52/55...had a couple of false positives, because I'm paranoid. I'm pretty sensitive to it, and it's all around where I live. As careful as I am, though, I still manage to get it once or twice a year.
I just started playing around with it after fumbling around with Vue for a bit. I really like that there is so much less magic involved, no getting lost in a twisty maze of proxies. A real breath of fresh air. But then I haven't done real frontend development since JSPs were hot, so I'm not sure my liking it is a good thing.
Desperately needs an "About" page which gives some indication of who's behind this, what the plans for it are re. funding, and why it was created. Basically, you need to give people some sense that this will stay around and continue to operate under terms people are willing to live with before they will spend a lot of time adding content.
Also, if this takes off, I hope you are ready for the scammers and spammers who will want to take advantage of it.
It would be better were that true. But sadly, there's are hair-think veins of incredibly useful discussion happening there as well. I have tried in the past to construct in Twitter a timeline that showed me just the very informative or thoughtful comments but it always ends the same way - my worst interests gratified, my better ones unsated.
I don't know. I'm inclined to believe the world would be a better place if people thought less about their principles and more about the situation at hand. I've had bad experiences with people who do things "as a matter of principle" or insisting "it's the principle of the thing". That has usually signaled behavior that is only justifiable by some abstraction, but otherwise makes no sense.
This case, for example, where SourceHut was going to make a change which would inflict inconvenience on it's users when they had a clear way to avoid it, but didn't want to because it was really Google's fault. Possibly it did some good, but from reading the whole thing, it looks like the end result is SourceHut finally agreeing to have the refresh turned off, like they could have done initially, while the Go team actually had already been working on a fix. A lot of drama, with questionable benefits is not unusual for people who do things for the principle.
I also was in a bad job that I stayed at for the money, and it's interesting how you can fool yourself about it. My job was incredibly stressful, perhaps literally taking years off my life, but I told myself it was "exciting" and "challenging". When circumstances finally intervened and I moved on, I was a wreck because I had forgotten what I had gone into this industry for. It took me a couple of years to rediscover that I really like tech, I like problem solving, I like programming, I just don't like no win situations and unpleasant social dynamics. I had to relearn to see my work as play, but now that I have, everything is much better (except the money).
I joined a startup a while back after being in a bigger company for many years and I was baffled by the number of weird SaaS products in use, often for one small function. At least for a couple of these SaaS companies, I later heard, were run by friends of our former CTO. So maybe this isn't just a VC thing, but a startup culture thing. You buy my marginally useful product, I'll buy yours.
I ordered from the once and was pleased enough with the result, although it was literally months between order and delivery. At a certain point I thought I was being scammed. The main reason I did not order from them again though, was because although they have a huge inventory, most of it seems...cheap. Lots of assembly-required manufactured wood Scandinavian-lite options, not much that looked permanent. I literally couldn't find anything that looked both durable and in a style I didn't mind. I really wanted to like them because for me buying furniture is still an unsolved problem.
I have to wonder what your own resume looks like that you maintain such a large blacklist. I can't help but think that a great many corporations won't live up to your standards.
I've always seen their big selling point as it being required by other giant software packages. At least that's the way it threatened to enter burrow into various places I've worked.
I would highly encourage you to do a little interviewing, just to get past the anxiety. Try interviewing for things you aren't very interested in. It makes it much less stressful, and it gives you a sense that you aren't trapped. I went through a similar thing myself a few months back, and just doing some interviewing actually made doing my current job easier. In the end I had some frank conversations with my manager and was able to salvage my current position, but the interviewing really facilitated that. The important thing though, is you really should not stay at your current job as it is. Aside from it making you unhappy, you're doing damage to your resume. Being under-titled doesn't look good to potential future employers.
Depends. A higher job title helps you land higher level jobs down the line and is expected with a certain amount of experience. If I see a resume where someone spent significant time as a mid-level while having 10 years experience, I'd wonder whether that person was not capable of working at a higher level.
I don't understand your reply. I didn't say that people growing up in different times would act the same or that people with identical genes would act the same. I'm arguing that different people will act differently in the same circumstances. If you want to establish that OP is absolutely correct, you need to show that people with different inclinations and abilities act the same way as each other when in identical circumstances. This seems self-evidently incorrect to me. People have varying amounts and types of mental faculties and so make different choices, even when presented with the same situations.
I agree with the essential point that no one exists in isolation, we all build on the work of others, but I don't see how your last sentence follows from the previous statements. We can all have the same background, but that doesn't make us all the same. There's strong evidence, for example, that genes play a large role in how we behave.
Yeah, I think there's a surprising amount that can be learned just by having a technical conversation, and it's the interview format that is least likely to cause performance anxiety. That said, I've been snowballed a couple of times by people who could somehow talk exactly like a productive person, yet not produce anything. The huge variety of people is what makes interviewing so hard.
