In a corporate world where money/budget is all, once there is money being spent with no direct product, there is a strong desire to avoid it as much as possible. (I've actually never attended a code-review meeting actually, but we would basically code through the code and then write an email with concerns and issues.)
Coming from the world of F/OSS, I was all prepared for the honest and detailed code reviews I got from all my patches, yet never got any of it. In many ways I was ill suited to corporate programming, because to me priority 1 was get it done right, meanwhile everyone else's first priority was to do as little non-productive work as possible, and if that meant rubber stamping code reviews, then so be it.
Actually, my best example of code review / pair programming comes from a programming competition. I had a team member sitting there watching me iterate through a char * properly, when I had declared it an int *, surprise surprise the char * never seemed to be more than one character long. We ran out of time, and never solved the problem. Later he mentioned that he had seen me typo the declaration as an int *, and just figured I knew what I was doing. I looked at him stunned and said, "dude. Don't assume that."
Wikipedia says TeX is on version 3.1415926, he released two version before moving on to pi, so 7 plus 2, 9 bug fixes in TeX...
So, yes, even the God of Programming needs code reviews, and in fact, understood the benefits of code review so much that he put money forward to get people to find them.:)
Kleenex is still trademarked, and not generic, it's why all the ads on TV call them "facial tissues". It's close, but no court has yet ruled that it is generic yet. Just because the population uses a trademarked term generically doesn't guarantee that the term is now generic for trademark law. If it did, then the term "coke" wouldn't be trademarkable, because here in the southwest any soda/pop is called "coke". It weirds my friends from Seattle out that I could call 7up "coke".
The best example to use about a term becoming generic is actually aspirin. The trademark is still owned by Bayer in some countries (like Germany, where Bayer pharma is located) In the USA though the term "aspirin" is officially generic.
Ah, I misunderstood you to mean that JD was the only undergrad to doctorate degree path; not that a JD was a requirement for a LL.M. I stand corrected.
I find your knowledge and accuracy to be refreshing.:) Thank you!
Unless its changed, California, Vermont, Virginia, Maine, and New York all had ways to be admitted without a law degree - primarily through a combination of study under a lawyer and at a law school.
Oh nifty, I actually didn't know about them. Although it appears New York requires at least a year of law school, and Maine requires 2/3 of a law degree completion. So, they're in my "iffy" pile. So, we have: California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington that don't require law school...
Of course, good luck finding a lawyer willing to apprentice you.:(
Oddly, when government rules in the US started saying that they were going to pay everyone based on the level of degree that they have, suddenly law schools started issuing Juris Doctor (Doctorates) instead of a trade degree. As such, it's the only academic program that awards a Doctorate before awarding a Master's.
Well, I would think MDs, DOs, Pharmacists (amongst others) would disagree - I'm surprised MBA's haven't decided to become DBAs instead as well.
MDs, DOs, and Pharmacists don't have Masters programs after their main degree do they? I looked up PharmD, and apparently there are post-grad specialty degrees but those aren't a masters program, as for MDs and DOs, it appears that they can take parallel courses for research... but it still seems like the only Masters programs that require a doctorate-level degree for entry are LL.M. programs.
This industry is very strange in that people want to get into it so badly... and more, many of them expect poor treatment going into it, and think it's acceptable - worse: they could be said to find it desirable (until they get into it). It's the risk of a buyer's market; still, I do see this changing -- without the dubious benefit of forced regulation or unions. More and more developers actually *are* speaking out, and many smaller companies are beginning to see the light. These companies will/are beginning to attract the higher-talent developers that the big companies depend on.
Well, Marx was a bit of a pessimist and didn't expect to see the western world fixing the problems that they were facing, and thus purposed violent revolt. I'm pretty much a pessimist at heart. I suppose, I should account for the few non-greedy people out there that will actually help change the system... I just find it easier to work under the theories of the people arguing against me. I want to present why libertarianism isn't a good idea, so I make the assumption that all people are heartless bastards who will exploit employees at the expense of profit at every turn.
That bitch gets fired before she's done complaining. She's keeping the company from getting certified, she's working against the interests of the company, she needs to leave. That's the sad truth, despite her being the only person in the whole process that shows responsibility, and would probably actually save the company a lot of money in the long run when (not if) a bug causes damage.
