Test0129

> While this might allow you to refine your search criteria (and probably have strong funnel metrics), it misses the point that most frameworks are easy to learn and ramp up on. Great engineers all have the capability to learn new languages and frameworks easily.

There is just such a disconnect with reality here I am having a hard time thinking the author has done any actual technical recruiting. Sure, any engineer can pick up any language and framework provided enough time. However, an expert in said language or framework is familiar with the nuance. More often than not if your problem is harder than slamming together off the shelf components to fleece the consumers of their money the nuance comes into play quickly.

> You really need to flip this on its head. As a startup, you need to be comfortable taking risks on hires but also parting ways if it isn’t working out after 2–3 months. This will feel hard, but in the medium-to-long run will feel a lot more sustainable. Some of the best companies I have ever worked with/for have operated this way and it leads a culture that doesn’t compromise on high-performance.

This advice works when you have infinite capital from VCs in a market flush with free money. You probably spend 30-50k to hire an engineer after paying for everything and all the labor involved. You're saying to just throw this money away? Slow to hire, slow to fire is the only sustainable way to run a company. If you want to "flip the funnel on it's head" hire contractors because the message I am getting here is "increase developer churn". Moreover what even defines "high performance"? I swear, these vulture capitalists are getting far too big for their own britches.

If you dont believe it I encourage you to try to start your own company while working somewhere else. You'll be mired in legal nonsense so deep you wont even be able to see clearly. When you become an employee you sign just about every right away you have to anything you do, ever, while working for the company. NDAs, Non-Competes, Invention Agreements, etc.

Sure, the company can't avoid paying you. But in exchange they get 2/3 of your waking life for 30-40 years and 100% of your production. Some companies are better, some are worse. All of them have lawyers that, should you cross them, will make you regret everything. I am at a relatively relaxed company (compared to FAANGs) and even here I had to go through a ton of channels and sign paperwork to even begin work on an open source project.

The problem is it's already given by the extensive job history. Typing that is just a dance we have to do to get past automated filters that look for keywords. By my estimation we are now in the "black hat SEO" phase of resume design. Soon, not even that will work.

Back in OP's Dad's day actual humans who actually cared looked at every resume and more often than not treated the interviewee like a human. For us, we just get fed into a machine and if we make it out of it maybe a human will glance at it.

Ah classic mistake. This will never pass the automated review because you forgot "like, comment, and subscribe!"

I am 100% fine with CS trivia interviews. I am fascinated by CS and can talk your ear off about it.

What I am not fine with is that you're judged entirely on that. My biggest complaint about this industry is not the CS trivia, it's that my entire job history is irrelevant. I have a decade in this industry and a staff title and I am still treated like a junior developer with no experience when I am interviewed. It's degrading and insulting. I can understand rigor in an interview at our average salary but the market is still firmly controlled by corporations despite what the media says about job prospects. Given that there are approximately 10-20 jobs per engineer in the industry right now, if we really cared, all we would have to do is just collectively say "no".

I drink plenty of coffee and still take naps. Its hard for people to remember these days but the "lazy nappers" meme started during the industrial revolution. We've only had a 40 hour week, for example, for a (relatively) small amount of time here in America.

I'm shocked you made it 3 years. I did a stint trying to do what they call "mob programming" and felt borderline suicidal. I couldn't think because I was constantly vocalizing what I was doing. Nothing added up and every ticket felt like it was just a hodge-podge of different ideas with no real flow. Lord help you if someone wanted to disagree. Now you have to completely stop your worker thread and handle that. There was no art to it. Its just one robot and two guys standing behind you ordering you to do this or that. I found it impossible to reach a flow state and produce actual good work. I left every session feeling like I accomplished nothing for myself. I am not attached to my code, but I am attached to my accomplishments. When all your work is atomized between people you are effectively no one. In this case, I believe, it's better off to leave.

