tr0ut

I asked because I've heard more than once that a company either stretched the truth or outright lied on these questionnaires.

So stretching the truth could be:

Do you adhere to NIST?

The truth could be: "well not exactly but that's on our roadmap,we do somethings that are close enough." That would get a 'YES' check.

Or something like end to end encryption. The answer could be a 'YES' because a company uses front-end TLS and pretends to not completely understand the ask.

In this case it is mostly the business either forcing security to bs or another group (Sales?) filling out the response untruthfully because they are loosing revenue if they're honest.

Are there any legal issues if one were to be untruthful/lie on security questionnaires?

I certainly was not trying to argue that. And I said it was my own experience (serendipity). I also agree with what you're saying.

I could certainly see that happening. But I would lump them in with being educated. Since they most likely did do a 9-5 4-5 days per week bootcamp (assuming). I've encountered people with masters degrees unable to do very basic development. Understanding all the jargon but not able to perform anything beyond basics. Some how these people survive in some businesses. Staying under the radar.

anecdotal disclaimer -- I think I've worked with more brilliant people with no degrees or uncompleted education. They just had more drive and do not let anything hold them back. They do not need to be told what to do. Not saying that the rest of the people that I worked with 9.8/10 that had degrees were not great. Just there was something positively different about the people I encounted without it.

Great post! I have yet to try Linux on the Go. So thank you for sharing. I'm also a huge fan of the Go.

Since you posted this exact statement a dozen times. Could you answer, What exactly is the benefit for white people to be racist to black and brown people?

This was great, bravo! While I am not necessarily the audience intended. I've been following some Notebook development. I have always thought of it as convoluted and pedantic. I don't mean to distract from some very solid and well intentioned work. Just that it added a layer of complexity and turned out not to be as portable as advertised.

Looks like all the enterprise Linux distros to me? I wouldn't qualify Arch for that purpose.

Please stop repeating this. Its just not completely accurate. I keep hearing it from people. First asbestos has been in use for a long time. Still to this day before anything to do with Trump. What has been happening is the number of companies that produce or use it have greatly declined. Due to legal issues. Second not all asbestos is created equal. Some of the fibers are completely save for there intended purpose. There are many studies that argue claims that it is the direct cause of illness. We really don't know. The people at the greatest risk and I'm sure this risk is universal for such materials. Are the ones working with it on a daily basis.

I have nothing to do with asbestos nor did I vote for Trump. But the knee-jerk reaction does nothing to inform anyone of reality.

I certainly get it. Zsh and the like offer some really nice functionality missing from standard bash. However that muscle memory is lost. Zsh etc. certainly cool for your own tinker box. Not good when dealing with lots of disparate systems. I don't even like to use a lot of aliases because of this.

I'll except that statement in the sense that it reduces Aikido down to interpretive dance and not (applicable) combat practices.

Aikido is that fantasy martial arts. The kind that only works when the opponents are in on the ruse.

Blockchain is like the Aikido of technology.

There is a security issue with using AD/OpenLDAP. That being passwords. An example is you can debug/trace the SSH process and see(log) passwords in clear text.

Now of course this is both a trust and a escalated privilege issue. But a lot harder(impossible) with keys.

Can you post an example of this? Link works too.

I don't disagree with the philosophical purpose. Of course by simplifying the facts. You're leaving out the logistics of insurance companies that have to now take that responsibility on. Last I checked they dont work of the sake of goodness.

Better option would be single-payer. I digress...

You have the wrong idea. A better example of what you're calling "free market" would be dentistry or something like Lasik surgery. You can shop around and figure out the prices because they are very much apparent since you pay out of pocket for the majority of the former and completely for the later.

Would Medicaid/Medicare be "free market"? Why bother shopping around when someone else picks up the tab?

Insurance companies mostly reflect the costs of the hospital. If the hospital charges you $50 for a bottle of Asprin, so be it. ICD10 and Meaningful Use were designed for billing not really for health care. Those were federal mandates not "free market"

Pre-existing conditions is a lot more tricky than you think. The political ploy is to think of a poor person with a serious illness being turned away by insurance because they don't want to deal with them. When in reality it can be you're obease or someone who just did not take care of themselves period. You can imagine a group pre-existing conditions patients could bankrupt a insurance company. What if to be "fair" you were charged the same as a person with a pre-exiting condition. Say someone that smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years?

