benaston

OK, my comment was glib, but I do understand the meaning of "correlation is not causation". The link you provide attempts to refute the argument that "immigration causes unemployment". You correctly point out that no correlation was found in the case of the UK. My point (and hence my rather glib comment) is that this lack of correlation tells us nothing about causation.

Importantly, taking unemployment overall conceals that fact that certain portions of the workforce (i.e. the young and low paid) are disproportionately affected by a rapid influx of young tradesmen and low-skilled workers.

Correlation is not causation. Sorry that was too easy ;P

This is the result of the government being so "open minded" that they end up not looking out for the best interests of their own populous. By "open minded" I mean rapidly (this being the operative word) removing all cross-border controls with countries with wildly differing economies, resulting in wage deflation and joblessness for a huge number of people.

Of course the people hardest hit are those at the bottom of the income chart - the young. At the same time, the cost of living has rocketed as a result of the mishandling of the banking sector, resulting in a housing boom (that from a political perspective cannot be permitted now to be undone and has been subsequently propped up by a heavily indebted the government). Again the worst off have been non-homeowners (i.e. the young).

It's impossible to blame the current administration for all of it, you have to blame the entire political establishment (all 3 main parties have been in power within the last 15 years). Their worldview has to be questioned. Significant errors of judgement have been made repeatedly over the last 15 years - Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria (no action taken by a hairs breadth even after everything that had come before), the banking crisis, handling of the educational system (including higher education), rapidly opening borders to former eastern-bloc countries, limitless spying on UK citizens, no reform of an undemocratic (not elected, but "appointed") European Commission, and migration of law making powers to the EU without consultation and assent by the public (through referendum).

If Chrome stops displaying the URL, I will stop using it. Caveat: very small screen devices may justifiably need clever tricks surrounding the display of the URL to reduce screen usage.

Off topic and a little nosey, but what skills do you have that command 650/day?

Open new tab. The recent sites are displayed. Enter a url and hit return. The website is displayed. Now try and click the back button to return to the recent sites list... You can't, the back button is disabled. Despite the profession of attention to detail this speaks otherwise.

Totally agree. Good design sense appears to be incredibly rare, and it's unfortunate that major sites simply copy each other's designs resulting in UI trends not based on sound design, but fashion. See the pervasive fixed position header for a good example.

An excellent case study for the Macleod Heirarchy. http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/

A puff piece. All the significant announcements made since Nadella took office will have been in the pipeline for months if not years. You don't port Office to iPad in 8 weeks.

This is, after all, how Thoughtworks make their money - they insert polyglot (read graduates/juniors with a smattering of experience in different languages) into projects and bill for experienced professionals (the "seasoned" developers in this article). This article conflates "varied experience" with "good developer" and "seasoned developer" with "bad developer". In the real world, this is not the case. So whilst I agree with the premise that varied experience contributes to being a good developer and that polyglotism is very healthy and a positive sign, I disagree with the broad conclusions implied by this article.

I have done the same and come to the same conclusion.

Did those close to him know/suspect drug use before his death? Just trying to gauge the plausibility of the accidental overdose theory.

Suspect the weak mean salaries in London are due to the fact that many (most?) senior developers move out of the permanent jobs market into consulting/contracting (which, I hear is not par for the course in other nations).

When the market shifts, or for tactical reasons you have to pay more to recruit someone, you instantly have a problem.

Surely you don't begrudge them wanting/aspiring to something better. I presume you mean that if they expect to have the trappings of success without putting in any effort then you have something to say. But even then, that is merely an expectation that will remain unfulfilled. If a group of people actually receives the trappings of success without effort then, I agree with you, but this is not born out by everyday experience. The poor and disadvantaged are comparatively, well, poor and disadvantaged when compared to the successful. So, if my anecdotal experience matches reality then the problem becomes, "how best to help?".

People with education and good parents are at the table playing the game. The poor and disadvantaged are playing a different game, with its own pressures and psychological frame. Decision making is dependant on psychological frame, and decisions made by players either game look strange to players in the other. The OP makes the mistake of moralising when he should be empathising.

