1) They are typically more expensive than "market" for the same role a younger person can fulfill at acceptable tradeoff of competency - higher salaries, higher related costs like healthcare for a family, expectations around retirement programs, etc.
2) They are less flexible - they are less willing to relocate, they have kids to pick up instead of "beer hour bonding", unwilling to run the same 60 hour gauntlet that a 25 year old can etc.
3) They have less primary & secondary education relevant to today's enterprise issues. In the specific case of "marketers" - like TryOldster is pitching - the best people will learn anything, but anybody over 50 years old spent their professional training + formative 20s thinking about television, radio, and print - not paid search, mobile advertising, and social.
That we're at the top of HN again with another "hire older people" post (recently we saw OldGeekJobs) demonstrates there's a huge unmet need within this cohort.
I don't think a job-board is the right solution to this problem because the pitch on TryOldster does nothing to alleviate the three principal concerns.
My unasked, probably asinine business advice would be to turn this flow of traffic into a training / education platform where you can VALIDATE and address the very real, foundational concerns of hiring managers around this cohort, and suddenly you've got a machine that can get motivated people trained and placed.
Older programmers are worthless, simply due to their age? Ridiculous. I hope to someday be as skillful as this guy.
In my country we have a saying: the Devil knows more from being old than from being the Devil.
1) As a software person your are employed to Solve Business Problems - NOT to write code, NOT to write tests, NOT to hack on platforms, NOT to be Agile. Solve the problem (or add the feature) - never lose sight of this. The value you bring is directly related to this.
2) People outside software development don't give a flying f* about most issues software related - but everyone has a computer, so most are poorly informed about technology and terrible at making right software choices - build products accordingly.
Of course, if you simply rebranded to talk about "experience" rather than "age" then solvelem probbed.
Also, age != experience != skill.
1. older folks are less flexible, can't relocate, etc. When we have kids in high school, that's valid. But high school doesn't go on forever.
2. older folks cost more. You'd be surprised. Salary doesn't have to be an always-upward ratchet. There are plenty of us who are able and willing -- even delighted -- to work for less than the executive-level pay of the biggest jobs on our resumes.
Unlike many of our juniors, we aren't scrambling to pay off our edu loans any more, nor are we scrambling to cover those costs for our kids, or pay big mortgages.
You know that dream about being motivated by the work, not the money? It's a real thing. Many of us are living that dream.
3. older folks are a protected class (in USA, anyhow). That's true. We are nominally harder to lay off when things get rough. But we've been through a few cycles of things being good, then bad, then good, and we've survived. We are as willing as anybody to stop drawing our pay when things aren't going well. Some of us are willing to agree to that in advance. Ask whether we'll accept contractor status, rather than employee status.
See item 2 about being motivated by the work.
4. older folks drive up health insurance pool costs. true. sucks. But I, for one, am on my spouse's insurance so the startup I'm with doesn't have that problem. Many of us have similar setups. You can't ask in an interview, but we can tell you voluntarily. Plus, when we hit 65 (in USA) we go on this decent national single-payer health plan and out of your pool altogether.
5. older folks can't manage 80-hour work weeks. Of course we can manage crunch time. We've done a lot of it, and we're skilled at getting it done.
Can we manage sustained 80-hour weeks for years at a time? No. Neither can you and keep your quality up.
6. older folks' skills are obsolete. Not true. Maybe that was true once, but many of us put a lot of work into keeping up to date. Safari Books Online, and online tutorials, and community / dev versions of various tools, have made that possible.
7. older folks would rather play golf than work. For many of us, that's just nonsense.
So, don't just screen out that resume showing a MS degree from 1980. Take a look.
WTG putting this message together, good luck!
It's not a perfect 1 -> 1 to between kids and age obviously, but working with older engineers (and managers/TPMs) has been invaluable for the growth early in my career and I wish we had more of them.
An experienced engineer, who can prevent the above is worth their weight in gold.
Because ultimately, the fundamentals of software engineering haven't changed for decades, like abstraction, modularization etc
Why go with "A Qureshi Media startup. Contact us at email@example.com" in the site footer?
It made me wonder "hmm, why haven't I heard of Qureshi Media, let me check them out, they are probably some huge media conglomerate." To my surprise, http://qureshimedia.com/ appears to be the website of a consultancy that includes the less than inspiring text "Our new site will be up soon."
If you are managing multiple established brands, having that in the site footer makes sense to me. For what appears to be a company's only brand, I wonder if it might be better relegated an "About" page. Thoughts?
Just my 2 cents.
Best of luck.
Venues which seem to explicitly encourage candidates/jobseekers to focus on age violate the spirit of the law if not the letter (29 U.S.C. 626).
In order to keep their labor costs depressed, VCs are incentivized to promote the lie that a very young workforce is an inherent asset, but there is simply no replacement for experience. As the industry continues to mature, that will be self-evident, as it is in all other mature industries.
And the idea that an "oldster" is a thing should not be legitimised by people in the tech industry. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.
> So was Sciview actually some sort of analytics app for Silk Road, with the sensors representing some other Silk Road metrics? Or was BB truly freelancing for SpaceX while administering Silk Road?
> AUTHOR: Excellent question, I dont know.
So he has no idea if he was just a subcontractor or if he was doing work for Silk Road. If I had to bet on this, I'd guess the friend subcontracted a project to him for easy cash (or because he was in over his head) and the Silk Road stuff was completely unrelated.
What would Silk Road do with such an application anyway?
All I can really say is maybe you should be extra skeptical when somebody talks about working for a "big name" company, like SpaceX, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc. If you're never reading or writing emails from a company.com email address, going to company's actual public website, going for interviews or meetings at an actual company office, then maybe you should look really closely at who you're really working for.
Maybe if the project was actually functional and high quality, but it's just a half baked project that doesn't even work.
Furthermore, there's no proof that what he worked on was actually silk road. Even looking at the screenshots it says nothing about silkroad, looks actually like a spacex project.
Like others said, I think his main motivation is to post it for the record, so if one day he disappears, people know where to track him down.
The "live demo" in the linked github doesn't seem to be very "live", in that it seems to be totally static. The post talks about "drawing correlations" but all it does it make a graph. http://sciview.herokuapp.com/#/data-sets/0
Walk past the car and photograph the driver. They really love that.
I understand it's probably a painful story to tell, but a lot of little details are missing here, and they'd probably help both the author's friends and new readers like me understand what happened.
Cool stuff, but not super practical?
> John McCarthy wrote 6 easy things in machine code, then combined them to make a programming language.
John McCarthy didn't implement Lisp in machine code. Steve Russell did. Implementing Lisp properly in machine code is not easy; you have to write a garbage collector. To do that in the early 60s, you had to first invent garbage collection. Lisp was and is brilliant, but not as easily bootstrappable as this makes it out to be.
> It's not obvious that these six things are computationally complete (AKA Turing Complete).
`lambda` and function application alone are Turing-complete, as McCarthy would have known. The credit here belongs with Turing and Church, not McCarthy. `atom`, `cons`, `car` and all the rest are just icing on the cake of the lambda calculus when it comes to computability.
> All other meaning can be defined in terms of them.
Yes, and you can build everything on top of the SK combinator calculus if you like, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Lisp is surprisingly practical given how few core constructs it has, but real Lisp implementations have always added more primitives (eg. numbers and addition) for reasons of practicality.
> The language was defined in terms of itself as an interpreter. This is a proof by construction that the language is computationally complete.
No, it isn't. To prove Turing-completeness you need to show that you are as powerful as Turing machines. To do this it suffices to show that you can interpret a language already known to be Turing-complete. Showing you can interpret yourself does not suffice. It's easy to define a language which can do nothing useful except interpret itself, for example. (See also wyager's comment.)
> Well, Lisp is defined as an interpreter in terms of itself from the get-go, just like a Universal Turing Machine.
No. Defining a language only in itself is nonsense, for exactly the reason given above: it means nothing yet! It's like writing in a dictionary:
qyzzyghlm, v. intr. To qyzzyghlm.
It is annoying that so many languages (C, Java, C#, etc) have both a conditional statement (if-else) and conditional expression (ternary ?:). Really the if-else should be an expression (I think the ternary operator is hideous).
RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS OF SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS AND THEIR COMPUTATION BY MACHINE (Part I)
From the page:
"This paper appeared in Communications of the ACM in April 1960. It is the original paper on Lisp."
I had mentioned it in this blog post in which I gave a few examples of doing simple computations recursively in Python (for beginners).
Recursive computation of simple functions:
> John McCarthy wrote 6 easy things in machine code
It was actually Steve Russel, McCarthy's grad student, who had the idea of writing McCarthy's eval function in machine code.
Still very much a work in progress. Feedback appreciated.
I do know, though, that LISP allows the creation (or at least I have heard) for DSLs - so I am curious what people here think about this.
I'm also curious if anyone has an opinion on JetBrains MSL:
...and whether that would be a better thing to learn before or after learning LISP, as well as how it compares to LISP?
It's yet another "thing" that has caught my eye over the years, but again - no use case, and so it remains on the back burner for now...
When people watch someone soldering, their attention is drawn to the iron, and to the shiny melted flowing metal. However, it's really cleaning the tip of the iron and having an iron that can provide enough power at the right temperature that matters.
EDIT: Found an answer: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3323549/is-a-statically-t...
Can someone mantion a few features or scenarios that make it the best choice for starting a new project?
The definition of Turing completeness in the article is not correct. A language being able to execute programs written in itself is not a sufficient condition of Turing completenes. Trivial example: define a language with one pre-defined term, x, which is a routine that takes as input a string, checks if it's "x", and executes it if it is. The empty language is a counter-example as well, but that's cheating.
I'm also not sure if the use of the phrase "fixed point" is a misunderstanding of the definition of a fixed point or just an unfortunate use of a term that already has great significance in LISP.
And if anyone cares, here is nice Shirt with McCarthy on it ;)https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/666689-john-mccarthy-lisp-...
I think it should be mandatory for CS students to implement their own little Lisp using the building blocks McCarthy described! Instead they are learning Java and ist crappy OO...
Alan, if you're there, would you care to comment?
When I was in my 20's, I programmed at least 100,000 lines of Z80 assembler for the first micro computers. One project was at least 40,000 lines and so I know how difficult it is to program larger assembler programs. The biggest problem is that it is hard to see the structure of the loops and conditionals that we normally indent in higher level languages. (You can indent a Lisp program in any way but the language doesn't require any at all.) It is also difficult to recognize expressions. Both of these problems are also there in Lisp (unlike most other high level languages).
One last point about the linked list structure at the heart of Lisp. Linked lists are poorly executed in modern computers that rely heavily on locality of data, to optimize the L1 cache. Lisp was very easy on the compiler/interpreter writer but wasn't very good at optimizing the readability of the code for the programmer. (I don't want a religious war but I will point out that most programmers have never programmed in Lisp even though it was one of the first computer languages created.) Before I get a lot of dissing comments, I think with practice, some programmers developed an eye for the lack of structural clues and made some reasonable size code. You could say the same about some programmers making quite good large scale programs in assembler but that doesn't mean that writing in assembler or Lisp should be encouraged.
That once addiction has set in, it is every bit as much a disease that requires external intervention and treatment to correct the imbalance as the other conditions.
alias sleepsafe='sudo pmset -a destroyfvkeyonstandby 1 hibernatemode 25' alias sleepfast='sudo pmset -a hibernatemode 0' alias sleepdefault='sudo pmset -a hibernatemode 3'
Day-to-day, I use `sleepfast`, which is faster than the default hybrid sleep, because it doesn't spend time copying the contents of memory to disk.
I very rarely switch to `sleepdefault` which is the insecure and slower hybrid sleep.
This has been a known issue for yearshttp://osxdaily.com/2013/07/06/maximize-filevault-security-d...https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/02/02/filevault-encryp...
1. FDE is extremely limited. This particular attack is a clever abuse of sleep/reboot cycles, but of course people intimately familiar with FDE know that if a laptop is sleeping but not shut down it's already perilously close to the boundary at which FDE breaks down. And, of course, once it's woken up and unlocked --- which every attacker who actually challenges FDE can arrange for, all bets are off.
2. When flaws like this are found, the OS vendors have much more recourse than third parties do, which is why this post concludes by saying that Macs are now the most secure laptop platform with respect to DMA attacks against FDE.
Use FDE! Enable it on all your machines! But try not to rely on it, and don't waste too much time optimizing it.
But what worries me somewhat is that the tools for mitigation for these families of attacks include a lot of technologies that are traditionally opposed by the community here on the grounds that it "takes away control from the user.
I'm not sure how we balance out those tensions, but attacks like this sure as heck concern me about my homebuilt machine. I do my best not to keep any important keys there.
Is the update an EFI update which disables DMA or does it with IOMMU? Or is the memory just overwritten on boot?
I'm also quite surprised they leave the password in memory in multiple locations. - Assuming the password is only used to derive the KEK for the actual key.
Same thing with the iPhone. Even though it has solid FDE, there have been exploits if the phone is on (even with a passcode, etc).
Turning off your device is the best protection, even if you have FDE.
I'm still using it instead of Sierra because of Karabiner but this could force me to upgrade.
That vulnerability seems to be a pretty obvious oversight. I remember hearing about DMA (in the context of Firewire) as an attack vector since people first started talking of Truecrypt and Filevault and scrubbing the memory seems obvious... It's worrying that this could have been overlooked by Apple's engineers.
But the part that I really find interesting is this:
>>Character is destiny. ....they're spiteful, entitled, arrogant douches. That led to their downfall
I say bullshit. Just look at Trump. The guy has fucked over so many people and sexually assaulted many woman by his own words and we still elected him.
It let to their downfall because they were not powerful enough.
>The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
> Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982).
> they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally downloading a single pornographic video. Then they offer to settlefor a sum ... just below the cost of a bare-bones defense. For these individuals, resistance is futile; most reluctantly pay rather than have their names associated with illegally downloading porn. So now, copyright laws originally designed to compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-media era to plunder the citizenry.
Which I totally agree with. When this situation started unrolling it really offended my sense of justice. Here were criminals using the judicial system as the tool for their crimes. It really showed how the US judicial systems costs and processes have created a mechanism for abuse. I wish sometimes there were some criminal law around abuse of a public institution which would capture this sort of thing more quickly and effectively.
If they were creating "art" in form of porn they had copyright to said work. No law broken here.
No law broken if you upload your own work to the cloud. You have right to do it.
Finally, no law broken if you try to pursue those who illegally download your copyrighted work.
I guess if you combine all of those together then you doing something wrong. But isn't it ironic that the GOV is allowed to run illegal sting operations even if they lose big time like in Fast and Furious and that's fine, but if few lawyers figure out the way to make extra money, then we need to indict them.
If anything -- were they actually a fish who happen to clean the ocean? I mean it comes to be as simple as this: do not download illegal porn. Period. I can bet after being charged by those lawyers many settled and never downloaded porn again.
There - finished playing devils advocate.
I imagine the argument about this, is that most people don't have any handle on what a Watt or mAh is. But people don't have a good handle on how far 25 miles is, or how much a gallon is in comparison to their tank. Think about it, you rarely see the fuel you put into your car beyond a few drips at the pump. And while you may know that its 25 miles between your house in work, if I took a random point on a map and said find something 25 miles away, with no scale, most people couldn't do it. Gallons and MPG are just arbitrary numbers that consumers have learned how to compare. If you exposed those numbers, they would get a better handling on what their device consumes, and how their activities affect it.
- Compute discharge rates for one minute segments, like Ted did in this post
- Store the last 10 discharge rates
- Report a time estimate based on the minimum/median/maximum of those 10 rates.
That gives fairly quick feedback after you start doing something expensive, but isolates the effect of short-lived and infrequent bursts.
I'm not sure why Microsoft/Apple haven't done something similar. I've even sold licenses to Surface Pro sales reps that they use to show off the battery life of the Surface to potential enterprise clients.
You can't see a prediction in minutes yet (maybe they'll add one with Apple removing it), but the battery metrics have always been more useful than for me than what's built-in. You can see the discharge rate, current charge, full capacity, and original capacity though.
Gives nothing. Why it's not shown? rMBP late 2013, macOS 10.12.2.