Except she's the best programmer in the group... thus, you direct her outrage at code reviews in order to implement a reform of the code reviews, she wastes months and months on the reform, then once it is complete, you don't implement it, and then you start working on firing her... (you don't fire her immediately, because you have your HR department to CYA so she doesn't sue for discrimination, you know, given that women comprise some 10% of computer programmers in many organisations.)
Sounds like you know the game better than I do... lol
And handing out a $100,000 bail is not "punitive"? Oh, that's right, the person gets the money back afterwards. Just like he'll get the xbox back so long as he appears in court. Bail is surrendering property temporarily to ensure court appearances, just like you said. Sometimes it amounts to a form of punishment, but that's why bails aren't supposed to be unreasonable... forfeiting an xbox is highly unlikely to cross the threshold of unreasonable.
... and good luck trying to map all the rules like "the right to free speech" but it actually means drawings too and it doesn't mean shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Actually, this is precisely why computers can't get this right, because most people can't get it right. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) ruled that shouting fire in a crowded theater was less than the bar required to make speech illegal, and moved the bar to incitement of "imminent lawless action".
They created the idea that law school, instead of the old apprentice system where you read the law under an experienced attorney, was needed to be admitted to the bar (although some states still allow you to take the bar without going to law school under certain circumstances).
Last I read, only Washington state allows one to take the bar without attending law school. Yet you still have to operate as a paid clerk for a lawyer for 4-ish years under a lawyer... well, I guess it's just like the old apprentice system... The only other state that is close is Arizona, which has provisions for non-lawyers to do various tasks that only lawyers can do in other states.
Oddly, when government rules in the US started saying that they were going to pay everyone based on the level of degree that they have, suddenly law schools started issuing Juris Doctor (Doctorates) instead of a trade degree. As such, it's the only academic program that awards a Doctorate before awarding a Master's.
That pedantic bitch that everyone doesn't like, because she makes them do real code reviews, rather than just checking off boxes? You know, because if she's going to do something, she's going to do it right...
My ex-boss also didn't like me doing root-cause analysis and figuring out what really caused XY bug/error/failure. He just wanted it fixed, and for me to move on.
It won't work in the gaming industry. People spend their childhood playing games and wanting to develop them. Crunch time hours a part of the industry mystique, and are something that is considered a right of passage by people who have already done it and people who want to get into the industry. By the time people burn out on it, they really just want out - they're not interested in raising a fuss over it.
The only way this can improve is if enough companies with a clue start hiring develoers, treating them well, and still produce AAA titles.
And there is simply no incentive for the companies to treat their workers well, because there is a line a mile long out the door of people ready to be exploited.
It's a classic/textbook example of an exploitative industry... the way we fixed these jobs in the past have been to unionize across companies, as well as implement regulation.
Of course, the libertarian answer of "employees can just quit, and eventually the employers will fix what's wrong" is just way easier to say, and implement, because that means no one has to do anything about it.
It comes down to this, if the treatment was not enough to warrant actually leaving the job then it obviously wasn't as bad as they made it out to be. The whole idea that he could not get a job to replace it only means two things, he was in the wrong field or wrong area. Obviously the alternatives were not to his liking. I have had friends work two manual jobs while trying to get back into programming.
Right, because people won't work in a sweatshop that is destroying their health because the conditions aren't really that bad... people get a job, and they don't want to leave, and honestly, they shouldn't have to suffer unemployment or working manual jobs outside of their field just because they are being abused in the workplace. Telling them to "just quit and find another job" is such a simplistic view of the world.
If only there was some sort of way the employees could group together to increase their bargaining power with employers to avoid these situations.
If you consistently work over 40 hours a week your employer must compensate you for it even if you're salaried.
The problem isn't that they aren't unionized, the problem is they're too chickenshit to stand up to their boss, or to take the time and effort to report labor violations to the Wage and Labor commission. If the employees demanded the compensation they are already legally entitled to, and go to the proper authorities if it isn't provided, then the problem would solve itself rapidly when the boss realizes he's paying more in OT than he'd pay for doubling his staff size.
There are still editors? I thought they went down the road of the dodo along with the typesetters and the layouters.
Code reviews are not there to find bugs. Code reviews are there to get a signature on certificate. And I'm not arrogant, just jaded.and disillusioned.
