RougeFemme

The NYT allows you to view up to 20 (I think - not sure of number, could be 10) stories per month for free. So you don't have to scam the paywall. And, I don't think if this is still the case, but. . .when the paywall was first erected, if you were directed to the NYT from another site, the story you accessed did not count against your free monthly quota.

The sites that I skip are those that require that I register before even reading an article.

It's not as bad as you think. The submitting member only gets the submission upvotes. The comment upvotes go the individual commenters. So d1egoaz only got 791 points.

a slight tangent, but. . .a few years ago I interviewed (internally) for a dev/mgr position for the group I was currently working in (not team lead - I was already a team lead). I would still be coding at least 50% of the time. I was already reporting to the hiring manager and was physically located in close proximity to him, so he saw me frequently throughout the day.

For the interview, I dressed as I always did - and we were not a suit type of place. At the start of the interview, he told me he was disappointed that I had not dressed up. I was stunned but did not respond and the interview proceeded.

I got the job and after a couple of weeks, I asked him why he wanted me to dress up for the interview. I asked if it was simply because he wanted to know if I could dress appropriately for the customer. He replied that was'nt it; he just though it would show appropriate respect for him and the position.

I though "this is reason # 102 why I really didn't want to move up the chain closer to you".

Interesting perspective that I had never thought of. . .I totally get it. . .but I still enjoy the show, only now I may feel guilty about it. Maybe I was so nerdy/naive I never perceived that the audience could be laughing more at them than with them. And honestly, I've been wishing we could see less of Penny. I get why Leonard is supposed to pine after Penny, but I keep thinking "get over her and move on to someone better". . .And I'm speaking as a female nerd.

I've had a couple of engagements that went well. And I've been invited to bid on some team engagements that appeared to be well defined, well managed, and well structured. But the customer "required" 40 hr/week and paid "okay", but not well enough to suck up 40 hours of my week. I would have considered it if it had been deliverable-based rather than time-based.

But, as the other commenters have stated, most of the jobs pay too little, require immediate turnaround and/or have initial scopes which turn out to be poorly though-out.

Not sure what you mean by "coded" tests, but I agree that most bugs can be found during development - unfortunately, my experience is that that's rarely the case. But if your development team finds most bugs during development, my hat's off to you.

You're not afraid that some actual/potential users might be scared off from your product due to defects they encounter while using/trying the product?

I've worked with African developers and an currently working with a couple. The ones that I know started out with an agency and then eventually gained green card status and were able to get hired independently of the agency. The potential problem with going the agency route, as I informally understand it, is that no matter how disatisfied you may be become with your agency, you are stuck with them until you are able to apply for a green card - and that could be a pretty long time.

I agree with all that you said except the lesson from the military about never complaining down - depending on how how you define "complain". For example, if you've been "given" a very agressive development schedule, my experience has been that it's fair - even appreciated by your team - that you state, succinctly and matter-of-factly, that you believe that the schedule is more agressive than is optimal and that you either 1) argued unsuccessfully against it or 2) argued with partial sucess against the original, more agressive schedule, so there is a partial win. And then comes the positivity. . ."we need to work together to figure out how to meet this schedule with minimal risk". This is what I did as a manager, when applicable, and what I appreciated as a team member listening to my manager.

And I worked for the military for a while - as a civilian - and I observed various leadership styles among the officers and various levels of receptiveness among those they were leading. They knew that they needed to salute and carry on with the job, whether they agreed with the plan or not, but they still appreciated the acknowledgement that the plan they were about to carry out was not perfect but was the best that it could be, given the constraints.

I don't know your age, but what works for you now may not work for you as you get older. And many people exercise not because of how it makes them look but because of how it makes them feel; in fact, for many people who exercise, their appearance changes very little, if at all. And some people find that exercise helps mitigate chronic illnesses such as MS, hypertension, depression, asthma. . .or at least the symptoms thereof.