This article is nice to show that you can get the data from the command line (you can still get it elsewhere in macOS too) but the snark at Apple for saying they can't do it when it's in fact a deliberate design choice just makes the author look uninformed & petty.
This should be a lesson to journalist, fan boys/girls and VC. Pay attention to reality.
Exploring the possible early components (DRN, GAN) that could lead cumulatively to AGI is not a joke. It's going to be more powerful than nuclear or bio weapons. Are those funny?
(RIP 3/23/2016 nevar forget, #taken3soon)
But for me, it's just Jumping The Snark.
Perhaps even the view layers could have some overlap?
I currently work on a team that supports multiple native Android apps and an Angular 1.X web app. The ability to reuse code in this fashion is the biggest lure to React for me. I've seen a few blog articles that cover this topic at a shallow level. If anyone has resources they could share it would be much appreciated.
The window manager is tolerable (not as good as Xmonad, but equivalent to Unity). Windows subsystem for linux is letting me get my work done with no problems. Anaconda lets me do scientific python work natively from within windows. Emacs seems to work just fine. Cortana is actually pretty cool.
Overall, I haven't felt the need to race back to Linux. I'm surprised to say this, but Windows might be an acceptable linux.
(A while back I wrote about my failed attempt to use OS X: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1787411 )
It focuses on how Satya Nadella has respected the leaders of Companies he's bought out and invited them to key meetings. Using their insight not only for product and company direction, but importantly creating culture as well. Very key to Microsoft and any tech company's success.
I recall hearing many stories about how Microsoft had like 3 managers per programmer, probably exaggeration, but the point remains, who would want to work there if you skilled/lucky enough to choose? Looks like they may be changing in some good ways.
As an outsider, I also think Apple seems to have spread their best technical minds thin, by adding the platforms watchOS and tvOS. While I understand the rationale behind watchOS, without the ability for developers to create the watch faces, it's not that exciting a platform, it's too controlled. Anyhow, the result of this talent dispersion, is that they have failed to maintain the MacbookPro's status as the most exciting development platform, which it had been IMO throughout the 21st century.
I, my peers, and my co-workers just don't see it. With billions in reserve it's no surprise they are trying to buy popularity.
FTA: After years of missteps, the software giant is among the few titans of the 1990s to figure out the new world of mobile technology and cloud computing.
Saying MSFT have figured out mobile is a little too much of a stretch. They have tried many things in the space, they have figured out more of what doesn't work than what does. Unfortunately the market doesn't reward learnings alone.
They were late to the internet party and then under the disastrous leadership of Ballamer (mindshare wise, not revenue) they completely lost the plot.
Now they are indeed enjoying a resurgence, less evil, more relevant and surprisingly accepting of Open source software. How the world turns....
I personally like the:
Surface products, Typescript, C#/F#, .NET Core, Visual Studio Code, and the Hololens.
I enjoy Azure but I understand some people's frustration with it so I exclude it from the list above, I get that it's contentious so I'm leaving it off.
Express/Community versions, VS Code, typescript, open source, github, browser standards, Windows 10. So many good signs. I can't name the other company that have shown so many good signs in recent past.
They've caught on?
Other than Apple, Oracle and IBM?
The migration to a subscription model for everything is bad. Everyone ends up paying more over time and for it we're getting online software delivery that at some points doesn't even work properly or leaves you in the dust. What you end up buying is golden handcuffs.
There is so much fragmentation, it's unreal. As someone who deals with .Net a lot, there is no conclusive plan that lasts more than a few weeks. Tools are volatile, frameworks are fragmented, tooling is pushing more features instead of quality. The rate of churn is also so high, no one knows what the hell is going on. Add to that, reckless abandonment of the last few years is still a major policy. Even looking at Microsoft Office extensions, the bread and butter of many industries, no one has any idea what they hell they are playing at with VSTO and Office 365 at the moment. They plugged a half baked script API in it and consigned everyone to the side bar. No one talks about fight club, or VSTO either apparently.
There are still really bad quality issues. Not a single day goes by where anything isn't poking you in the eye to the point you want to throw your computer or handset out of the window. There is no way to report this or get it fixed conclusively. Even enterprise reps have no idea how to get products fixed at the moment. It has become worse than the days of Microsoft Connect which was a "write this down so we can close it and say fuck you". A lot of things simply just don't even work properly as well. Shit is shiny but it's still shit.
Customers are getting a pricing shafting across the board. Average Joe Consumer doesn't see this but enterprise pricing is paying for all of this. It's horrific some of the prices I've seen floating around recently.
On top of this there is also a new policy of telling the customer what they're getting and being permanently correct. Occasionally to appease the masses, one or two things a year in one of their uservoice type systems close to the business vision (which appears to be totalitarian cross platform domination) get chucked out half baked with a grand announcement. This is celebrated as a major success while a thousand new and old paper cuts, well actually proportionately speaking, eviscerations with a knife, go unnoticed.
I'm not saying they are worse than any of the other larger "tech leaders" but they are not worthy of the mindless praise that is slathered all over them by some members of the tech community and the media recently.
Basically early in 2016 I gravitated towards MS mainly due to the tight integration with VS + Streamlined Azure Portal UI....but the overwhelming amount of new C# ASP.NET stuff I was now encouraged to use...was a tough sell.
tl;dr: Build 2016 convinced me to switch to Azure but now I'm back on AWS post Reinvent 2016
Sure Azure might make some money but its a commodity business, I can't see how it will replace the old cash cows.
That could be the title of a horror movie...
Great comment from Mark stamp in the comments section.
Microsoft has taken some great steps since Nadella took over. Doing more projects aimed at regular developers and taking baby steps towards open source, but that is not enough to be a leader.
In fact, I think in 2016, we are in a much worse place when it comes to tech leadership than we were in the late 90s and early 00s. The tech world has been poisoned by money and everything is focused on maximizing profit. Almost nothing is being created because it's innovative or really life changing. The new products that are coming out like Google Home or Microsoft Office 365 which claim to be innovative, really aren't. They are repackaging an existing product in a new context. That's called marketing. That's not tech leadership.
In the 90s we had the launch of Linux, the web and home internet access.
In the 2000s all we've really had is smart phones. Everything else has just been building on what was done in the 90s because the people in charge are all marketers and profit seekers.
Do something truly innovative with all your billions Microsoft, and then I will buy that you are a tech leader. No amount of press releases or fluff articles will convince me.
Are exclamation marks automatically removed? If so, can someone replace with a full stop?
(I'm not affiliated with Mediapart, I'm just a subscriber)
And fedora, last time I tried it, didn't have smooth font by default ! (it was version 23 if I remember correctly)
Things I like about React MD over Material UI:* Fully tested* Separation of styles* Grid included
On a sidenote: the page's styling messes up during loading. It takes one second before it morphs into the actual state.
That looks like the cause of the delay and "sluggish" feeling some people are reporting. If you don't set that prop, it's very quick even on a nexus 4 which tends to be my baseline device for "web apps" right now.
Why you'd want to set that I'm not sure, but it's there.
And apparently there is a whole team that " is responsible for a smooth and positive Pebble transition. "
Let'shope for the best, maybe the increase in fitbits brand value is worth the effort out into supporting a dead piece of hardware (no offense).
* Has decent battery life (at least better than the Fitbit Charge 2)
* Performs heart monitoring, activity reminders, sleep and steps tracking
* Has iOS and Android apps that let you push collected metrics to a backend service that you can host yourself
[photo] Me at Angelhack Mumbai 2016
I left Google to work on something more interesting and I can't be happier. If we're going to hire people, I'm not putting any weight on their work background.
You want to know the reality? Whatever's special about Google is long gone. Management let the smoke out a long time ago. Nowadays, Google is just another big software company, with all the opaque politics, purposelessness, and random nonsense that comes with being a big company. It's sad to see people strive to be a faceless drone.
Shouldn't you just be doing this anyway if you want to be a good computer scientist? That's how you learn. You constantly take in new information and attempt to apply it and Computer Science is one of the most enabling fields of this form of learning since 1) we all love to churn out an "Experiment" every once and a while and have it fall into being a small side project that makes us a few k and 2) almost EVERYTHING is free! All the info is made by basement-dwelling nerds who sit at home and build cool ass shit and as such they put it all on the internet! Being one of these basement dwelling nerds, it's frigin amazing to have a wealth of all of the fields best research at my fingertips just a google away and I love learning this stuff not for an inevitable goal of "Being a Googler (tm)" but instead of furthering what I know about the world.