ACA was just a big initiative to add more insurance companies to the mix. Now it is mandatory you pay insurance companies.

+1 Throw all other rational out the window if OPEX is what works. So here we are migrating to AWS..

Programming can be creative but it is not performance art. I'm not sure what you were expecting? Even if you found something (subjective) it may not be very functional. Completely different animal. You seemed to be missing the point of software engineering.

Funny you choose Horowitz, Monk, Starvinsky and Cage as examples. Which either never attended, rejected or had limited academic education.

I don't mean zero-sum. I mean another means. One which requires more on the job training and working your way up the ladder.

If you want to go because you have the resources and for every other reason other than I need to get a degree to work and live. Than have a blast.

I know there is work for people like yourself to be found. Having an unrelated degree but being capable of working in tech. However there are quite a lot of really good companies that will not even give your resume a second look with out CS degree or equal on it. This is what I'm arguing for. I don't think it matters. I've worked with people like yourself and others with no degree or drop-outs. That worked people from top universities under the table. However if we keep perpetuating this nonsense we'll never get an equal opportunity. You'll continue to shut people out who are more than capable.

What I mean is the things you mentioned while I do not dismiss them and I believe you. That being learning an unrelated major helped you with learning something else.. Is not actually enough for tech companies to want to hire you. But because we place so much emphasis on the paper. You're over-looked. So what you feel is a higher-education strength is actually a weakness in the market.

Who said stop letting them go?

I can tell you this. We (the company I work for) would not hire you as a programmer. Without a CS degree. Now I'm assuming you did not go back to get a CS degree. If not you have now ruled yourself out of a lot of opportunities. Ultimately for reasons you mentioned which are anecdotal and intangible.

At what cost? $100k in debt and delayed start at life? Again if all things are equal. Uni is free, sure why not.

This argument is invalid too. We can say most that go to college are better off thus the net positive results.

So either you're not from the States or you were well funded in your own educational pursuits. Both are fine this, is not a personal attack.

It is not hard to find evidence that American university is outrageously expensive. And for what is the average result? You learned the theory/basics of X subject? Or you met cool people and had a good time?

I think we're getting to the point that it is not worth it for a common job and certainly not for a common job in tech.

(Not arguing medicine or advanced science/engineering degrees!)

I believe so. Besides all the intangibles "Tastes great less filling" etc.. I still believe college/uni prepares you to work. Sorry this is an unpopular belief. Certainly we can debate the original inception and intentions of university all the way back to Greeks pontificating too. I digress..

If it did not. Employment would not require it. Because as most have stated above. It was not about preparing for the workforce. It was for all these other reasons, or the theory of the subject. Why would we want a MS if all they did is meet people and learn how to cook a meal for themselves because they're no longer under their parents thumb?

I would say not too far into ones career. Education matters very little. As in diminishing returns. The best you'll get after attending 'University of X' 5-10 years into your career. Is a high-five because the hiring manager went there too. Not because you're so much better off because you had a class on .Net and Network fundamentals. This is mostly true in all but the very specialized jobs in Tech. For the specialized few that went to top universities.

I don't really believe it is harder across the board after 30. I think it can be difficult in certain situations. But overall I believe it to actually be easier after 30. You're no longer trying to fit in or trying to be with a person/s for reasons other than pure friendship. You're most likely settled a bit in your life at this stage. Thus not competing for things. Probably planted roots in the area you're residing for various reasons. I think these things make it easier later in life.

I wouldn't say China's rise to global power (in many different categories) was due to "luck". China has been one of the most advanced civilizations in history. They also have the second largest military force. The US did not have to manipulate the Chinese workforce into global trade. China was a willing and very capable participant. You need to realize they are a large and powerful country. Not a banana republic.

Further more The Great Leap Forward is estimated to have cost 20-50+ million Chinese lives. I'd say China did pretty well on its own with out foreign intervention when it came to "greed".

There is always the appeal to nature argument. Slightly off topic. On one of my hikes with my dog. I wouldn't let him drink from a stream. Some people near by waved to me and said "It is fine! Dogs know good water". I thought how absurd. Another time we came across some small animals. He has a high prey drive. He made some aggressive advancements towards the creatures. I called him off. A person sharing our hike made the comment that it was okay. If he ate the small animal it would be good for him. It is natural. I said no the possibility of my dog contracting a parasite like tape worm would be a very bad thing. Nature can kill or hurt you in very natural ways.

More likely the cat could still smell the food left over.