> It's a completely different vibe.
Sure, but everyone shouldn't be expected to have the charisma and salesmanship of Walt Disney.
1,932 karma · joined May 28, 2015
Sure, but everyone shouldn't be expected to have the charisma and salesmanship of Walt Disney.
Since the bundle includes ESPN+ we have an upper bound on how big that "some" can possibly be: 24.3 million according to https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/disney-plus-subscribers-164...
The actual bundle numbers will be less than that of course, but without knowing how many people subscribe exclusively to ESPN+ (i.e. not as part of the bundle) we don't know by how much.
True, but they can't be discriminatory in how they restrict communications. If they prohibit all non-work discussions on this app that appears to be fine - but not if they only restrict topics that are likely related to organizing. From https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
"Also, restrictions on your efforts to communicate with co-workers cannot be discriminatory. For example, your employer cannot prohibit you from talking about the union during working time if it permits you to talk about other non-work-related matters during working time."
There are downsides to this approach as well.
My previous company had such a policy (no offer could be extended until at least one female or under-represented minority had been interviewed) - and we had someone who interned with us twice while in school and he was amazing, everybody on the team thought he was great and wanted to bring him on full-time once he graduated. So as he neared graduation our manager got us an open req and we extended him a (verbal) offer without interviewing him but HR blocked us from extending a formal offer because this exceptional engineer had the misfortune of being born male and Indian. HR told us we could extend an offer to him only after interviewing (on-site) a female or under-represented minority. And so we brought in and interviewed a female applicant wasting five hours of her time and ours as she had virtually zero chance of getting the job.
Generally it also meant female candidates were almost guaranteed to make it to the onsite, regardless of how they performed during the phonescreen because if you tried to pass on a female candidate you'd get pushback from the recruiter and/or manager, because with this policy we needed to interview at least one on-site before extending an offer to anyone.
I do genuinely applaud efforts at increasing diversity in tech, but I don't think policies like this are the right approach. We should probably be looking at other historically male dominated professions that now have gender-parity like medicine and law and emulate what they did to increase diversity (I have no idea what that is/was, but I'm guessing it's not what we're spinning our wheels on, since as far as I can tell we've barely moved the needle despite a very concerted effort).
On my last job search I had one interviewer state (very proudly) the systems design question I was being asked was an actual problem his team had to solve. I don't doubt the veracity of his claim at all, but it probably wasn't solved by a single person under the time constraints and pressure of an interview.
Most likely someone on that team spent hours or days researching and designing potential solutions before drafting a design document that was shared and discussed with others, perhaps informally or perhaps in a meeting (or over the course of multiple meetings) where tradeoffs were considered among people with deep knowledge of the existing system and problem space. Expecting a candidate with only superficial (at best) knowledge of your current system to come up with the same or similar solution on their own in 30 or 40 minutes seems a bit unrealistic to me.
Inside the HN tech bubble possibly. But outside of that the overwhelming majority of jobs are not in white-collar/remote-friendly work (and people change jobs far more often than they're willing to relocate so moving to a new state, or even city, for each new non-remote job isn't common either).
So no the majority of jobseekers are not looking for work "all over the country" - most are looking for jobs within a reasonable commuting distance of where they live.
More than sufficient, it would be ideal. I have no desire to become a tech lead or architect or manager - I love being a software engineer and that's what I want to spend my time doing, not sitting in meetings all day.
I certainly don't expect to spend 100% of my time writing code, I've been doing this long enough I fully understand and am okay with the various other aspects of being a developer, especially a senior one - I'm just not interested in getting any "promotion" that results in me spending even less, or no, time coding. A big part of the problem is I spent a decade working on shipped product (i.e. not a service) and now work on a service and (like many service-focused jobs) in addition to being developers our team is also responsible for the ops/infra running the service and for me personally I don't find much interest in working with that area.
My concern is she may be unhappy to hear someone that she just hired a little over a month ago isn't working out and then if the company has layoffs in the near-future I'm the first she's going to pick to let go.
Granted it might seem odd to worry about losing a job I want to leave anyway, but I'd prefer searching for a job while I still have one instead of while being unemployed.
If you take a look at https://www.vmware.com/products.html you'll note the majority of VMware's products are NOT related to compute virtualization (and a very significant entry from that category, vSphere Hypervisor, is given away for free).