Pair programming in moderation can be enlightening. Much like traveling to a different town as an artist to learn from other artists. Too much of it and you lose your identity. It is completely possible to remain detached from your work but still desire to work mostly alone on your own tickets. Code ownership is a silly concept. On one hand everyone suggests being detached from your work. Yet everyone simultaneously realizes having your name in a PR matters. I make a habit of crediting people who worked with me in the PR message. It's pretty simple.

I don't think it's that at all. If you're salary the company quite literally owns you, every thought no matter how inconsequential, etc. I can see how that could be a problem for hourly. It's really about control. You give the appearance of work to appease the PHB who signs your paycheck. You know, after plenty of experience, the person who appears to be the hardest worker is often times the least likely to be put on the chopping block. It's a very primal hierarchical reaction to this kind of thing.

I've had more ideas come to me after hiding in my office to take a nap than sitting at my desk. It got to be such a gold mine of solutions that I still to this day allocate 30 minutes of my day to a nap. Non-negotiable. So many hard problems that have been brought to me, or complicated needs for architecture, etc were solved by simply turning my active brain off. When I was in graduate school I'd regularly get stuck on some stupid thing I didn't understand and slamming my head against the paper/book/whatever didn't help. Again, a quick nap and I was good (or at least better than I was).

Performative work is a disaster. I worked in a stuffy IT office of a company before I got my degree and became a software engineer. It took YEARS to deprogram performative work. I still hide when I take a nap. I suspect that if my current company found out I was sleeping on the job they'd still be upset with me. However, my output is so good the results speak for themselves. It would be difficult to fire me for napping.

> Death is really not quite as big a deal as we think it is, in my opinion.

I can tell you having lost many people in my life, some of them closer than others, this is very easy to say until you're the one doing the dying. Some people accept it better than others. I dont think anyone is actually comfortable with the thought. It's just a gradient of "dealing with it".

Its obvious you are just trying to agitate them.

But to entertain you the last two wouldn't be "resurrected" so to speak (even though this is something some denominations believe it is not universal). To accept Christ you need to, in every denomination, say some form of a prayer of salvation. This excludes the last two regardless of the purity of one of them. The first man could be saved if he turned his life towards Christ and quit his evil. Second man is a shoe-in.

I'd recommend reading the bible. I've done it once for bible school many, many years ago and once more for my own edification. Even if you don't believe in Christ, in order to construct a salient argument in the framework of the religion you should at least know what you're arguing.

I really wasn't bragging about load. Of course 5k requests is nothing. It was mostly to emphasize that those 5k requests would bring at least 5k pieces of malware if I didn't spend the time to stop them.

The guide was missing this which I think cheapens the guide a little to me because security can be a large portion of the cost of a SaaS service you might pay for.

I like that title better to be honest.

Silly. I've been self hosting since I degoogled. Never have I regretted not using docker. To imply that you should do this is the kind of hilariously out of touch I expect from developers :).

This guide lacks the most important tools: fail2ban and tripwire. I block on the order of 5,000 malicious requests a day (mostly recon bots) from Russian and China.

I am generally sympathetic to student loan exploitation. I took out student loans, but responsibly held a job through college and paid them off once I got my first real programming job (at 50k/year!)

> That's the trick they use on kids to get them to sign up for these loans. You don't have to pay it until you graduate. Sometimes until you get a job. Sometimes they don't even tell you until when.

MOST student loans do not accrue interest while in college. The problem comes when you exceed that limit and start to take out other loans. Perhaps to go to a better school. But to imply that most students pay interest during college is nonsense. Yes school is expensive. Even my no name local University was expensive. But I had 30k of loans at graduation, not 200k. Parents are just as responsible here. Loan companies can only exploit your kid if you let them. We have a generation of people terrible with money encouraging the same behavior in the youth. It's this intersection of idiots that is the problem. The schools encourage it to fund new facilities, the loan companies encourage it because its free money to them. The parents encourage it by teaching their bad money habits to their children.