I think we're running into an is/ought problem... I'm saying the purpose of code reviews ought be to find bugs, and help correct them. You're saying that code reviews regardless of what they ought be, are in fact actually just signatures on a form in order to permit a check-in, and thus get degraded down to the most minimal aspect... no review, just a sign off.
I can't hardly argue with you about what reality actually is, as it's pretty much what I'm complaining about. And since you declare yourself to be jaded and disillusioned, it's highly likely that you agree with me as well that it's a horrible state of affairs that code reviews are simply another check-box hurdle that people avoid as much as possible, and you are simply providing satirical comment.
What wonderful libertarian bullshit you spew. It is such a convenient world you live in where discrimination is solved by the free market...
And no, life is not fair, deal with and adapt or perish.
So, my only choice in life is submit to being abused, or commit suicide? WTF?
I'm moving to the east coast soon. You know what I'll do there? Cut my hair, buy a good suit and practice acting the right way (confident, etc, etc.) Why? Because that is what the culture there expects and if I don't adapt then that's my fault.
And the solution for the woman is to learn how to be a man? The black to bleach their skin and become white? The homosexual to hide their sexual orientation and live a life of denial? "Adapt or perish" is so nice and elegant in theory, but fundamentally makes unreasonable demands on many people that in fact they cannot even escape from.
Code reviews don't mean that someone reads your code. Don't be deluded into thinking that I'd have the time to read thousands of lines of source code, find out what the coder actually wants to do with it and painstakingly follow every variable through its lifetime, and make sure that all mem leaks are sealed. That's none of my business. I don't debug your code, I check it for security holes.
Say we're looking at the review of a PHP created webpage. Do I care whether you display the results correctly? Probably not, unless it is explicitly part of the review. I'll look for the lines that deal with database access, cookies and XSS vulnerabilities. Whether your results are correct or whether it looks like a monkey tried to write HTML is usually not the scope of a security code review.
And all of the same bugs were skipped and missed in the code reviews I've seen.
And how do you check all that stuff without reading the code for real? And if you don't have time to sit down and read-through and understand everything I wrote, why aren't there people whose job it is to do precisely that. Journalism and publishers have editors whose job is explicitly to read and understand and provide feedback. If we're relying upon other writers to do the exact same thing, when they're too busy to read anything, then we're simply already condemning ourselves to failure.
I honestly find your response to be arrogant and idiotic. Our jobs are to program code and produce good code, not only our own, but those of our co-workers that ask for our help as well. What the fuck is a code-review for if not to catch bugs, and errors.
And they will explain to you why your non expert test is really not a good way to test if someone is geeky in this particular subject. They will then spend an hour or so providing you with a better set of 10 questions and writing up a multi-page answer for each one.
If you've got the qualities then you will very likely get a job at one company or another, as I said there is more demand than supply right now. In the last year a half dozen of my old coworkers have switched jobs to good companies. So have quiet a few of my friends. Google is still hiring like nothing else and so are other companies.
It seems like everyone makes this assumption that the world is fair, and only ability matters. It's no wonder libertarianism is so popular in the US. They think their abilities are unique and special, and deserve to be compensated, because it is not simply a fluke of fate.
Let me remind people, someone hiring people can dismiss an applicant because they have red hair... or brown hair. Should anyone have any illegal discriminatory reasons for not hiring someone, there are a hojillion things that they can hide it behind. In fact, I could interview Einstein for a position as a physicist, yet if I dislike Jews, I could even claim that he lacks sufficient physics knowledge.
I suppose what I'm getting at here is, I have enormous ability, and I have recognized honors and accomplishments to testify to that effect. Yet, I have been turned down for even the most basic of positions, because the world is not a perfect meritocracy... there is a heavy amount of discrimination in the world... "I just don't like this person", or whatever. Blacks, women, homosexuals, autistic people, disabled people... heck, people with enormous amounts of piercings... they all face enormous challenges that make some jobs simply unobtainable. And none of that has to do with their abilities.
Compliance auditing is a circle jerk business. It's like peer review, just worse...
God, this reminds me of code reviews. I would send them out, and get back a "Looks good!" email... to which I would note that in the time between me sending them the code review and me receiving their "looks good!" I found two bugs and one of them was a flagrant syntax error.
I tried to reform the process, but imagine how well that went over? If you said that I got the response "looks good!" and then it was never touched again, you'd be right.