If the author is reading this, good on you for learning but don't worry about being a googler if you can do this then you're better then the average googler because you're in the top 1 maybe 2% of all computer scientists if you continually want to learn more. Google even thinks that way, look at their higher level employees like Rob Pike, people who think programmers must be limited because they aren't able to think as well as him about abstractions. Don't waste your time at google. Start a company, build something amazing for yourself or do contract work for others, write these blog posts to get more clients, and make the world a better place. If you're this smart you don't need to run a hamsterwheel for a huge Google-sized corporation.
The idea of studying for the sake of making it a certain company, for some reason, turns me off. Never had the personality to do things only because a parent/teacher/company wanted me to do it.
But, if there was something more fundamental to study for, like a certificate, or a project, or a competition (something more advanced than a hackaton), that'd actually be really interesting. The relative success or failure with it could, then, provide feedback. I guess Project Euler is kind of close, but it's a bit too much of a one-person affair, and only the right answer matters. In other areas, there are often communities where more experienced people help out the less experienced while collectively getting better, and there are tangible goals at every step. Video games come to mind.
Unfortunately, all I've seen is always around data structures, small scripts and hacks, time-gated, overly simple, and promote what I would call bad code or shallow understanding. It makes you good at the events in question, and you can get some certificate, but whether or not it's actually making you a better developer is suspect and the correlation is often backwards, if anything.
So the only solid goal a lot of people see is getting hired by X company, and, by extension, getting better at interviews. Because that's something you can measure and get good feedback from and it's a lot simpler than trying to figure out what being a good software developer means.
Perhaps it's entirely legit, but it just seems so, so strange to me.
The process has become about recruiting people that are good at the silly process and not about recruiting the best people. Probably OK if Google is in 'megacorp looking to feed more skillled cogs into the machine' mode (which it mostly is), but unlikely the process finds the person that builds the next Google.
You may not see web development and software engineering as different positions. Both involve programming and craftsmanship, but software engineering adds to it knowledge of data structures and algorithms, compiled languages, memory considerations, and understanding the impact of coding and architecture decisions on the machines where they reside.
I think that's a simplistic view of what "web developer" is these days. I work in the web for most of the time and I absolutely have to do deal with memory considerations as well as code and architecture choices. And if you're a full-stack developer you're likely dealing with some kind of compiled language on the backend.
In brief, Google is a company that hires smart, creative people, and treats them well. Google rewards merit, encourages big ideas, and gives employees the freedom to make good decisions for the user.
I very much question that, in 2016.
Most of the relevant comments are at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12649740
Anyhow, in general it's getting really weird hearing more stuff like "Google is the best" and "I just have to work there". I question your judgement if you are making these sort of statements as an outsider. At least join the party before you drink the koolaid.
Talk about selling yourself short. You've been a web developer for 15 years. I would think you've progressed a little further than entry-level.
What I find annoying about technical interviews is that they force me to review useless, basic stuff that I learned 10 years ago instead of asking me about all the cutting edge (and much more interesting/difficult) stuff that I have learned more recently.
Go study for 8 months to be awesome, focusing your time on subjects directly related to improving your awesomeness.
If your awesomeness happens to match a need at Google, great. Otherwise, you're still awesome and will wind up somewhere worthwhile....
There are thousands scattered all over the internet - just scout one out and ask.
On the other hand, this seems like something you can only easily do if you are young / no kids / or have tons of savings (rich)... (I strongly doubt my wife would put up with me doing this now) so hopefully for the crop of people that want to work there it is not the norm / maybe their age diversity would benefit from making applicants work record count for a bit more or something, idk.
I'm sure he has learned a lot, but when you study with an interview in mind, you're not necessarily studying to be a good developer; you're studying to look like one. There's some correlation, but it's not the same thing.
First, I'm not all that surprised someone would study for 8 months for an interview at Google. I interviewed there (no hire) and gave myself 3 weeks. It wasn't close to enough time, and I've taken a lot of formal math and basic CS plus data structures. Just too rusty, especially at a whiteboard. I could easily have spent 3 months.
Various people here have cautioned against working at Google, and I know people who worked at Google (as SSE's) who cautioned me about it when they heard I was interviewing. No, not in a "run away" sense, more of a "don't get too starry eyed here, it's not that great" sense. But salary-wise, a SSE role at Google would have paid a hell of a lot more than I make right now. I'm just saying, I can see why people put in the time. And plenty of people do love it there.
My advice to people who have more of the fundamentals is to get a copy of "Cracking the Coding Interview" and just making damn sure you can do the hard problems in 45 minutes at a whiteboard. Memorizing won't help you, you need to understand what you're doing on a deep enough level that you can solve similar problems you haven't seen before.
I also recommend knowing basic data structures like the back of your hand. Really, you can't be trying to remember how to program a queue or stack, or traverse a tree, not if you need to use these concepts to solve a more complicated problem in 45 minutes at a whiteboard .
Now, on to the other side here...
I love a few things about software. I love it that an econ major who self studies intensely can get "high level" jobs. I love it that no cartel controls entrance, and can force everyone to do a 3 year grad degree with tuitions at 50K+ a year. I love it that really smart people can move at a faster pace because they learn quickly.
However, I don't love it that corporations are essentially our gatekeepers. The "google interview" shouldn't e called an interview, it should be called the "google exam". Calling it an interview creates an ambiguity that confuses people outside our industry. I know people who work in other fields, and while knowledge is probed during interviews, what they go through is vastly different from what we go through in software. My "interview" at Google was a series of whiteboard exams.
Here's what I don't like about this - someone like the OP here studies, intensely, and takes his exams. Suppose he didn't get the job. Well, how did he do? If you take the actuarial exams, or the nursing boards, or the bar, you get a sense of how you did. There is more transparency around the test. There has to be.
As far as I know (based on what I've read about this interview process at Google from people who know, including the author of Cracking the Coding Interview), my name, along with very formal numerical scores, along with photos of the whiteboard after each interview/exam, are in a database at Google. However (yes, for legal reasons), I am not allowed to know more that the vaguest details about this.
A formal exam, in almost every field, has a published study path. It is graded in a way that is audited to ensure fairness and consistency. It must not be capricious. A student has an opportunity, often, to try again. Your hard study, should you pass, leads to a lasting credential respected by industry.
We get none of this in software. I honestly do believe that the tech exam is a big part of why a lot of people quit software development or never enter it in the first place - this in a field where CEOs regularly lobby congress and the president to lament a shortage of tech talent.
We do need to fix the technical interview. I think the first step is to realize that it is a formal exam, and that as such, it needs to come with the usual benefits and considerations afforded to people who take formal professional exams in other fields.
I hope this guy the best, but he obviously has some mental issue and he's trying to find solace in talking about it publicly.
I can't believe that Google Careers site actually recommend that candidates should study "Cracking the Coding Interview, 6th Edition". This is completely nuts to me.
For me, it's exactly the other way around. I have a beautifully illustrated Photoshop picture and then I turn it into HTML and CSS and I realize that some relative alignments are literally completely impossible to do without design changes or doing some flexbox hack that's not supported on older browsers. The ugliness of HTML quickly catches up to your pretty bitmap. Going with HTML from the start is the way to go (unless you can avoid HTML altogether, in which case you should AVOID IT ALTOGETHER).
This scenario seems implausible to me.
If solar prices continue as they have for another 3-5 years, the question is going to be pretty clear, how do we store all of this insanely cheap power. I'm a little mystified we're not taxing carbon emissions and subsidizing storage. But hey, there are clearly powerful forces at play, that don't agree with me.
It looks like solar is starting to become an inevitability.
If solar is cheaper, and scales well (i.e. you can just keep deploying it, pretty much anywhere, and have it get cheaper the more you do) then all the smart money is going to go to building as much PV as quickly as possible. There'll be no one willing to invest in coal-plants because they'll be looking at the on-going costs, looking at the up-front costs, placement issues, build-times, risk of actual action on carbon pricing and saying "you know what, let's build out solar instead".