> Don't get me wrong we do need computer science graduates. It's just that most are not in it for computer science jobs. They are in for web programming and Apps. It's nothing new see people studying one thing and ending up in a completely opposite career space.

The purpose of going to school is not to get a job it's to learn to think. Often times, having the ability to think confers a higher salary than not. In particular, STEM program rigor creates people who are HIGHLY adaptable to most fields. Hence why you see them everywhere.

In summary the problem is not the loans, it's that they are not dischargeable. Make them dischargable and the problem goes away.

The difference of course being that other types of engineers have to take a PE. The idea of requiring a PE to have that title is protectionism no different than limiting the number of graduating doctors to keep salaries high. No one will ask a software engineer to build a bridge - relax. Your protection racket is safe. Software engineer is a title conferred on someone who builds systems. It is fitting. And, if we're being honest, the average "job threat level" of a so-called "real" engineer is about the same as a software engineer these days anyway. With the exception of some niche jobs every engineer I know is just a CADIA/SW/etc jocky and the real work is gatekept by greybeards.

No one will call someone a cafeteria engineer or janitorial engineer. The premise is ridiculous. There is a title called "operations engineer" that uses math to optimize processes. Does this one bother you too?

Gun ownership correlates to a desire to defend yourself from out-groups. You expect people to behave according to the set of ethics you and your countrymen follow. A gun is a tool to provide oneself a way to insure their own life. You can have a high trust society. That doesn't mean that crime doesn't happen, nor does it mean the (theoretically benevolent) police can respond in time to save you. High trust does not imply victimhood. A high trust society is generally cohesive and has a shared set of moral and ethical values that allow for kinship and constructive work. High trust societies with firearms are generally safe - as America is.

Gun deaths have trended down dramatically since the 60s (source: FBI) and with all but a few unfortunate locations in the US you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than shot. Ignoring suicide, the US is a very safe place much to chagrin of the yellow journalists. This sounds exactly like a high trust society to me. If it was low trust, every street corner would be dangerous. Chicago, for example, is a microcosm of a low trust society. Most of Africa is low trust. Afghanistan is low trust. Clan-based warfare is a sign of low trust. China, for example, is a (somewhat) high trust society yet has incredibly restrictive firearms laws.

> And I'm sure this exists on a spectrum and societies will change over time, so which way would you think the US is trending?

According to the actual FBI data released in the last several years gun deaths continue to decline from record highs 60 years ago. The vast majority of murders are gang related (a cultural problem), and the vast, vast majority of remaining data is taken up by suicides. As far as I can tell not only is the US a high trust society in general (I can open a business anywhere, I can buy a home anywhere, I can generally expect someone to be kind to me), it's also safe despite it's gun ownership. The anti-gunners always seem to ignore cultural differences in countries. For example, comparing Sweden or Finland to the US. These are still culturally homogeneous. The US is a veritable melting pot of 10,000 different cultures. This has a dramatic effect that people avoid talking about because it is politically incorrect. In this sense the US can be viewed as a lower-tier of high trust due to the lack of cultural homogeneity. Though I would still argue on fundamentals the US itself is very high trust, albeit somewhat awkward and very self-deprecating.

I think your issue trying to resolve high trust is stemming from the media portrayal of the US. As someone who spends every waking moment here, and many moments outside of metros, I just don't see what horrors the media reports. If it does exist, it's somewhere else (and I honestly can't be bothered to worry about it).

I'm not sure you have the correct definition of a low trust society. If the US was a low trust society due to it's gun ownership Mad Max would be more than a movie. In fact, Mad Max is a perfect example of a low trust society. All but the most degenerate Americans believe murder is wrong... so I'm not sure what kind of point you're making about guns. That alone is a shared ethical value. An important one, too!

