team that is successful has kids who hustle; not just because they were told, but because they internalized hustling and paying attention to the ball as important parts of the activity. Kids who always try to hustle and be on task will make a much better team (and usually have more fun) than a team where each player just wants to score goals. Just wanting to score is like just wanting a paycheck; it doesn't score very well.
It is not a reasonable argument; a person who doesn't want the job, shouldn't apply for it. There is nothing for you to prove. It doesn't matter if one of us thinks it is desirable job unless they applied. If they applied and didn't want it, they are doing something wrong.
You are confusing the fact that *you* haven't seen the data with it not existing or not being available to some of us for examination.
LOL, ok. Fair enough. ARE YOU claiming secret knowledge? Is that the basis for your statements, and do you believe that people should consider that as showing you to be an authority of some sort?
It is almost as if somebody cracked your account and wants to make you look foolish.
(And I stand by my claim; google has the data but hasn't told us what it says. We only have reason to believe that their choices match their goals. We do NOT have reason to believe we know their goals, or what their data says about their progress. All we know is that the system they have in place is probably consistent with whatever those goals are.)
This is somewhat like your example; seeing "with your own eyes" is a part of convincing yourself you have knowledge, but you didn't see what you didn't see. You may or may not have seen the part of the thing that explained it. You may instead have seen the part of it that is misleading. Knowing what data you have, and what data you don't have, assists in understanding this and not jumping beyond the known knowns.
If you choose to trust a statement, that should not lead you to adopt the view that it is proven. Believing loses predictive value when it masquerades as knowing.
There is no reason to believe that because google has data, and is believed to have high quality employees, that therefore their hiring process achieves that. It could be for other reasons. They have data, but because it is secret we can't evaluate it. Or to rephrase, we don't know the value of the data. You can't believe them, because they're not telling you. The reporter in your example is only asking you to believe the facts that they are reporting. The part that google reports is what they do, and how well they think it works for them. It is all conclusory. And they don't claim to actually tell the world their corporate goals; business planning is secret for reasons. It is irrational to believe everything a company says, when it is known they're expected to say what benefits them.
If a "reporter" for an organization that was known to follow corporate communication principles of truthfulness sends back a foreign report... nobody would reprint it, or assign it value.
If an employer isn't understanding of a new hire getting recruited away by somebody bigger... they might have a pretty toxic "Dilbert" style workplace. An employee isn't promising to stay, unless they did promise. But few valuable employees agree to indentured servitude. So generally, it was understood from the start by both parties that it might not work out, or last forever.
This is normal, and just, and shows only freedom and consensual relationships. A company wants new hires to stay, but that isn't an expectation. It is something they need to achieve. I can tell you this; if the pay is as good, the benefits as good, and the work as interesting, then why would they even leave? It seem implied in the scenario that google is the preferred employer. If the little guy provides the same pay and conditions as the big guy, usually people prefer the smaller company. It is because smaller companies don't provide the same compensation or work conditions that people are so likely to quit whatever they had to take the offer.
That leads to another question: Is it really a "dream job" under those conditions?
If not, then don't apply for it. And I'd apply that same logic to any well-known company. If you have something to offer as an employee other than being able to promise to cash your paychecks, then you have significant choice as to where to offer your services. It should be places that you approve of, places that you're fond enough of that you'll walk in the door with high morale and a chance to contribute.
A bored or disgruntled Einstein would sure be an awful employee. Just as, an engaged and interested Einstein would be a great advantage.
Morale and attitude is part of "work ethic." People who complain about a company's practices are not qualified to work there, and it would be unethical of them to attempt it or to pretend to want the job so they can hang out in the building long enough to pad their resume.
What are you on about?
Didn't read past the first line. It might work better to understand what I said before trying to respond, or else to ask questions. By claiming in the first line that you both disagree, and didn't understand, you really give me no reason to wonder what your point of views is. ;)
The fact is, google has good pay
No they don't. They have okay pay, but there are at least half a dozen large companies that pay better, try to hire the same people, and will give them an answer sooner.
That is statistically unlikely. Why is google winning the hiring battle against them then? Such an outrageous claim requires, if not a citation, at least some analysis and not just the recital of an unlikely conclusion.