When I started at a well-known-but-unnamed company, I was given a 5 year vesting stock option. After one year the first part of my stock vested, and I sold it immediately. The second year, there was a bunch of BS and my stock had entered a "non-vesting" period where the time I was being employed didn't count towards my stock investment, so I didn't get that one. However, I still had all the money from my first disbursement.
What was also "funny", was that I used the employee stock purchasing plan to buy the full limit of what I was allowed to buy, then immediately sold it, and then invested in a competing company, because I preferred their products (and their stock wasn't going down all the time.)
Hate to tell you this, since you're apparently not part the group, but for top quality people it's almost better than the 90's. Good silicon valley companies understand that quality matters, and they will pay for it and actively recruit it. There is more demand than supply.
Yeah, you're pretty much right. I still get active recruitment constantly. However, being that there are still a ton of top quality people out there, just because there is active recruitment doesn't mean you're going to get a job.
A contract is binding on two parties if both parties are in equal standing. This means that if Microsoft and Google would enter in an agreement it would be legally binding. When one side holds a significant power advantage, it is not longer a valid contract.
No, this is not true. I'm actually engaged with a contract with Microsoft, and I'm very well aware that it is still a valid contract, and failing to perform will result in a lawsuit, injunction, and then any further breach means jail time for contempt of court.
That said, when such a contract is drafted, and there is a deep power advantage to one side, the contracts are normally held to the highest scrutiny against the contract drafter. Thus, you get a boiler plate contract plopped in front of you. You're given the option of moving in to an apartment under these terms, or not at all. You agree, because you want to live there. Later, some ambiguous piece of text is being used to sue you for say a hojillion dollars. You might be able to successfully argue the disparity of the power arrangement and get the ambiguous text interpreted in the most favorable way towards your interests.
This is different from the contract being void, or nullified.
Slashdot Mirror
This. 100% this.
In a corporate world where money/budget is all, once there is money being spent with no direct product, there is a strong desire to avoid it as much as possible. (I've actually never attended a code-review meeting actually, but we would basically code through the code and then write an email with concerns and issues.)
Coming from the world of F/OSS, I was all prepared for the honest and detailed code reviews I got from all my patches, yet never got any of it. In many ways I was ill suited to corporate programming, because to me priority 1 was get it done right, meanwhile everyone else's first priority was to do as little non-productive work as possible, and if that meant rubber stamping code reviews, then so be it.
Actually, my best example of code review / pair programming comes from a programming competition. I had a team member sitting there watching me iterate through a char * properly, when I had declared it an int *, surprise surprise the char * never seemed to be more than one character long. We ran out of time, and never solved the problem. Later he mentioned that he had seen me typo the declaration as an int *, and just figured I knew what I was doing. I looked at him stunned and said, "dude. Don't assume that."
Knuth lost his wager how many times?
Wikipedia says TeX is on version 3.1415926, he released two version before moving on to pi, so 7 plus 2, 9 bug fixes in TeX...
So, yes, even the God of Programming needs code reviews, and in fact, understood the benefits of code review so much that he put money forward to get people to find them. :)
... or they're really pedantic but not very helpful.
Hey, I thought being pedantic was helpful. :(
I tried to remind people that if I was nitpicking their code, that meant it was actually really good.
Kleenex is still trademarked, and not generic, it's why all the ads on TV call them "facial tissues". It's close, but no court has yet ruled that it is generic yet. Just because the population uses a trademarked term generically doesn't guarantee that the term is now generic for trademark law. If it did, then the term "coke" wouldn't be trademarkable, because here in the southwest any soda/pop is called "coke". It weirds my friends from Seattle out that I could call 7up "coke".
The best example to use about a term becoming generic is actually aspirin. The trademark is still owned by Bayer in some countries (like Germany, where Bayer pharma is located) In the USA though the term "aspirin" is officially generic.
I want you to buy *golf ball to the head* WAFFLES TASTY TASTY WAFFLES!
Ah, I misunderstood you to mean that JD was the only undergrad to doctorate degree path; not that a JD was a requirement for a LL.M. I stand corrected.
I find your knowledge and accuracy to be refreshing. :) Thank you!
Unless its changed, California, Vermont, Virginia, Maine, and New York all had ways to be admitted without a law degree - primarily through a combination of study under a lawyer and at a law school.