America is very high trust. It still has something that resembles a democracy, private property rights, businesses, etc. All of this signal that Americans can have shared ethical values - a fundamental point of high(er) trust societies. None of these would be possible if people fundamentally didn't trust each other. Despite what the media portrays Americans as almost none of it is true.

I personally wont buy into macs walled garden for M1, I think a lot of technically competent people agree with me. In exchange for a superior chip I get an user-hostile experience and lock-in. Hard pass.

Apple has first mover advantage. It won't be long before everyone is running M1-like chips and Apple will be back to making the same consumer nonsense they are now. Thats why I didn't mention. It's a big selling point if you want to buy a $2800 machine. I'm a professional programmer and have never needed more than an Intel mac. Maybe for designers it matters but it's just not that cool to me. I didn't even get around to mentioning the wireless mouse. The fact that I have to charge it flipped over because, as stated, charging in a standard way "ruins the aesthetic" is completely on-brand with Apple's BS.

Apple bashes themselves just fine. Nothing I said was BS. By and large Apple produces inferior products to their competition and their name brand and walled garden sell the stuff for them. Apple products look fantastic, have an allure that says "I have money", and lack practical functionality. Apple products are a luxury. Identifying you're a member of a cult is the first part of breaking free of it.

I'm not being facetious here but I have no idea what you mean by "apple quality".

I've been using Macbook Pros for a long time. In my opinion "Apple Quality" died way back in 2013, possibly 2015. After that, they started introducing user-hostile phones, laptops, etc. The touchbar is a travesty and now you have to pay more money to have a normal experience.

The feeling of the laptops and aesthetics are nice but the parts are garbage. When (not if) your mainboard finally goes out you may as well buy a new laptop. 2018 model Macbook Pros had horrendous keyboard issues that they finally were forced to issue a warranty (however, there are big caveats). Darwin is an abomination with all sorts of edges to cut yourself on. It's unix enough on the surface but the second you need to do anything really unix-y it's not there. OS X itself is a very cleverly disguised walled garden you cant break out of.

Let's not even talk about the phones. Every phone just simply adds more gadgets. The operating system's only benefit is it is more "privacy first" than Android. However, in exchange for that you get the most walled of gardens. You can't even get a decent browser installed and it still sends all your data home. They are also far more fragile than androids and infinitely less serviceable. I have an iPhone from 5 years ago. I refuse to buy another one. I also will not buy an android. They're all terrible. Unless, I guess, you like handing over your entire life to a faceless corporation for some real neat-o gadgetry. The spying seems to get worse with every iteration.

Apple produces garbage products. The reason companies prefer them is the consistency across models. If you want actual quality there is better for far, far cheaper.

> What's baffling is the lack of any sort of help at the hospital and the inability to find a rheumatologist or specialist or just a regular doctor who gives a damn.

I guess this depends on your situation. I've been in and out of doctors my entire life. The doctors that give a damn are generally locked away from you if you're using some sort of state health plan or HMO. I have only ever had luck finding a good doctor by going through PPO. If you can do this, I would recommend it. PPO doctors make far, far more (because it's expensive even to you) but the specialist access is second to none. It took 3 months to get an appointment with an ENT once, and when I switched to PPO my GP had me into an ENT at my request the next week. Then you start the cycle of feeling them out and finding out which ones mesh with your goals.

It's tough, but navigating healthcare is tough. Just avoid HMO insurance and you'll do a lot better (or at least better than baseline).

Or perhaps the business couldn't afford transcription/translation. The GP seems to suggest it's "trivial" to add subtitles. Great! What happens when those subtitles are terrible quality? The goal post will get moved further and further by those in charge until you need professional grade transcription. If you're a small enough business you probably don't have the XX,XXX in legal capital to fight a firm that can throw XXX,XXX in to prove their point.

