vampirechicken

In my experience, it is more common for a company to make you burn all of your accrued vacation and sick leave before you can get your 12 weeks unpaid FMLA leave.

My favorite Neuromancer Time/Tech signpost is when the narrator mentions that the protagonist Case has a couple of Megs of hot ram he's looking to fence. I absolutely love this, because it worked at the time, but it seems horribly antiquated now for those of us surfing on the wave of progress described by Moore's Law.

Could also be used prevent your competition form poaching your workers for the buck an hour more that you're not willing to pay.

> Money is fungible Indeed it is. Thanks for the dialog. I've enjoyed it.

But it makes it not salary, and since there is not market rate for bonuses, since they often depend on profitability or percent to yearly sales numbers, the number that truly matters is salary. It's the number that potential employers will ask you for, or offer you and is typically the only individual component of your compensation package.

Since most of the online definitions of bonus that I've found are with my own in that they include the idea of a bonus being above and beyond what is expected compensation, then I'm going to chalk this up to our having differing connotations of bonus.

In my case, a bonus is extra pay, usually tied to performance (individual or corporate), while yours appears to be 'another category of compensation for work done.'

I'm not sure that your argument is a false dichotomy, but it smells of logical fallacy to me.

Using the pathological case to prove your point rather than a more likely case is disingenuous at best.

I'm talking about people trying to make an honest living, and having to deal with nests of vipers while trying get reasonably compensated.

If market is 104k, don't offer me 52k salary + 52k bonus, because I have to say I make 52, not 104 - well below market.

To me it sounds like a way to artificially deflate salaries (not specifically compensation. Your SO might want to know how much you expect to make all year, but for budgeting purposes, there's a big difference in budgeting for a 1k per week cash flow and a 2k per week cash flow.

If it takes bonuses to get you to market rates, then you're still underpaid.

We wanted National Health Service. We didn't get that. We got mandated insurance. No wonder nobody's happy about it.

What's to stop all the taxi companies in all of Uber's markets from engaging in the same behavior?

Seems like this could get fun, fast.

Having dealt with "grown-ups" in several PTAs, they never grow up. It's like middle school until you die.

Or the contrast being bigger, makes for a sexier article. Including non-ev-owning larger households in the comparison would have made it a a better article.

I agree. I'm just repeating, and adding a little commentary to what I get told whenever I ask why any particular position requires a degree.

Want to be a tech writer? Samples aren't good enough. Gotta have a degree - any degree. But you have to have a degree.

So who ever made that rule had a reason at the time: expediency, prejudice, ignorance. But it's a widespread practice, and describing it does equate with condoning it.

The degree is, in the face of people's stunning inability to judge others, a prima facie way to decide whether a person is capable of setting a long term goal and seeing it through to completion.

It can, for less savory reasons, be used to pre-screen people who fit in demographics that do not have high graduation rates.

Once they get elected, cops have to answer to them and behave in ways to placate them.

It's a time-honored tradion in business: ridicule and marginalize the things that you d not do or that compete directly with you - until you so them.

Examples: Apple: Nobody wants native apps, theywant the mobile web. Oracle: You don't need row locks (row level locking appears in Oracle 7, as a premium add-on called the Transaction Processing Option).

But the question that will come from the chicken hawks is "If these guys could do it, why couldn't somebody bent on causing real harm?"

So you're basically causing your own problems by refusing to scale your proxy layer, which should be dirt cheap hardware, while scaling your beefier app servers. You basically have it backwards.

I hope somebody told the poster about putting a proxy server (squid, apache, nginx, varnish, etc.) between the application server and the client.

Proxy deals with slow client delays. App server serves app requests at speed. Tune number of proxy connections to keep app servers reasonably busy. Scale each layer individually.

IMO Whether the proxy is async or not is a matter of taste.

Perhaps you should not assume shoddy work on the journalist's part. The nits you pick could have been created by editors prior to publication.

Because if you click out to another web site, they might lose your eyeballs, and you would not be looking at the print media company's adverts any more.

Chances are that your colo datacenter is building out an openstack-based cloud offering.

So you build your colo'd private cloud on openstack, and then use their's to handle surges. As your traffic grows, you add your own gear to handle the base line.

But ~200K per month, you're operating at a very different scale from 2k or even 20k. Having a couple of idle servers 23 hours a day is not wasteful at that scale, unless your CIO is Ebeneezer Scrooge.

As a non-trader, my question is:

Were the 24k shares being offered by one seller/broker, as in "I have 24k shares to sell at 17" or was the 24k just an aggregation of the availability all the smaller offers?

If the former, it seem to me that the seller is cheating, if it is the latter then I can see how the HFT systems would raise the price in response to a sale, but I also see how frustrating that is to the buyer.

I wonder why these trades are not being performed in parallel across the various exchanges, partially preventing this kind of arbitrage?

Mostly it's drowning, and this being voted up on HN is one facet of the problem. Us discussing it being on HN is another facet of the problem.

There is a name for the practices of cable companies, cell phone providers, and banks - adversarial value extraction.

More states are going to have to legalize before the fed gov will get on board.

Like our other wars, the War On (Some) Drugs causes the govt to spend a lot of money on contractors and equipment, has enriched local police departments through civil forfeiture, and feeds the for-profit prison industry.

There is an enormous amount of money and power with vested interest in keeping cannabis illegal and elected officials listen to campaign contributors until they fear that the voters might actually vote them out of office.

It will be interesting to watch it play out in the next couple of years, especially after the next congressional and presidential elections.

More interesting to me are the statistics on drunk walking deaths. According to freakonomics.com, it is more dangerous to walk drunk then to drive drunk. I'd like to see those stats with the DUI stats.

I see that, but the examples were introduced as examples of removing gendered speech. I was expecting the bad examples to be the kind of jobs that are posted to the techcompaniesthatonlyhiremen tumblr, pepperd with 'he', 'him', and 'goto guy' kinds of language.

Given that they weren't, I think that calling them 'gendered', but not explaining the specific connotation of 'gendered' in that context is what caused my confusion.

I don't understand what makes those average wordings gendered and the 'better' wording not gendered.

From my readings of Dr. Deborah Tannen, (who writes books on the topic of the differences in male and female communication styles, and their possible cultutral origins) they both seem like they are gendered, with the 'average' wording being an example of masciline-ish speech (my interpretation, not hers) and the 'better' wording being more feminine-ish.

I'm happy to learn how I've misinterpreted it, but I'm not seeing it. Can somebody please enlighten me?

It is still a very good idea to review your process periodically in order make changes to your process.