I think one of the first things the college boys are taught now - or should be - is that one of the first things they should do is talk to the low-level folks on the floor. Even if they don't have the solution, they often have information/experience that can inform the solution or even better, what the real problem is. And this applies not only to factory floors, but to any "system" made up of people and processes (equipment optional).

As an engineering major, I did a few co-op assignments in a factory. I was assigned the task of figuring out how to optimize a particular line in the factory - we had new equipment coming in and were considering retrofitting some of the other equipment. The folks working on the floor told me how much they appreciated that I spoke with them and got their input rather than simply coming down with my "stopwatch and measuring tape."

Now I'm on the other side of the line <sigh>. And I'm sick of management and/or experts trying figure out how to improve morale and processes without consulting those of us in the trenches.

I confess. . .I'm one of those parents - almost. No, I'm not nearly as old as your parents and my kids are much younger than you all, but. . .my kids don't understand how I could have worked - literally - as a rocket scientist (well, engineer). . .but still struggle sometimes with consumer devices. I have no problem with web apps. . .coding and testing. . .but consumer devices are not my forte.

The user interfaces and interfaces between the devices do not seem at all intuitive to me. And learning those particular tech intricacies does not pique my curiosity; I just want to use the tools. So I just hand the devices off to my young kids, nieces and nephews and say "show me how to do blah-blah".

Interesting.. .I had never considered the parallels between (technical) writing and coding, but this is often what happens when I write. And I guess this could be extended to include outlining vs. specs or pseudocode. . .for those who write code and/or prose in a more structured process.

And I guess some steps could/would apply to some "non-technical" writing, as well. And it's what good (in my opinion) good English teachers do, too. Thinking back to one of my favorite high school teachers (who happened to teach English) and my (college) freshman English composition instructor.

I agree except that since it's apparently been going on for a while, there's no time now to allow him to "repeatedly" fail. Ideally, this improvement plan would have already been attempted and the results of that (assuming there were repeated failures) could be included in the info provided to the Board.

At this point, he should just go directly to the Board and include his proposed improvement plan in his presentation. The co-founder has already indicated an unwillingness to change or leave; the Board should be able to force it.

I used to believe that at least the consumer market economy would start to correct itself once we reached the point where there were no longer enough gainfully employed people to buy the goods and services being offered. And that would push corporations to start to re-hire the unemployed and not slash to the bone in pursuit of astronomical quarterly gains.

But that was a very myopic, "developed" nation view. I hadn't considered the use of cheap global labor and the rise of the middle and upper classes in developing nations that would provide the necessary demand for goods and services, making the "workers" in developed nations mere surplus to be discarded/ignored. (I'm watching "A Christmas Carol" right now.)

I agree, up to a point. People with disposable income can 1) spend what's required - in time and money - to be informed and 2) be willing to spend more money, if they deem it necessary, to support those distant implications - or not. But how many people are in a position to do that? In the U.S., that number seems to be dwindling, as the middle-class shrinks. Of course, the middle-class is growing in some other countries, but. . .

My experience with some so-called "gender equality" programs is that the company will try to value my contributions equally, even though I have a vagina.

I've worked on a number of teams that were all male - other than me, of course. In some cases, I had no issues related to the fact that I'm female. In other cases, I encountered males who assumed that I was incapable of performing the job, simply because I was female - and told me so. And even when I proved myself as capable as them - or more - I was constantly challenged/tested verbally on my technical capabilities in ways that the males were not. A few people continually told me that I was hired/retained/promoted simply because I was female. . .even after I had proven myself to be as capable - or more - than they.

That's quite a mental/emotion drain that males on all/predominantly male teams don't face - at least regarding their gender. And since all/predominantly female teams are rare in tech, it's a situation that male techies will rarely, if ever face, or even need to contemplate - at least regarding their gender.

So, I would be curious because I would wonder if I might encounter sexism on the team - sexism at a level that would drain/distract me. Well, I never let it distract me, but it was certainly draining.