Carter pardoned anyone/everyone who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483
Rockefeller's success is attributed to his relentless pursuit of horizontal and vertical integration, not cheap labor via slavery.
You're using the peak from the graph which omits the first 11 years of WoW (graph starts at 2015, WoW launched in 2004), the description to the right of the graph states the peak was 12 million in 2010 (though of course that's still far less than Fortnite's)
OCD is a disorder where a person has uncontrollable reoccurring thoughts and behaviors that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over - it's not being unsure what a line on a calendar means https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/obsessive-compulsive-...
I'm not sure if I wasn't very clear by what I meant by that in my original comment or if I just failed to understand your response - while I don't dispute the accuracy of anything you said following this line I don't quite understand how any of it is relevant (at least not regarding what I was trying to say).
When I said "we treat females who are doctors as simply doctors (and likewise for lawyers), not female doctors" I mean:
* I've often heard people being discussed as e.g. "a female dev" but don't often (never that I recall) hear anyone say "female doctor" (I'm referring to casual conversation, not discussions about who's gonna work the catheter on a patient)
* We have female-only hackathons, bootcamps, and meetups, etc, do similar things exist in the medical field and if such things do exist are they as common? Are there many medical conferences open only to female doctors?
* There are often articles/lists of prominent/powerful/etc "women in tech"[1][2][3]. Are similar such articles published in the same quantity for medicine? A quick google yields almost entirely historical results, where's the list of "30 Inspirational Women to Watch in Medicine in 2018"?
* Is it a common practice for hospitals to make reports publicly available that detail what percentage of their doctors are female and how they plan to increase that number?
* Do hospitals generally do anything to recruit (and/or retain) female doctors specifically or are their recruiting and retention efforts just focused on doctors?
[1] https://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/30-inspirational-women-to-...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2017/11/01/the-w...
[3] https://www.computerworlduk.com/galleries/careers/10-most-po...
Is it possible that a "concerted effort to recruit and retain women" perhaps does more harm than good? Med schools in this country are now very nearly 50/50[1] and law schools are very slightly over 50% female[2]. Did medicine and law achieve this by the same type of concerted effort we've seen in tech? I honestly don't know the answer to that but I think it's an interesting question.
I do feel though that we treat females who are doctors as simply doctors (and likewise for lawyers), not female doctors whereas in tech we have a habit of treating them like female developers instead of developers (and I'm referring to when that's done with the best intentions such as female-only hackathons, bootcamps, and meetups).
[1] https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/medical-school-gra...
[2] https://www.enjuris.com/students/ranking-universities.html
If you're signed in and don't see it perhaps when Moments first came out a couple years ago you installed one of the various addons to hide it and don't remember it?
That's not quite right, the break-in occurred in June 1972 and Nixon resigned in August of 1974 - that's only slightly over two years total (whereas you're suggesting four). It did take almost two years before the impeachment process started (in February 1974), but the process was "concluded" with Nixon's resignation six months after it had started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Ri...
If you're going to make that claim it would be helpful to cite a source or two. Would also be nice to know how much it "exceeds most of other industries", if the average wage growth is 3% but it's 3.1% for us that's not very meaningful.
VMware hasn't owned SpringSource since Pivotal was created in 2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpringSource (i.e. "the Spring framework is owned by Dell" is still accurate, but not through Dell owning VMware)
Looks like it: http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2014/07/16/recruiting-giants-pr...
> Do people actually accept this as actionable advice?
Hopefully not, it's actually a bit shocking anyone in 2016 would write/present things like "RULE 1: You don’t recruit and retain male engineers you recruit and retain Wives and Girlfriends" or "Real engineers don’t burn out until their wives or GF’s do."
There's no such thing as "the law of supply and demand", there's the law of supply[1] and the law of demand[2]. These laws contribute to the supply and demand model[3], but you won't find "the law of supply and demand" printed in any economics textbook.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_supply
Different people appreciate different things. It's totally fine for you to value "regular parties, play table tennis daily, beers on Friday" but you should be able to understand other people value other things.
> Admittedly, this is only my second job, and I am only 20, but I can't imagine ever wanting to leave.
You may feel differently in ten or twenty years. There were probably a lot of things you enjoyed when you were 10 that you don't enjoy now (or don't enjoy as much).