Is this a legal technique to avoid Google having to pay for open source software in any way? Does acceptance of the blanket mean anything legally?

tldr: Don't do this.

Citation?

Are they not insured?!

The fizzbuzz syndrome is real alright. But someone failing fizzbuzz is not an indicator that they will always be incapable of development. It just means they are very junior and require training. Frighteningly for the West, Indian and Chinese companies appear to grok this and actually develop their employees. US and UK companies throw their hands up in empty self-satisfaction that their work is so intellectually difficult that people up to the challenge are impossible to find. The reality is probably that the corporate business model is flawed meaning they cannot afford the seniority of guy they need.

My experience is mainly with OKCupid. I presume most other dating websites are variations on the same theme.

The problem is that OKCupid is a geek's worldview distilled. Whether a girl is visible to you is largely based upon algorithmic analysis of a questionnaire, which in turn is based on nothing more than pseudoscience.

So you have a questionnaire written by a team of computer programmers acting as gatekeeper to you contacting someone? Do you see the potential problem here? Who says the questionnaire is relevant?

Add to this fact that the quality of women on these sites is low on average, and it doesn't bode well for guys. Lots of guys will of course chime in and say it works for them. My interpretation of this is that given the sheer number of users, there will always be people who "luck out".

Cupid Plc (another online dating company, unrelated to OKCupid) is under heavy suspicion in the UK for faking high quality female profiles. I don't know if OKCupid does this, but the site really has no built-in mechanism to give you much trust in the profiles you see.

Overall, I think the problem with online dating websites is that they are not actually solving any of the difficult problems of dating. Online profiles are useless because they are 90% equivalent. Oh, so you like tall, athletic men? And you enjoy movies and wine, music, art and watching Game of Thrones? You are mainly good, but have a wild side? You are unique?

Given this, why the focus on these profiles? Guys are only interested in the photos (having put the effort into reading through fifty identikit profiles already).

...and then there's the transition to meeting up. This is fraught with difficulty because you have know way of gauging how to approach the issue. For some people "let's meet" will be enough and looked upon positively as decisive and confident. For others it is seen as completely inappropriate. The site gives you, the guy - it will usually be the guy - no way of knowing which strategy to use and so you lose 50% (or more) of the time on the basis of not having enough information to make a good decision. Given already low probability of finding someone who "suits" you on these sites, this is incredibly wasteful and not addressed.

So... good luck to anyone trying to improve things.

I'll chime in - your standups are poisonous. I can sympathise though because I've been there too. It is a symptom of a junior team with weak team leadership/standup facilitation. Long monologues should be cut short and "taken offline". Action points aren't needed because they should be actioned immediately if they are quick or turned into cards on the wall. Your email "solution" likely won't be read or actioned.

Looks great. Wish it used JavaScript instead of CoffeeScript to lower the barrier to entry though.

Three "m" words: mystery meat menus.

Copy Chrome?

This could be empirically tested. For me "My Computer", "My Profile" reflects the internal dialog occurring in the users head and (in my perception) has less cognitive overhead than the reflexive "your".

All this management bullshit might work if your reports were mindless and we didn't live in the age of the Internet; unfortunately in IT, they probably aren't and, well, we most certainly do.

Aping emotions, and playing psychological games (like playing dumb, and pretending to be a friend for the purposes of eliciting information) is a dangerous game in our industry because as soon as your reports detect you are behaving in this way the relationship will go south, fast (and permanently.)

Playing mind games like these will cause you to exhibit behaviors more typically associated with psychopathic individuals - and you will set yourself up for having them played back against you.

"Gabe Newell — Of all the people at this company who aren’t your boss, Gabe is the MOST not your boss, if you get what we’re saying."

This is double speak because it is saying one thing explicitly and exactly the opposite meaning is implied.

In other words - we are all equal (there is no hierarchy), but some are more equal than others (there is a hierarchy) - if you get what I'm saying.

"Gabe Newell — Of all the people at this company who aren’t your boss, Gabe is the MOST not your boss, if you get what we’re saying."

Most egregious example of double-speak ever?