The previous owners of our house did all the electrics and plumbing. So far we've had 3 major floods, an electrical fire, and the garage door cables snapped. I'm all for people actually having qualifications to show their training. You wouldn't want people driving around who'd never passed a driving test would you?
Beautiful writing is more memorable and more enjoyable to read and therefore you're more likely to read it, remember it, and be inspired by it. Hence invisible writing is not the aim, but I agree writing shouldn't get in the way of you understanding something.
People would just find ways of giving the money to their children, e.g. cash, or setting up a company and employing them at ridiculous salaries. When you have money there are always ways around things. It's an arms race and unfortunately they rich are winning it.
I prefer to think of the Peter principle as you arrive at your point of unhappiness rather than incompetence. Not everyone wants to be the CEO of a billion dollar company. Everyone has a place where they reach maximum happiness in there career. If organisation actively asked people if they wanted to be promoted then this could be avoided to some extent. It may require soul searching and difficult conversations though.
The hardest thing though is when the Peter principle occurs as organisations grow. The CEO of a 10 person startup might not enjoy running a 100 or 1000 person company. The skills required are very different.
Skills don't follow a bell curve or normal distribution. They follow a power law distribution with most people being terrible and a very small number of people being exceptional.
Maybe you need to reread the question. I think he's asking how this will affect you personally, not what you're doing for the people being layed of. This doesn't answer that question at all or at least comes across as a politicians answer.
Which other unfair advantages? Another way to look at this is that the employee is selling the employer a service. When you buy something from a shop do you expect to name your price, or do you expect see a price label? In that case the seller almost always names their price first. Do you like going into shops where their are no prices listed?
I completely agree. I would never ask someone to do work for free, but take homes are the best way of simulating actual job performance and can be enlightening for both sides.
This would take double the time but also assumes that the same people are on the market during phase 1 and 2 which won't be true. In some cases I have s time constraint and just need the best available person. If they happen to be a top performer then do much the better.
Yes, so why did they do it? I guess it depends on the type of job and company. In this case it sounds like they didn't have the budget or wisdom to hire a high performer but we're trying to net one through trickery. There will always be bad actors. A salary range wouldn't stop this as they could do the same by baiting you at the top of the range and switching to the lower end.
I don't say that the candidate has to be the first to name a number, just that they can. In fact, in most negotiations the results ends up closest to the first number named, so candidates should be happy to name the first number.
I completely agree that it doesn't make sense, but that's how it is. Anyone who's ever hired a top performer will feel like they're getting the biggest bargain ever. I guess that psychology artificially limits the top of the range for salaries.
As an employer, I am reticent to name a salary range because the fact is that the return on investment of employees is not normally distributed; it follows a power law where the top people return many times the amount of an average person. This may be because of connections, experience, intelligence, or a mixture. When I recruit I always want to hire a top person for whom I'm happy to pay 50% more than an average person, but realistically that's not always possible for me. If I state a salary range then I have to extend it to the amount I'd be willing to play for a top person which would mean if I'd have to settle for an average person then I'd probably set their expectations too high.
My advice is that if you're worried about going through multiple rounds of interviews to get a low offer then the solution is just to be very clear of your expectations up front before you interview. The worst case is that I say I can't afford you. Candidates should know their value too and shouldn't be afraid of letting employers know what they're worth.
At the point that Russia starts calling normal people to service, that's the point where he starts losing the population. The vast majority of people don't want to fight in a war. They may believe his lies for the sake of an easy life but if their life is suddenly on the line then it becomes a different story. I think a lot of people will now try to leave Russia to avoid the possibility of military service and that will be a tipping point.
The version number was really important to me when I recently had to roll back my Kindle app so that I could actually buy books in it. It seriously pisses me off that Google gradually makes my phone more and more unusable.
When I was writing full-time, we had strict word limits. It meant we spent a lot of time removing unnecessary words. My writing skill improved immensely because of this "training". Writing is a skill like any other. It can be trained. The problem most people have is that they don't know how to train it.
I think this tool is an excellent start. As you point out there are other skills in writing, but maybe this tool is just the start of a suite (or gym) of tools to help people become better writers. I applaud the creator's efforts to help people.
As I recall, most of the texts in reading comprehension tests are so badly written that it's amazing anyone can understand even 70% of them. Are you saying that because people can't understand difficult texts, people shouldn't bother trying to write clearly and concisely?
Congratulations. Most people get stuck at the procrastination phase you mention. Just getting a book to published is a huge achievement let alone making significant revenue from it. This is not only good advice, but also an inspiring tale.
I would suggest that it's never a good idea to be cooking several dishes at the same time in the world of software. Software and cooking are completely different in terms of the cost of making a mistake. A single bug in production can take more time to find and fix than the work in the first place.
I can see that in a commercial kitchen that it makes sense to prepare all the ingredients before because you can do this before your customers arrive and it's better to chop 100 carrots in one batch than 100 carrots at different times, but that's very different from software development.
For me, "Mise en place", has nothing to do with chopping everything beforehand and in fact that is completely different from how I cook and develop software. Chopping everything at the start seems like it takes longer.
I think Mise en place can mean different things to different people. The way I was taught it was to have everything "in place" before you start. Literally you gather all the ingredients in one place (on a metal tray) before you start cooking. This has three main benefits:
1) you make sure you have everything you need;
2) you don't forget to add anything as you go because at the end your tray should be empty;
3) you don't mess up timings by searching for something while you're cooking that you can't find;
Thus I use Mise en place, but I don't chop everything at the start. I chop the onion and then start cooking it, and then chop the other ingredients. Chopping everything else upfront would make the process slower.
Similarly in software development I often save simple tasks for when I need mental relief from a hard task. Working on a simple task can often give you the space you need for your brain to solve the hard task it's working on in the background.
Doing all the simple tasks up front does not seem to me like a good approach to cooking or software development, but making sure you know what all the ingredients are and have them all ready, does.
I don't like:
- manual testing
- fixing bugs found in production under extreme time pressure
- people finding embarrassing bugs in my code
- spending lots of time explaining what code should be doing to other developers
Unit testing massively reduces all of these. Therefore I assume people that don't like unit tests either enjoy doing these things or are masochistic.
Maybe I was being too subtle. I mean it sounds like offering completely random advice that has no statistically significant correlation with success, and therefore is just as likely to be wrong as right.
This sounds like all the parents who've had one baby that slept well and spend the rest of their lives telling other parents what worked for them. Very difficult to draw anything meaningful from a sample size of one. Sometimes a company just works despite all your best efforts to sabotage it, and sometimes even then best founders can't make something work. Right idea, wrong time.
For me, whichever you choose, you should make it easy for the user to change the language. Living in Spain as an English speaker I often end up on a Spanish version with no obvious way to change to English. That is the real sin.
Seems to be correlated with when you have young kids. Not surprising really as having young kids is like having a grenade set off in your relationship.
I completely agree with the do nothing approach. I live in Spain and it feels like they've taken the opposite approach. All the systems are designed to catch the 0.01% of people who abuse the system which makes it impossible for the 99.99% of other people. This means people just don't do things because there's too much paperwork. The result is a non-functioning economy and massive unemployment.