Comparing the photo-voltaic capacity installed in 2016 with wind capacity is a bit misleading, as wind typically has a much higher capacity factor than solar - so the 59GW of wind will almost certainly produce more electricity than the 70GW of solar.
The Photosynthesis enzyme in plant leaves captures photons that are converted to electrons with energy stored chemically in carbohydrates. Animals eat the chemical energy created by plants as well as other animals. Animals use oxygen to oxidize the carbohydrates to create energy.
What my shop was pushing was using solar collectors to heat hot water. That was about 20% of the average residential energy bill, had a relatively low up front cost, and a relatively short payback period. We were aware of and tracked a variety of alternative energy sources including photovoltaics, but expected them to get niche pickup at best because they were simply too expensive. To a large extent, that's still the case.
Another point to note is that energy usage isn't just electricity. Back then, a national energy budget divided roughly into quarters, with industrial heating and cooling, residential/light commercial heating and cooling, transportation, and electricity making up the demand. The total amount of energy consumed is rather larger, but that breakdown is still pretty much the same. I don't see solar electric power addressing things like heavy duty heating and cooling, nor most transportation.
One thing I got convinced of back then is that the form of energy used will be the cheapest that will do the job. Energy from fossil fuel still predominates because it is still cheapest.
Solar is still essentially a niche market, though growing, and lower costs are the driver. I was grimly amused a while back over the woes of Solyndra, an effort to create large scale photovoltiac production in the US, that got about half a billion in government funding. The underlying notion was creation of US jobs.
Photovoltaics is semi-conductor electronics, the Chinese jumped in with both feet, and started turning out solar cells at prices domestic producers couldn't match. In fact, some Chinese producers came to grief. They dove in based on demand estimates that were unfounded, produced a glut on the market, far lower pricers for buyers, and failures among firms that were late to the manufacturing party.
People went on about US jobs, and I thought "Drive on the NJ Turnpike, and every other pole has a solar cell array generating power to help run the Turnpike. Somebody has the contract to design, produce, install and maintain those arrays, and those jobs by nature will be local. Decreasing costs for the raw materials used to produce the arrays made it possible to sell the end products cheaper, and increased the demand. The Chinese can do it cheapest and can have solar cell production. The money is in moving up the value chain and making things people will buy that use those solar cells."
I'm delighted to see solar electricity costs dropping to the reported levels, but anyone who sees it as a solution for overall energy woes isn't looking at a big enough picture.______Dennis
Photovoltaics is semi-conductor electronics, the Chinese jumped in with both feet, and started turning out solar cells at prices domestic producers couldn't match. In fact, some Chinese producers came to grief. They dove in based on demand estimates that were unfounded, produced a glut on the market, far lower prices for buyers, and failures among firms that were late to the manufacturing party. Solyndra couldn't compete.
What would the cost of living fall to if energy costs were $0?
... and also why natural gas will always win, and why coal is getting shut down.
A much more insightful todo list for me would be to see one of the day-to-day todo lists I find myself writing for every weekend. These include things like "Finish writing chapter 15" or "Refactor [component] into [design pattern]." I want to see the granular tasks Edison and other "great men" worked on in the day-slivers of their lives.
Seeing a big list like this reinforces my impression of Edison as a less of the hands-on inventor our society tries to make him out to be and more of a high-level manager who put mostly signed the patents for everything his workshop of inventors produced.
All to prove the dangers of AC power.
Leonardo Da Vincis To Do List (circa 1490) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13187316
-New Expansion Pyromagnetic Dynamo
-Deposit in vacuo on lace, gold + silver also on cotton molten chemical compound of lustrous surfaces to imitate silk also reg plating system
-Malleablizing Cast now in Vacuo
I'm working on a fusion reactor, have wanted to evaporate and experiment with metals in a vacuum chamber, and I want to build a snow brick maker for fun in the winter...
Audio books as thing in 1888!
I wonder what Elon Musk's "To-Do" list looks like... or Bezos or anyone with the resources like these two gagillion-aires.
- New Standard Phonograph
- Invent the lightbulb
- Trick Telsa to do work for free
Just to add some info:In the past few days a couple of people gathered in Berlin to discuss reproducible builds. There were some people from the distributions quoted that they don't show much interest, so maybe there will be more movement than this article suggests.
My personal take is that I think there are a few more pieces that are needed for really trustworthy software distribution.
I tried to get a grip on that with the idea that we have a chain "upstream repo" - "usptream tarball" - "potentially insecure transport" - "distribution compile" - "package" - "user download".
Reproducible builds basically fix the tarball to package way, but there's a lot more. E.g. how does a repo become a tarball? Who's checking that? And how does user a know he has the same software as user b? (This is mentioned at the end of the article with the comments of Joanna Rutkowska. Others have discussed basically the same ideas under the term "binary transparency".)
It could also go a long way towards addressing concerns that they, as a UK corporation, may now be subject to the Investigatory Powers Act requiring encryption 'back doors' be inserted in communications software. Even if you argue that Ubuntu isn't communication software, they do ship plenty of packages that are.
File integrity is of key importance for reproducing builds. For non-local archive downloads, the fetcher code can verify SHA-256 and MD5 checksums to ensure the archives have been downloaded correctly. You can specify these checksums by using the SRC_URI variable with the appropriate varflags as follows:
SRC_URI[md5sum] = "value" SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "value"
That Red Hat and Ubuntu aren't interested in delivering trustworthy software means you shouldn't trust them.
For anybody who missed this, Project Quantum is a Mozilla project to dramatically improve Gecko. Part of this project is to bring in Servo components like CSS and WebRender, hence the Rust dependency.
More awesome info:
Especially with browsers, which not everyone agrees on how they should be and desires to customise, only to find that the option to do so has been removed or a source change must be performed, is subsequently delighted to know that it's open-source so they should be able to do it easily, but then get overwhelmed and give up after they realise the effort needed just to build an unmodified version of the software themselves. They then fall back to merely complaining on the Internet, and reluctantly accepting their "fate"... somehow, I feel like some of the visions of open-source didn't quite turn out as well as hoped.
In the meantime, is there a refactor/rewrite of that '90 code bash that is full of bugs and unused functions? And if so, do any phone manufactures use that improve "firmware"?
Also, for trust to be thrown out the window, a lot of changes would probably need to happen both in baseband software and in the networks themselves. Not seeing that happening anytime soon.
Both the two major phone vendors --- Google and Apple --- have teams of people who are acutely aware of the baseband thread, many of whom are equally as talented as RPW.
Further, though the article seems carefully written enough to avoid the misconception, the basebands on modern phones don't get direct access to AP memory, but are instead connected over a high-speed serial connection with a limited command set.
They aren't understood since standards such as LTE are very complex, tying in RF hardware, DSP in ASICs, and software.
I read that it can not be removed not even by reinstalling the OS. But it looks like PC manufacturers like Lenovo found a way to hide the same rootkit in their BIOS.
While this can be a good programming example for newcomers, I suggest to look at modules that are really implementing new DB paradigms on top of Redis. For instance this module builds a graph DB on top of Redis data types, with a query language and so forth:
The idea was actually NOT to create an SQL like database, but just proxy ordinary redis commands via secondary index. So you select ids, and perform HGET or HGETALL on them, etc. And the same goes for indexing - you perform something like HMSET and "through" the index, and it performs the operation while indexing the hash automatically.
Also, indexes can be used as direct data types with no automation, you just insert ids and tuples of data into them, and you can query them and get ids back.https://github.com/RedisLabsModules/secondary
So would be very interesting to see benchmarks and comparisons with MySQL - I think right now we have more ways to implement it better.
Also I have introduced the module in a blog post here: http://redbeardlab.tech/2016/12/13/redisql
Thredis also added multi-threading to Redis. The code is here: https://github.com/grisha/thredis
Definitely could use this for migration off SQLite to a solid DB.