I'm a woman and I totally understand why another woman would want to know that. And when I've been part of an interview panel, the panel was asked that. I responded that we have a mix of genders and ethnicities.

On the flip side, I've never asked that when interviewing for a position myself, though I've always been curious; I just assumed that asking would blow my chances of getting the job. I've always assumed that the team would probably be all male. And that it could be OK for me either way, depending on the personalities and attitudes of the team.

Maybe the company that issued the card provided the email address, assuming you provided your email address whoever issued your card (Visa/MC/Amex via your bank/credit union/etc.)

I don't think you necessarily should be switching. . .depending on the company, you may be able to refresh and update by simply transferring to a different team or project. But yes, the reality is that, for most of us, that's what we need to do.

I get the point(s) - I think, but. . .careers don't have to be within one company. And these days, they rarely are. Also, once you're a few years out from your multiple start-up jobs, you may see how some hard or soft skill you acquired has contributed/is contributing to your career progression. Several years ago, I looked around at my peers in my current job and thought. . .I really was on a career path (though it was not particarly planned and it spanned a number of organizations and industries); I really do have more breadth and depth of knowledge and experience than I thought; even though I feel that my talents are often wasted, I really am viewed as more senior than I thought (salary ranges here are an open secret, if you know how/where to look). . .

A few of the folks that I know who are approaching 50 have started checking the obits in the paper frequently, so that they won't have an awkward encounter when they run into an acquaintance at the store, on the street, etc. and ask "How's so-and-so/our mutual acquaintance/your spouse?"

At one company where I worked, I resented the fact that the executive assistant to the CEO made more than I; after all, she was non-technical and "simply a secretary". Then she had a heart attack at her desk and died instantly. I felt guilty for my thoughts and resolved to find out exactly what her job entailed.

About 2 years later, her replacement was struck by an aneurysm at her desk and died several weeks later. I had been interacting her a lot for work-related projects and had had learned how stressful, difficult and important that job was and did not begrudge her her salary at all.

When I've worked at places that had poor source control and/or poor documentation, I've resorted to trying to push for it by walking around saying, "Suppose I (or fill-in-the-blank) get hit by a bus? You'll all be up a creek."

I think it's best to incorporate your own natural rhythms, to the extent that you can and still complete your work. You said you can do 6 hours of concentrated work, so after that, why not take a break for as long as it takes to refresh and then go back and do anothe hour or two work, on the less demanding, "administrative" tasks.

By the end of the week, you may find that you don't "need" to work additional hours on the weekend. . .at least not every weekend.

Also, experiment with the times of day that you are most productive. You may find that at different times of the day. And remember that you may not always need 40 hours in a week to feel productive. Other weeks, you may have the energy, desire and drive to work for 60 hours.

Not everyone has what it takes to start a company. Conversely, not all companies want someone who has started a company. Granted, that company's culture would probably be a poor fit for you, but the fact is that not all companies regard starting a company in the same way. And re: taking contracts. . .you still must interview for contracts. And while companies may be willing to take more of a risk with contractors than with full-time employees, biases still exist during the interview process. You can be passed over for contract positions just as you can be passed over for full-time positions.

In my experience, the hiring managers have been the problem, not HR. I've been very frustrated by my managers' attitudes and expectations when trying to hire folks for my team. They've rejected resumes against my recommendations. And after interviews, they've declined to offer jobs to people that I thought would be great fits. And then they continue to complain to their managers that we just aren't getting quality candidates. Not true!!! And again, this is not HR. . .these are the hiring managers.

HR facilitates but it's the hiring managers - i.e., the people who will actually manage the new employees - who define the requirements. So, the managers have the crazy expectations, not HR.

Agree, though, as someone who always loved the math, I do think the logical thinking required of math translates quite nicely to coding. I can't really say the same about science - and science is such a broad field.