We use a coding challenge as well but I like your addition of "auditing" the coding part and using existing open source or side project work. Bonus points if it uses some of the target technologies too!
The author doesn't appear to understand the economics of the hiring company; it's about time & effort to filter and the cost of making a bad hire. I cannot give every application 1-2 hours of review if I get 100+ resumes. I can't give every interviewee a half-day assessment to get the very poor signal/noise ratio answers to questioning methods suggested. I can't hire easy and then fire easy. I can't invest weeks of work from myself and other mentors on non-ideal potentials. I know this means I pass over great candidates and that really sucks and is totally unfair. I'm sure that's happended to me as well. The problem is nothing presented here is a better alternative.
Hey, whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better. Yet somehow the several generation between you and the boomers managed to make a go of it; how did that happen? I employ a number of these new grads and pay a salary that will more than pay for them to own a home in our market; how is this possible in your alternative universe? Maybe before you throw the word slavery around you should give some thought to what that actually means. HINT: it's a little more harsh than living with your parents.
not sure how things work in your jurisdiction, but to sell in our area you basically need to work with an agent to get into the market of home buyers; FSBO just doesn't work. The minute I'm on the hook to pay THAT level of commission, I'm not doing anything in this area; there's so little a real estate agent can do they're definitely going to be responsible for marketing, images, staging etc. From my experience selling anything to real estate agents is a uphill battle. They are understandably extremely cheap. This looks interesting but I think you need to focus on defining your potential market a little more.
trying running a single SaaS codebase for enterprise clients. Maybe you can upgrade everyone with CI on a single commit, but no line of business solution wants that. We have to run a very strict and explicit upgrade cycle for our apps that allows them to test extensively before committing to newer versions.
Just because you're SaaS doesn't mean your clients are...
This strategy is really hard to make work with 100's or 1000's of tennants because of the resource overhead and scaling issues, even with virtualization. It makes integration a hard problem if you sell a modular or component-based suite of options as well.
this is essential the key (haha) to all shared/shared scenarios, regardless of what tech they are implemented with. The challenge can be migrating from single tennant to this could be fairly impactful, depending on how you built your original solution.
I don't think you would pay tax in this scenario, as essentially this is just a longer-term tourist visa. You won't be allowed to get a job locally and are expected to work remote. There's no way they could track (and tax) this; it's really no different than doing some work on your 2-week Mexico vacation.
Also Americans pay tax based on citizenship too.
even countries with lots of publicly funded services usually exclude tourists. For example, a visitor to Canada would either not be allowed to take advantage of many services (ex: Employmnet Insurance / Welfare) or get billed (Healthcare) although it would be unlikely to be refused service in the later if you could not pay. In countries like Barbados the divide between citizens and visitors is even more stark. Deportation from these countries is usually easy and fast to countries that have resources (like the US or Canada); it's deporting from western countries back to poorer or "democratically challenged" countries that is hard and takes forever. Anyone who wants to turn to crime would be better served to stay at home and do it (I'd rather deal with the Canadian criminal system as a citizen than Barbados as a foreigner).
In the interior of British Columbia we had massive forest die-off from Pine Beetle, that was caused by a lack of fires combined with warmer than normal winters. All of that fuel came down to the forest floor where it was a huge fire risk and was cleaned up manually. Now we have some newer growth but way more open grassland. Fires here move a lot faster but don't tend to be as dangerous and controlled burns are much easier. Trees that survive are younger and much thinner coverage, way more deer and cougars and less bears; a lot more birds. It's been pretty unique to watch an entire ecosystem change in 10-20 years; much less than a lifetime. Plus it turns out that historically these areas were predominately grassland not forests!
we have the same fascination with N. Korea, there's jsut so little non-propaganda information though. Saudi is pretty welcoming to rich westerners and has a big expat community so there's lots of ways to "see inside".
Well exactly! And the people who would complain the loudest are the ones here saying they like Apple's curation, want the 30% Apple tax and if developers don't want to pay it can go elsewhere. Then the developers could say, if you want our content come and get it, otherwise stop your compaining, if there were enough of you without apple forcing it, we'd pay the tax to reach you.
Why can't you still use the app store with it's curation and filtering, and 30% tax if you want, while others skip it and pay 30% less or the money goes to the developer?