Until I had the (mis)pleasure of working with a truly toxic co-worker did my mindset completely change on the issue of bullying, intimidation, and hostility in the workplace. He was a senior guy, decent at his job. But how he was able to change the dynamic of multiple teams was very offsetting. Communication declined, as people didn't want to go near the team that had the guy that was insulting them everytime on a whim. Workplace politics were on the rise. The common denominator was this guy was involved with every issue. Management stayed quiet and attempted to push it under the rug for a bit, but eventually they had to take notice. It was so relieving to walk in one day to him cleaning out his desk. I remember locking eyes with him one last time and giving him a final unspoken send off with a stern glare. He turned the corner and I never saw him again. My co-workers and myself went out for lunch as a celebration. The amount of relief was incredible. It was like starting fresh again.
Back to the article, I still can't say I fully understand what this woman went through. But just having a taste of how off-putting 1 toxic employee can be really opened my eyes. I can't fathom having multiple employees or even a manager with that type of behavior. I won't comment on gender or racial issues.
Being stressed from work is okay. Some jobs have more stress than others, and at higher frequencies. But being stressed from the people at work is needless stress that compounds on top of the regular work stress that we all accept to some degree when entering a job or role.
Obviously I'm not a witness, but I tend to believe that these events took place more or less as the author describes them.
At the same time, words like "sexism" and phrases like "as a minority..." are a big turn-off to some readers, myself included. This isn't because I don't believe in racism/sexism/xenophobia, it's because we're never going to be able to agree on definitions for those terms and so they end up being almost useless as descriptors.
I would put this in almost literary terms: I don't want events to be described, I want them to be recounted. This is also how I feel about movies and literature: I want novels/screenplays that "show rather than tell." I don't want to be told how to think about an event, I just want it to be presented to me.
I also believe that categorizing your personal experiences in terms of broader social phenomena is a mistake. In my opinion, this kind of thinking leads to generalization and tends to obscure the actual events that took place and the actors involved.
All that aside, absolute sympathy to the author here. It's incomprehensible to me that people can behave like this, but sadly they do.
For instance friendly teasing, sometimes even started by the person themselves (e.g. "Oh, you know us [blanks], good at [blank]") can be taken way too far. People wrongly get the sense that something is OK because the person doesn't complain or laughs along and it can escalate to the point of full on harassment and your brain still thinks "[person] is my buddy, it's OK". I think it's partially human nature and wanting to fit in. The person being teased doesn't want to come off adversarial, the person teasing thinks it's "their joke".
I realized long ago simply don't tease people at work. They are not around you by choice. Don't assume people at work are friends in the way your drinking buddies are friends. You honestly have no idea how they really feel about it until it's too late, save it for your friends who are around you by choice.
The sole role of Human Resources is to protect the company from liability, either through lawsuits or labor law compliance. Occasionally managers will abdicate their duty and delegate parts of hiring authority to a section of the company with no understanding of what they do and no accountability for getting it wrong, but that's not as common as you think. Most hiring just gets rubber stamped by HR, not driven by them.
That's all. They're a cost center with no authority beyond saying "this kid is gonna cost us a lot of money if we don't get rid of them"-- either by being a harasser or by being the litigious type (to HR, they're actually the same thing).
If you're expecting them to intercede on your behalf with your manager without something being obviously out of control, ie lawsuit-worthy, you're gonna have a hard time.
- Make sure to have some real friends at work. No, someone you work with everyday is not necessarily a real friend, you have to make real connections with them, so they are willing to defend and support you when things get tough.
- Be observant and empathetic, so you can notice problems when they first arise, and resolve them before they escalate. This is hard for engineers, as we focus on computers most of the time and don't get to practice the skills of empathy a lot.
- Be strong. Sometimes escalations do happen, and now you have one or more people dislike you and try to make your life hard. You need to be emotionally strong to withstand their attacks, and keep a clear mind to figure out a way to defeat them or at least reach a ceasefire.
Sadly, politics happen all the time when inter-personal interactions happen, not necessarily the result of one shady colleague with agendas. This could happen to anyone, although sadly more often to minorities, because it's harder to hide the fact that we are outsiders.
My concern is people seem to think it only happens in previously (and still) male dominated fields. It happens everywhere.
I think the woman that voice their concerns and challenges are more abundant in the tech industry probably because the industry is more progressive and generally more educated.
Where I have seen ultra sexism has been in sales and finance. Extremely disturbing in your face sexism. Anecdotally the sexism in tech is sort of passive aggressive but the sexism in other industries is disturbingly direct (one could argue the subtle one being worse). My point is it is everywhere.
I hope the tech industry fixes it and becomes the leader.
They contracted a specialize company to investigate, collect the facts and present their conclusions. The conclusions would be sent at the same time to the alleged victim, the HR and the manager.
In this case the conclusion was that there was no harassment according to legal definition. These argumented conclusions would have been presented to a trial as reference if any party would want to contest them.
The company performing the audit is specialized in it. So they can recognize a real harassment from an abusive claim. They also have no interest in the company. It is in the interest of the company to call them to get a leverage to apply whatever measure they would find appropriate. If the victim is an employee, and he/she would consider the reaction inappropriate and abusive, he/she could complain to a tribunal.
Today, a company that is not reacting like that (diligent an investigation by an independent party) to a harassment complain would be considered a priori suspect or would be consider to have failed complying to its duty because it is their responsibility to do so.
- does not put blame for handling it on any single person or function.
- illustrates systemic dysfunction. Normal incentives work against handling the abuse claim - HR tries to protect company, managers caught in conflict of interest
- points out the result of management not acting clearly. The person bullied feels taking on more responsibility of navigating the mess. As the person has no effective control this add more distress.
- shows the manager dilemma when supporting minority (in whatever sense) in a naive way. The person standing out stands out even more. Dammed if you do and probably dammed if you don't.
- even in an environment where the bullied person is receiving widespread support from others at times (scene at the table where other were speaking up) long running and extreme stress does damage.
- few understand that the problems often only show up months later as it is typical for PTSD
It is very difficult to say what can be done to prevent this. It is obvious that management is making the wrong decisions but why? I believe the author is on something with the conflict of interest. I would add avoidance of conflict - they are empowered to handle it but shy away. Then there is inability to handle bullies by a lot of them - trying to be even handed since this is the normal mode when one side is obviously overstepping (similar to press-Trump relationship).
What could be done by companies? Specialized people/services dealing with that sort of behavior may be one. Making sure management is well grounded in values and knows how to decide in these conflict of interest cases may help a little too.
What can one do to be prepared? Not being weak is probably the best preparation. Ability to fight and win or to pack and run is key to be able to force a resolution.
What to do when caught in it? These days I think getting external help early. Covering two sides: The psychological one (therapist with first hand experience of psychopathic people and stress management, possibly PTSD) and legal advice.
Full disclosure: Could tell a similar sad tale.
"One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism."
I'm sure there's a way that a supervisor jumping to your defense could be sexist, but this isn't showing that, at all.
"At a lunch with several other coworkers, one of these men ordered me to summon the waiter and pay the bill, in the tone of a command to someone inferior and subservient."
Certainly odd behavior, but I'm not sure I would call it sexist. Arrogant for sure, but surely there's more context?
To be clear, I'm not saying she's wrong, just that this story isn't helping me understand what she went through, or that it was particularly sexist, versus just hostile.
> Indian women being subservient
I agree that these comments don't belong in the workplace. I have seen similar ones lead to people fired on the day and escorted to the door. Thankfully it's relatively rare but some places do take it very seriously.
Apple was wrong. In Australia the law is clear and they've breached it. Take them to court and get your payout. It's annoying that the victim has to do that but it's possible.
For other parts of the article I put myself in her shoes and didn't find management's treatment of her particularly different from how I (a male) would be treated after complaining about the actions of anyone else (male or female) in the workplace - which is why I don't. HR is ineffectual and the company is against you regardless of whomever is at fault. It just wants one or the other party gone so things can go back to normal, so if it's you versus five other people it's easier to fire and rehire one than five.
> employers also have an obligation to handle the situation with empathy and integrity
And this line stood out at me as being divorced from reality especially at a big company.
I get it that we mostly want companies to be like this but I think it's also obvious that they're not. They are primarily profit motivated and we're lucky if they don't pollute the environment or commit atrocities in the process.
You can look for smaller companies that do it, you can put it in your own company, but if you really felt Apple would be like that then it's being a little naive.