What makes you say that? I've been involved in a lot of hiring processes, and I would say that is nearly the opposite of their intent. Don't attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
Didn't like this article at all. The writer's style is dismissive and combative in a way that's at odds with the message it's trying to convey. It's not an idiotic myth that most people aren't good programmers and it's not arrogance that makes people think that it's very important to make sure the wrong person isn't hired. I don't think this because I've spent too much time on Hacker News, I think it because I've worked with a lot of people over the years and I know how a team can be dragged down by a bad hire.
Of course you shouldn't humiliate the candidate, that's never the right thing to do. But there's a huge gap between maintaining a high hiring standard and believing that "everyone else looking for a job is an idiot, and our job is to expose them, to teach them a lesson, to humiliate them till they quit." The bulk of the advice in this article is fine, but the hyperbole is just plain annoying.
Also, seeing people site the no asshole rule is a warning sign for me. I worked at a place that constantly mentioned that, and let's just say it was clearly ineffective. Assholes rarely think that they are the asshole and are perfectly comfortable citing that principle.
Maybe the term 'postmodern' is not the best, but it is describing a real development. Yes, postmodernity is modernity, but it's modernity without any faith in itself, which is an essential difference from early modernity. While many intellectuals did describe the chaos and sense of dislocation of modernity, there was also a great deal of optimism. We still have some optimists among us, but I think for the majority of people joining modernity now, their sense of a new and better order emerging is relatively brief. Postmodernity seems like a reasonable term for this.
Seems like a bad idea to me. There are many people (myself included) who forget to take vacation time or never feel like it's a good time to take it. Short term, that's probably good for the company, but it can lead to burnout. Good managers insist that people use their PTO if only to keep highly valued people from suddenly snapping under their workload. There are, on the other hand, people who jealously guard their time off. Giving them unlimited time just sets them up for conflicts with management because there is no pre-agreed upon notion of what is fair.
More often I've seen that all that fast development time is spent trying to replicate features of the old system that were missed or deferred when designing the new system. Strangely, when they have achieved feature parity, the new system often doesn't seem so easy to work with.
Two terms you may want to refresh your memory on: second system syndrome and Chesterton's fence. I've never seen a rewrite come in remotely on time, and I've seen quite a few fail altogether. Often what happens is, in trying to solve the problem again, the developers come to understand the original system, which already works. It becomes impossible to articulate tangible benefits for the rewrite and it gets shelved.
Ok, but that same shorthand can, and arguably should be, applied to whatever situation caused you to say "corporations shouldn't be given human rights".
I too have been doing this for decades and I completely disagree with you. The vast majority of names I see are mostly correct, with the exceptions representing the areas with most technical debt. It is far easier to remember the handful of services with bad names do than to have to remember the mappings for every piece of functionality. If there's an order service, it's pretty good bet it will process orders. If there's a search service, it probably does something with search. Does it also do billing? Maybe. Then that's one I'll just have to remember. But it's way easier to remember "some bonehead put billing in the orders service" than "orders and billings is snowwhite, search is sneezy...or was that dopey?" And if you have an orders service that doesn't do orders...well, there's clearly some very bad technical debt in that area. That's worth knowing too.
No, the alternative is having 100s of things that are basically right, with a few that are misleading. I'll take that any day over all cute names, because I only have to remember the exceptions. Not theoretical, I've been in that situation. Also, purpose drift is technical debt. Using meaningless names is just a way of hiding that debt. A service that doesn't match it's name has evolved into a bad place and needs to be refactored. You want to be able to see that.
It's interesting that so many people vociferously deny that corporations are people, yet just as many seem to habitually ascribe motives and moral character to them, and hate or love them as if they are, in fact, people. Maybe this is a disjoint set, but I doubt it.
I've been involved hiring a fair amount and I'm pretty sure there's no blacklist, at least in the tech world. In fact, I once worked at a place where someone started at the company, worked a couple of weeks, then left because their preferred job offer came through. A couple of months later this person came back and said the other job wasn't working out and was hired again.
Despite the messaging constantly broadcast by HR departments, it really is just business, unless the organization is horribly dysfunctional. There are vindictive individuals out there, but you don't want to work for those people anyway.
Fair enough. I was mostly reacting to the 2nd sentence. I guess I'm not sure what your primary thesis was. I agree that you can distinguish between civility and nicespeak, but mostly because I see nicespeak as a form of civility. I don't see civility as requiring sincerity. When we ask someone to keep things civil, we aren't asking them to be more sincere. However, I can understand having different connotations for the word and I wouldn't really want to quibble about it.
Classic response. Gaslight on the connotations, random accusation of assuming victim status (a sacred cow to the progressive), and the much loved "maybe you shouldn't express your opinions if you don't like our behavior"
As it happens, though, I don't see myself as a victim. I don't mind in the least people reacting to my opinions. But I also feel perfectly comfortable pointing out the nature of the reaction, which is generally not to engage with content but to turn it into a question of character. Which you have done.