Oh nifty, I actually didn't know about them. Although it appears New York requires at least a year of law school, and Maine requires 2/3 of a law degree completion. So, they're in my "iffy" pile. So, we have: California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington that don't require law school...
Of course, good luck finding a lawyer willing to apprentice you. :(
Oddly, when government rules in the US started saying that they were going to pay everyone based on the level of degree that they have, suddenly law schools started issuing Juris Doctor (Doctorates) instead of a trade degree. As such, it's the only academic program that awards a Doctorate before awarding a Master's.
Well, I would think MDs, DOs, Pharmacists (amongst others) would disagree - I'm surprised MBA's haven't decided to become DBAs instead as well.
MDs, DOs, and Pharmacists don't have Masters programs after their main degree do they? I looked up PharmD, and apparently there are post-grad specialty degrees but those aren't a masters program, as for MDs and DOs, it appears that they can take parallel courses for research... but it still seems like the only Masters programs that require a doctorate-level degree for entry are LL.M. programs.
This industry is very strange in that people want to get into it so badly ... and more, many of them expect poor treatment going into it, and think it's acceptable - worse: they could be said to find it desirable (until they get into it). It's the risk of a buyer's market; still, I do see this changing -- without the dubious benefit of forced regulation or unions. More and more developers actually *are* speaking out, and many smaller companies are beginning to see the light. These companies will/are beginning to attract the higher-talent developers that the big companies depend on.
Well, Marx was a bit of a pessimist and didn't expect to see the western world fixing the problems that they were facing, and thus purposed violent revolt. I'm pretty much a pessimist at heart. I suppose, I should account for the few non-greedy people out there that will actually help change the system... I just find it easier to work under the theories of the people arguing against me. I want to present why libertarianism isn't a good idea, so I make the assumption that all people are heartless bastards who will exploit employees at the expense of profit at every turn.
That bitch gets fired before she's done complaining. She's keeping the company from getting certified, she's working against the interests of the company, she needs to leave. That's the sad truth, despite her being the only person in the whole process that shows responsibility, and would probably actually save the company a lot of money in the long run when (not if) a bug causes damage.
Except she's the best programmer in the group... thus, you direct her outrage at code reviews in order to implement a reform of the code reviews, she wastes months and months on the reform, then once it is complete, you don't implement it, and then you start working on firing her... (you don't fire her immediately, because you have your HR department to CYA so she doesn't sue for discrimination, you know, given that women comprise some 10% of computer programmers in many organisations.)
Sounds like you know the game better than I do... lol
And handing out a $100,000 bail is not "punitive"? Oh, that's right, the person gets the money back afterwards. Just like he'll get the xbox back so long as he appears in court. Bail is surrendering property temporarily to ensure court appearances, just like you said. Sometimes it amounts to a form of punishment, but that's why bails aren't supposed to be unreasonable... forfeiting an xbox is highly unlikely to cross the threshold of unreasonable.
... and good luck trying to map all the rules like "the right to free speech" but it actually means drawings too and it doesn't mean shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Actually, this is precisely why computers can't get this right, because most people can't get it right. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) ruled that shouting fire in a crowded theater was less than the bar required to make speech illegal, and moved the bar to incitement of "imminent lawless action".
They created the idea that law school, instead of the old apprentice system where you read the law under an experienced attorney, was needed to be admitted to the bar (although some states still allow you to take the bar without going to law school under certain circumstances).
Last I read, only Washington state allows one to take the bar without attending law school. Yet you still have to operate as a paid clerk for a lawyer for 4-ish years under a lawyer... well, I guess it's just like the old apprentice system... The only other state that is close is Arizona, which has provisions for non-lawyers to do various tasks that only lawyers can do in other states.
Oddly, when government rules in the US started saying that they were going to pay everyone based on the level of degree that they have, suddenly law schools started issuing Juris Doctor (Doctorates) instead of a trade degree. As such, it's the only academic program that awards a Doctorate before awarding a Master's.
So, who do you think would complain?
That pedantic bitch that everyone doesn't like, because she makes them do real code reviews, rather than just checking off boxes? You know, because if she's going to do something, she's going to do it right...
My ex-boss also didn't like me doing root-cause analysis and figuring out what really caused XY bug/error/failure. He just wanted it fixed, and for me to move on.