I worked at one mid-size company that was acquired by a competitor who wanted to drive in the boot heel by firing the previous management in as embarrassing a way as possible. My boss was on the chopping block and had false charges levelled at him over email and summarily fired. He took it through the Australian workplace relations system to try to get some closure, until the government advised there's no law to prevent a company making anything up and firing you for it. He could have pursued defamation but that's also extremely difficult, long, and expensive, and he didn't have the money.
It was at that point I grew up in my career and decided you really can't trust any company to look out for you. That's not how it works.
It's also quite hard to be public about this (I know someone who recently left Apple for similar reasons but won't discuss it publicly).
I wonder if things would have played out differently if she had immediately addressed her supervisor's unnecessary defense. While this seems like the starting point for the harassment, my guess is that it was ingrained in the team all along and would have come out at one point or another. Not that that makes it any better.
Truly horrible experience for anyone to go through and I hope she finds a better place to work in and can perhaps put this bitter experience to help others.
In California, all managers are required by law to take three hours of sexual harassment training every other year. One thing that stood out to me is that there is no need to make a formal harassment claim: when anyone mentions they have experienced harassment to a manager, even in a private conversation, the manager is required to report it and investigate. If the employee says they want to keep the conversation in confidence, the manager is supposed to say they can't do that. If a manager doesn't follow up, they can be personally liable.
Several companies I've been at also have a mandatory "managers and the law" training class. I didn't talk to anyone for several days after taking it. :)
IANAL, but my understanding is that one job of HR is to protect the company. One reason they investigate is to produce evidence that could be used in the event of a lawsuit to prove they took the allegation seriously. Trying to argue with the employee that it didn't happen would put them in a really bad position if they were sued, because it could be used to demonstrate a hostile work environment.
I've seen complaints happen a few times in my career (not involving me directly), and, in those cases, HR took it gravely seriously. They talked to everyone involved and documented the crap out of it. Most of the people I've met in HR seem to genuinely care. I disagree with advice that HR should not be trusted, but my advice for someone who is in a situation where they are uncomfortable is to document everything. Keep emails of all interactions with your manager and HR and send follow up email to summarize conversations you had in person.
The tech industry absolutely doesn't need unions /s
This isn't about sexism, racism, etc. This is about a ringleader selecting a victim to prey upon for the sole purpose of causing pain.
Unless there is someone at the top that takes these matter seriously on a personal level and has communicated it to his subordinates, senior management in general only pays lip service to taking such matters seriously. These are complex matters and every one wants to get on with their work, rather than deal with the problem.
Tim Cook, I would expect, would have sent the message about taking such matters seriously. It seems like someone between him and the victim decided to add his "personal expertise" to this case and mishandled it completely.
That statement totally reminds me of accounts I've read of conservatives and how they feel about minorities get special treatment.
I just find it really interesting that groups in power react this way while they are still in power. It's a very, very foreign thing to me and I don't understand the source of it, but there is very clearly a common thread of this running through our world right now.
If she'd gone to HR with recordings and they brushed aside her concerns then she'd have a much stronger case.
Well as she said, a distressed mind doesn't think properly.
The only thing I miss from the article: did she try to talk to her harassers directly before going to a manager? Maybe I misread something but it seems like this did not happen, yet this should always be the first step.
My additional notes:
> Instead of helping me, HR embarked on a defensive and confrontational script.
> It is not reasonable to expect the victim to have the presence of mind to know how to tackle this problem.
> Until the investigation was completed, even my honesty was at stake.
> harassment is one of the most brutal experiences women encounter in the workplace [...] Companies need to do far more than what they are doing right now to prevent women from eventually quitting. [...] The company needs to support and empower women to take a stand in these situations. [...] This includes considering women in these situations as people, rather than as pawns in the greater agenda of protecting the companys legal liabilities.
Harassment get target _anyone_, it comes in all flavours. Please don't make harassment part of the gender wars. You can get harassed for having a foreign accent in the UK. ( In a country where English pronunciation differs from village to village. )
This comment rang some bells for me. Have a friend from the Netherlands who was in undergrad with me, and one day in confidence he told me one of the things he didn't understand most in America is how someone can harbor, and actively maintain, such a passionate hatred for someone they aren't intimately involved with.
While this hatred is most definitely present in other first world nations, I can't avoid the fact that he is correct and far more pervasive in America. It doesn't make much sense to me.
What I do next is that I make sure I communicate clearly those two points to whoever I think should get me what I want. For example, in that case, I would go see my manager and say: "Jack told me this and that and I consider this is inappropriate. I never want to be told that again in this company. If it happens again, I quit. Have you understood? (wait for his answer) What will you do to make sure it doesn't happen anymore?" (it is important to ask if he has understood, it forces him to go right in the middle of the circle you just draw on the floor, that put him in your territory, right under your guns).
Sometimes, you will have to apply 2). For example in this case, your manager would have to tell you something substantial about what he gonna do to stop that. If what he tells you is not substantial, tell him you are not satisfied and ask him again the same question: "what can you do to make sure it will stop?". Don't quit on that. Keep asking. Only apply 2) if he don't answer anymore. It's typically a situation where "you don't leave the shop until...". If your manager tells you to go see the HR department, tell him clearly again 2): "if I don't get what I want I will leave. Do you still want me to go see the HR department? Are you sure?". Apply pressure, at every step.
Do not have a discussion. Don't discuss the problem with your manager. Don't talk. Ask your question and wait for an answer. If he want to discuss, make him understand you won't.
It's crucial to apply 2) right away when you don't get what you want. I've found it's rarely the occasion to make a deal and make a compromise not so much because the deal is bad but because by doing so, they will start kidding you again.
I'm super happy so far with the result of this method. I get fantastic results from my family, employers, friends, from everybody. At first, you will feel like a freak. Then you will notice the others won't think so much that you are a freak but will think you are a strong person they should not kid with. You end up being respected.
However, this is definitely a story that I would like to hear from the other side before taking as absolute gospel. The tone of the blog post leads to a lot of skepticism in me about the veracity of the events.
She accuses her supervisor of sexism for standing up for her, and then basically accuses Apple of sexism for doing nothing. The contradiction is glaring, and she throws around these words pretty thoughtlessly without thinking how it reflects on the believability of her story. Another pet peeve of mine is that she conflates misogyny with sexism. People can be sexist without being misogynists. Many men and women are sexist. It's largely cultural. Very few are misogynists but they are sickening and scary, and need to be eradicated by any means necessary.
> I approached my management when the situation escalated, who directed me to HR.
This here is the part of the article where my skepticism starts to increase. Where is her story about what happened when she contacted her supervisor, or her management chain. Did she not seek help or advice from the supervisor who was ready to help her? There's a lot that was handwaved over that requires explanation. Without understanding what her supervisor did, who defended her previously, I can't understand what happened. The supervisor and direct manager are the ones who are best suited to deal with this problem directly, especially if it's between coworkers.
On a side note, I don't blame the blog post author for thinking that HR would help. I've been in a situation where I had to talk with HR about my direct manager, and they weren't too enthusiastic to help, and I had to fight my own battles essentially. However, I'm a lot better equipped to fight those battles than the blogger because I'm argumentative and stubborn, and most other people, male and female, aren't as motivated.
> My HR representative was simply unfriendly after I gave feedback about her being unduly confrontational with me.
I think this is an interesting comment from the author. It seems like she doesn't have a high EQ, and doesn't know how to interact with people to get the things that she wants or needs. Her HR rep is the most immediate person who would help her navigate this situation, and she apparently pissed her HR rep off. That wasn't smart and speaks a lot to her EQ, and might explain a lot more about the back story here. She could get better help from her HR rep without pissing him or her off, but she didn't do it or didn't know how to do it.
> While I never heard back in person, I do believe that it likely triggered some of the following actions by the company.
This was laughable, and also reflected poorly on the author. The idea that a single complaint about workplace harassment would trigger this is ridiculous, and the fact she is taking credit for any changes at Apple also reflects on her EQ.
Companies use the system to purposefully depress wages. It needs to end.
its a bit of stretch to call Indians a minority in tech, if anything we are vastly over-represented by any standard.
I like that she points out the conflicts of interest, wherein the legal structures in which companies are embedded so clearly work against a good solution to the problem.