The private company that sells me electricity has to charge all sorts of fees that are mandated by the various levels of government that regulate the market. These are not taxes but admin fees, riders and right-of-ways, each dutifuly detailed as a line item. Is this not exacxtly what Apple does to anyone who wants to reach a big market?
every regulated, monopoly or olgigopoly private company does pretty much: utilities, gas stations or anything that has one or more fees, charges or mandated expenses, for example an event ticket that adds the processing fee on top of the price. This sounds exactly like Apple and what they do to everyone in the app store.
drugs are very expensive everywhere it's possible, and implicitly expensive drugs are not available where they're unaffordable (and hence no market at the high price). This leads to bigger group buying programs and a focus on generics, but has the unfortunate effect of shifting the focus of drug companies to very high price, small-market specialty drugs and lifestyle & vanity drugs that a broad, public healthcare system would never cover.
we can both complain about the final outcome and disagree on how we got here. I think it's a stretch to call healthcare an efficient market. There are huge upfront and switching costs for almost every component making it rife with opportunities (intentional) and mistakes (mistakes) that erode efficiency. I also feel you conflate what markets can do with what their intent is. You seem to imply that markets have no role in a huge swath of our economy and lives, yet I look at my medical experiences in Canada (almost 100% public) and wonder if many people actually know how it works and what the outcomes look like. In a nutshell it's both harder to die and harder to get better under our system, and I think markets could help with the later without hurting the former.
I agree. I fear people look at this situation in a different light than say the current president of the United States who, while he does have an email address, admittely does not write emails or read them directly. Knuth is admired and this is a pleasant quirk; the POTUS appears an old, out-of-touch dinosaur.
I'm not judging either; my initial thoughts were just of the different perceptions for similar unique and rare circumstances.
>> because the drivers irrationally refused to work more for the same pay
How is this irrational? You offer me $X for Y hours of work. If X/Y gets too small I say "no" and do something with higher utility, even if that's playing flappy bird. I don't really care that my actions destroy the source of this opportunity because I've already rejected it.
You are right that this is simple, just not in the way you're interpreting it.
not to be overly pendantic but events and messages mean pretty different things and have different applications. Same thing with queues and buses.
I suspect the author knows more about this than me but plays a little fast and loose in their explanations. I feel it's important to have disipline in our vocabulary so that people learning the material can participate in more advanced discussions as they grow.
That said, I really appreciate the overall content and using the context of games for broadly applicable concepts is a great way to promote them (and funny as generally commercial games have some of the loosest "structure" of any code I've seen).
can't reply to the sibling but they are not voting "they don't care", they just plain don't care. If you do care but can't pick among the bad choices, you go through the actions and spoil your ballot or where applicable write in your choice. This is a lot of work for nothing beyond showing you care.
>> those who "challenge the book" instead of "follow the book"
This is a valid position and one I can identify with personally, but as I've gotten more emotionally mature over time find it's a little more subtle. You need to include your risk propensity and methodology into the calculation. Even within established companies roles, teams and individual situations are going to be vastly different. Are you willing to take bet-your-career risks? Have you earned some shared vulnerability with the people you want to change? Do you truly care about them and your company? I've learned these are all necessary if not sufficient regardless of the corporate landscape.
I believe there is a third way where you work within the system to affect meaningful change (or bring it down from the inside, depending on how radical your viewpoint). I've come to the realization that small minorities want either dramatic change or none at all; the vast majority are just apathetic, which is your biggest enemy. Start-ups likely skew towards the big change camp. You can make a difference in the former environment but it is exhausting and risks turning you apathetic as well.
to add another valid (yet totally invalid) point: You want an impressive job title. At an established company you're going to be a Software Developer or Engineer level n; at a startup you can easily be Lead, Director of or even a VP if that's important to you.
I think there's a sizeable group of people who found the quality of life poor prior to any shut downs or changes. SF is also not nearly as attractive to those starting a family compared to new grads and young single professionals. Combining these factors I see a significant permanent change if people can keep their high paying jobs and escape the physical proximity.
So if it's a 10 or 20 year "major" blip does that make it longer than "temporary"?
Locals tend to go to museums once or never, lots of places have good bars and restaurants and the idea of SF having a proximity to real nature is a joke. I guess time will tell if you, I or someone else is ultimately correct, but the pull of SF was the jobs above all else; if that's gone then I'd argue there are much better places to live for the amenities. NYC is in a similar boat - you move there for the people and what they bring when packing too many people in too small a physical space. This doesn't seem what most are looking for now or in the near/mid term.
IMO it looks cleaner but adds cognitive overhead for readability so I'm not sure if it is actually better. Feels kind of like a lookup table that a reader now has to reference. YMMV
This sounds like the "we have so many cases of covid because we test so much; if we didn't test we won't have as many cases" logic. Jeff Bezos has no clothes!