It won't work in the gaming industry. People spend their childhood playing games and wanting to develop them. Crunch time hours a part of the industry mystique, and are something that is considered a right of passage by people who have already done it and people who want to get into the industry. By the time people burn out on it, they really just want out - they're not interested in raising a fuss over it.
The only way this can improve is if enough companies with a clue start hiring develoers, treating them well, and still produce AAA titles.
And there is simply no incentive for the companies to treat their workers well, because there is a line a mile long out the door of people ready to be exploited.
It's a classic/textbook example of an exploitative industry... the way we fixed these jobs in the past have been to unionize across companies, as well as implement regulation.
Of course, the libertarian answer of "employees can just quit, and eventually the employers will fix what's wrong" is just way easier to say, and implement, because that means no one has to do anything about it.
It comes down to this, if the treatment was not enough to warrant actually leaving the job then it obviously wasn't as bad as they made it out to be. The whole idea that he could not get a job to replace it only means two things, he was in the wrong field or wrong area. Obviously the alternatives were not to his liking. I have had friends work two manual jobs while trying to get back into programming.
Right, because people won't work in a sweatshop that is destroying their health because the conditions aren't really that bad... people get a job, and they don't want to leave, and honestly, they shouldn't have to suffer unemployment or working manual jobs outside of their field just because they are being abused in the workplace. Telling them to "just quit and find another job" is such a simplistic view of the world.
If only there was some sort of way the employees could group together to increase their bargaining power with employers to avoid these situations.
If you consistently work over 40 hours a week your employer must compensate you for it even if you're salaried.
The problem isn't that they aren't unionized, the problem is they're too chickenshit to stand up to their boss, or to take the time and effort to report labor violations to the Wage and Labor commission. If the employees demanded the compensation they are already legally entitled to, and go to the proper authorities if it isn't provided, then the problem would solve itself rapidly when the boss realizes he's paying more in OT than he'd pay for doubling his staff size.
Except most programmers are Salary Exempt, and thus are not guaranteed overtime.
There are still editors? I thought they went down the road of the dodo along with the typesetters and the layouters.
Code reviews are not there to find bugs. Code reviews are there to get a signature on certificate. And I'm not arrogant, just jaded.and disillusioned.
I think we're running into an is/ought problem... I'm saying the purpose of code reviews ought be to find bugs, and help correct them. You're saying that code reviews regardless of what they ought be, are in fact actually just signatures on a form in order to permit a check-in, and thus get degraded down to the most minimal aspect... no review, just a sign off.
I can't hardly argue with you about what reality actually is, as it's pretty much what I'm complaining about. And since you declare yourself to be jaded and disillusioned, it's highly likely that you agree with me as well that it's a horrible state of affairs that code reviews are simply another check-box hurdle that people avoid as much as possible, and you are simply providing satirical comment.
Perhaps we actually have an understanding now?
What wonderful libertarian bullshit you spew. It is such a convenient world you live in where discrimination is solved by the free market...
And no, life is not fair, deal with and adapt or perish.
So, my only choice in life is submit to being abused, or commit suicide? WTF?
I'm moving to the east coast soon. You know what I'll do there? Cut my hair, buy a good suit and practice acting the right way (confident, etc, etc.) Why? Because that is what the culture there expects and if I don't adapt then that's my fault.
And the solution for the woman is to learn how to be a man? The black to bleach their skin and become white? The homosexual to hide their sexual orientation and live a life of denial? "Adapt or perish" is so nice and elegant in theory, but fundamentally makes unreasonable demands on many people that in fact they cannot even escape from.
Code reviews don't mean that someone reads your code. Don't be deluded into thinking that I'd have the time to read thousands of lines of source code, find out what the coder actually wants to do with it and painstakingly follow every variable through its lifetime, and make sure that all mem leaks are sealed. That's none of my business. I don't debug your code, I check it for security holes.
Say we're looking at the review of a PHP created webpage. Do I care whether you display the results correctly? Probably not, unless it is explicitly part of the review. I'll look for the lines that deal with database access, cookies and XSS vulnerabilities. Whether your results are correct or whether it looks like a monkey tried to write HTML is usually not the scope of a security code review.
And all of the same bugs were skipped and missed in the code reviews I've seen.