The problem isn't how easy it is, nor how we should do this. It's that someone has a gun to every small business' head telling them to spend money/time/resources on something they may not have the ability to do immediately. No one should be able to tell me how to run my company, or my life. It's up to me to decide to be compliant to accessibility and if I don't it may cost me customers. It's not like handicap ramps that save people's lives in fires. This is a transcription. Ostensibly not NEARLY as important as other ADA regulations. But because of it's ambiguity and relative ease to determine who and who isn't following using data miners it's a cash cow for legal vultures.

Not surprised. I remember pushing back pretty aggressively against some people trying to get this stuff codified into law here. Ostensibly it stands to benefit people by increasing accessibility. However, it hamstrings the average Joe because as it turns out the ADA is a labyrinth of gotchas and compliance is often expensive. In the case of software, a simple app doable by one person could easily take 10x as long if you are required by law to do this.

The only benefit to our industry is for people not trying to make money you can release things anonymously and avoid the pain. Unfortunately for everyone else once this happens here it's curtains for small business.

Or we could stop asking students trivia and force them to think. Most of my graduate school exams were open book + notes but it hardly helped. You had to demonstrate knowledge by producing a novel solution to the problem most of the time. Not novel as in new research, but novel in the sense you weren't just regurgitating factoids from the books. I also had tons of open book and open note advanced math classes. The problems were made in such a way you had to make a connection with the material and link pieces together in non-obvious ways. In those classes I retained more information even to today.

Teaching, even at the collegiate level, has become "how can I do the least so I can do what I want". Tenured research professors generally make terrible teachers...perhaps we need professional teachers.

> As an independent 3rd party with no interest in the world of Chess, I don't see how Niemann expects to win any damages in this case.

That's not the goal with most of these libel/slander law suits. Consider the most famous one - Billy Mitchell the most infamous professional gamer of all time. The evidence is basically unanimous he cheated but he uses lawsuits to shut down people who can't afford to fight them.

I imagine this is no different. Your only mistake is assuming the court won't throw out such a trashy lawsuit and lawyers exist that actually have some dignity.

If this isn't peak silicon valley hubris I'm not sure what is. He even included a poem! LOL.

That assumes that democracy even continues to work after the Nth time. Eventually, like all tinpot dictatorships, they'll just force the issue and you'll get it anyway. IMO, there is only a faint shadow of democracy left in the world. Your vote really doesn't matter. In this case, enough people made noise the demons will go back into their lair for another year or more before fielding it again. All it will take is one of those guys to realize they don't really have to listen to anyone to get what they want. This is the genesis of the 5 eyes, and it will be the genesis of modern AI-driven surveillance like OP's link.

> I think to push back is rightfully coming from the “ops” part. I consider “creating the CloudFormation/CDK/Terraform” code as part of “development” as part of coding.

> If you use Docker, wouldn’t you consider creating the Dockerfile as part of development?

Sure you could argue a developer could, or even should create these things in theory. The problem is then when it goes down I have made two problems out of one. Now I have to manage the infrastructure of a system and what is running on it. Realistically, and even in my current job, it's actually several systems. Now when something breaks I have to pray I can fix it. Instead of allowing a team of infrastructure professionals to at least insure the hardware is working my 8 hour day turns into 14 or 16 very quickly the second one thing goes wrong.

I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me. Developers should know what their code runs on. They shouldn’t have to add managing that to an already full schedule of work. That’s the difference.

At companies I've worked for where they actually do this the DevOps people are generally assigned to a team. So you might have 10 developers on a project, and one guy managing just the devops exactly to solve this problem. In smaller companies/etc I can see where this is a problem. I agree, and there's nothing wrong with knowledge sharing. This could even be as simple as having PR descriptions including benchmarks/code/etc and making sure the devops people make their points clear during design/planning.

In theory, devops shouldn't be responsible for maintaining the performance of code. The specification should say what it should run on, the devops guys set up a pipeline and manage that thing, and the developers are the ones taking heat for not hitting that goal. If devops guys are taking the heat for that it sounds more like cost-cutting measures flowing the other direction.