And how do you check all that stuff without reading the code for real? And if you don't have time to sit down and read-through and understand everything I wrote, why aren't there people whose job it is to do precisely that. Journalism and publishers have editors whose job is explicitly to read and understand and provide feedback. If we're relying upon other writers to do the exact same thing, when they're too busy to read anything, then we're simply already condemning ourselves to failure.
I honestly find your response to be arrogant and idiotic. Our jobs are to program code and produce good code, not only our own, but those of our co-workers that ask for our help as well. What the fuck is a code-review for if not to catch bugs, and errors.
And they will explain to you why your non expert test is really not a good way to test if someone is geeky in this particular subject. They will then spend an hour or so providing you with a better set of 10 questions and writing up a multi-page answer for each one.
That's when you know you are dealing with a geek.
You, Sir, have passed the geek test!
If you've got the qualities then you will very likely get a job at one company or another, as I said there is more demand than supply right now. In the last year a half dozen of my old coworkers have switched jobs to good companies. So have quiet a few of my friends. Google is still hiring like nothing else and so are other companies.
It seems like everyone makes this assumption that the world is fair, and only ability matters. It's no wonder libertarianism is so popular in the US. They think their abilities are unique and special, and deserve to be compensated, because it is not simply a fluke of fate.
Let me remind people, someone hiring people can dismiss an applicant because they have red hair... or brown hair. Should anyone have any illegal discriminatory reasons for not hiring someone, there are a hojillion things that they can hide it behind. In fact, I could interview Einstein for a position as a physicist, yet if I dislike Jews, I could even claim that he lacks sufficient physics knowledge.
I suppose what I'm getting at here is, I have enormous ability, and I have recognized honors and accomplishments to testify to that effect. Yet, I have been turned down for even the most basic of positions, because the world is not a perfect meritocracy... there is a heavy amount of discrimination in the world... "I just don't like this person", or whatever. Blacks, women, homosexuals, autistic people, disabled people... heck, people with enormous amounts of piercings... they all face enormous challenges that make some jobs simply unobtainable. And none of that has to do with their abilities.
Compliance auditing is a circle jerk business. It's like peer review, just worse...
God, this reminds me of code reviews. I would send them out, and get back a "Looks good!" email... to which I would note that in the time between me sending them the code review and me receiving their "looks good!" I found two bugs and one of them was a flagrant syntax error.
I tried to reform the process, but imagine how well that went over? If you said that I got the response "looks good!" and then it was never touched again, you'd be right.
When I started at a well-known-but-unnamed company, I was given a 5 year vesting stock option. After one year the first part of my stock vested, and I sold it immediately. The second year, there was a bunch of BS and my stock had entered a "non-vesting" period where the time I was being employed didn't count towards my stock investment, so I didn't get that one. However, I still had all the money from my first disbursement.
What was also "funny", was that I used the employee stock purchasing plan to buy the full limit of what I was allowed to buy, then immediately sold it, and then invested in a competing company, because I preferred their products (and their stock wasn't going down all the time.)
Hate to tell you this, since you're apparently not part the group, but for top quality people it's almost better than the 90's. Good silicon valley companies understand that quality matters, and they will pay for it and actively recruit it. There is more demand than supply.
Yeah, you're pretty much right. I still get active recruitment constantly. However, being that there are still a ton of top quality people out there, just because there is active recruitment doesn't mean you're going to get a job.
It is NOT legal.
A contract is binding on two parties if both parties are in equal standing. This means that if Microsoft and Google would enter in an agreement it would be legally binding. When one side holds a significant power advantage, it is not longer a valid contract.
No, this is not true. I'm actually engaged with a contract with Microsoft, and I'm very well aware that it is still a valid contract, and failing to perform will result in a lawsuit, injunction, and then any further breach means jail time for contempt of court.
That said, when such a contract is drafted, and there is a deep power advantage to one side, the contracts are normally held to the highest scrutiny against the contract drafter. Thus, you get a boiler plate contract plopped in front of you. You're given the option of moving in to an apartment under these terms, or not at all. You agree, because you want to live there. Later, some ambiguous piece of text is being used to sue you for say a hojillion dollars. You might be able to successfully argue the disparity of the power arrangement and get the ambiguous text interpreted in the most favorable way towards your interests.
This is different from the contract being void, or nullified.