However I think when she says:
"corrective actions for any violations have to be significant enough to be a deterrent to such behaviors in the future. There also needs to be some accountability for these actions"
She is taking on the same position as these legal structures - I.e. that retribution or punishment is an important part of the equation, and I think this is counter to the rest of her argument.
Men raised in a sexist society can't be individually held responsible for acting in the way they have seen people acting around them as though these are intentional crimes against women.
Massive career damage needs to be taken off the table as the first consequence for all sides of this.
That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a great deal of accountability - but it needs to be something closer to restorative justice - where those involved can understand each other rather than remain embattled.
I imagine there's a different side to this. Her coworkers noticed her getting treated differently and started teasing her about it, in a typical form of male ribbing on each other, in an attempt to equalize the status among the team. Rather than take this in stride and rolling with it, she clammed up and got offended, being used to a very different social style. The mistake was to see herself as the primary victim from day 1, rather than a beneficiary of unearned perks. The empathy she demands for herself she doesn't grant to others, and the reasonable and self-sufficient behavior she expects of everyone around her, she was unable to muster herself.
So here's the long medium post where she is unable to dissociate her experience from her identity. A "personal perspective" that nevertheless puts up a list of changes necessary for supporting women and minorities. She also somehow concludes that despite management not seeming to care and not bothering to reply to her final letter, her experience was nevertheless instrumental in causing sweeping and highly visible changes in policy.
Sorry but, being empowered by being uniquely protected is a contradiction. She opens "as a woman and minority" as if that's a liability, rather than the trump card she's actually playing it as. People who don't use that line still have problems, but they don't get to instruct others on how to solve them. If one of her white male co-workers had gotten bullied, I imagine we wouldn't be reading about it today, and she probably wouldn't have noticed either in her me-bubble.
Sounds like Her boss and Hr failed I wonder if things Like brexit and Trump have made closet racists fell they can be more open
For better or worse, HR is there to protect the company, not the employee. This is why many times they report in through legal. It's not fair, but it's the way companies work.
I'm not sure how I feel(as an AAPL shareholder) about this. I invest in the company, and they are spending(albeit a tiny portion in the grand scheme of things) my money to pay you...so you can deal with your stress? Really? I understand bereavement leave, sick leave, and FMLA....but stress? What happened to businesses existing to do business, not give out warm and fuzzy vibes?
Maybe I'm jaded, but my last jobs were the military, more military, contracting for the military, and ending with military(all in IT). Stress happens, but I didn't let my team down by bowing out from stress, and "disgust" sums up how I feel reading about others doing it.
She was very candid about the position of the FCC and the fact that she was finally able to speak her mind because this was going to be one of her last public appearances as a government official. One thing that stuck me was what she said about Tom: "He actually believes that the consumer, the american people, are his clients. He's said that from the first day and he'll say that the day he leaves. Trust me, he doesn't like any of the companies [laughter]". The loss of the current administration of the FCC (including but not limited to Tom) will be a great loss for the American people in my opinion.
The conference was interesting and somewhat sad, because it was planned before the election and probably with the assumption that the new administration would not be totally hostile. Instead of the original direction of "here's what we've done and how we plan to carry these goals forward" it ended up being more of a retrospective on progress that had been made at the federal level that was about to be erased.
From the people I saw, there did not seem to be anyone there representing the new administration.
He was extremely reasonable and very receptive to the needs of the tech community and small businesses. I came away from the meeting pleasantly surprised and have been happy with his actions during his tenure. Sad to see him go.
Meanwhile those opposed have been able to come up with analogies that while false and misleading, are easily understood.
What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical?
Hang in there, guys..
"Wired.com is not included in your Comcast Internet Basic package. Click here to upgrade to Comcast Internet Extreme for $9.99 more a month, for access to Wired.com and twenty other premium web sites!"
I cleared the game in a single lunch hour, but I'm not disappointed. The game design easily surpasses anything I've ever played on my phone, and there's a bucket of replayability. Pink/purple/black coins to get, speed runs on rally to try, etc.
Giving the first 3 levels for free was a good move - the install is essentially a demo that is enough to let a customer decide if they want to front for the whole game.
I didn't have a problem paying, but I've read a lot of whining on twitter and other places. Younger gamers have an expectation that everything on mobile should be free, but kudos to Nintendo on having the balls to stay away from cheap pay2win tricks and stick to an old school pricing model.
I don't know if it's going to turn a profit, but I really hope so. This race to the bottom amongst mobile game devs is madness and has to stop.
Now I really want that.
My favorite games are the ones that embody some sense of freedom, and I just don't get that here (at least not from the first 3 levels). I completely understand Nintendo's decision to go with the single-finger jump-only game mechanic for a touchscreen device (I've never been a fan of virtual D-pads). But unfortunately, that decision has transformed Mario from a game about discovery and freedom into a game where you're - quite literally - not allowed to stop and take a second look at something.
As a natural consequence of this change in game mechanics, we seem to be forced into a constant state of hyper-focused speeding through what might otherwise be an attractive setting with subtleties to be explored. If I pass something that looks interesting in Super Mario Run, I'll likely never see it again (no, I'm not really motivated to repeat levels for coins - but I would be inclined to explore new paths through the game if I weren't always forced to be on the run).
Making matters worse, the few times I did attempt to explore a little (by jumping back off the walls), the clock ran out in what felt like an unreasonably short time compared to other Mario games.
In the back of my mind, it feels as though this change reflects something more profound about how society has evolved in the past decade. Maybe our competitive and demanding nature has overshadowed the desire for individual discovery and creativity. We don't need a landscape-oriented view of the horizon anymore; we only care about what's immediately at hand in our myopic view of the world because, let's face it, this is 2016 and we're too lazy to flip our phones around to landscape mode, let alone to confront the harrowing idea of plotting our own course through life. Just put us on the conveyor belt and tell us when to jump - and how high.
OK, that may be taking it a bit too far, but I'm still not buying the full game - and it has nothing to do with the price.
I had signed in on my iPhone then also set it up on my ipad. After finishing a few levels on the iPad i went back to my phone.
The phone let me finish a level, THEN came up and said 'cant progress as you're signed in on another device' and the app crashed.
what the fuck is the point of signing up for an account if it doesnt even sync across devices
After playing just one level, you can tell that Super Mario Run the real deal and not a cash-in (and it gets hard, especially if you want to get Black Coins). If you have an aversion to mobile gaming, give this a try.
You can play 3 levels without having to pay anything and it doesn't nag you until then, which means that Nintendo only gets your money if they can convince you if it's worth it. And they do.
I have yet to find a good solution for finding the gems and avoiding the cruft of the various stores.
PS: This website is ridiculous. It takes forever to load up, and the marketing video is just a stupid video of a bunch of people doing parkour in slow motion or some junk like that. They probably spent 6 figures on that dumb video that nobody really gives a crap about. Then there's another loading screen after the video, and once that's done there's a really crappy UI for a slideshow that's not even responsive. IMO, idiotic executives fingerprints are all over this shitshow with bad decisions left and right. Nintendo is a fantastic company who is capable of amazing things, but they don't really get the web or mobile technology. Sad!
- splash page that has to load the background video before you can do anything.
- you have to start watching the video on the splash page to skip it.
- horizontal navigation in the about page.
- clicking the obscure "here we go!" back link in the about page has to reload the video before you can do anything.
It looks really nice, but the interaction is incredibly slow and cumbersome.
Not going to lie, no matter how great the game is, I'm pretty disappointed.
A new kind of Mario game you can play with one hand. Mario constantly runs forward, while you time your taps to pull off stylish jumps and moves to gather coins and reach the goal!
case 'zh':location.href = _WARP_ + 'ch/index.html';break;
That said, it's not looking very good at the moment, and has fallen consistently from days before release, and still falling this morning.
This will fit right along my daughters' other 96 run games.
And also.. It brings back childhood memories to play Mario.
Have we reached 200 yet?
Maybe it's good, but deceptive enough I uninstalled it.
And lots of people buys it not because of nostalgia but because you must respect classics to claim you have good taste.
The world of mobile games is infinite bullshit.
Its wonderful that we see these interesting reports every week, but as a non-specialist you never how it will impact human longevity, and when.
What I'd like to read is a well considered "state-of-longevity-science" report - by someone not Aubrey DeGray (give the man a medal) but equally cognizant, perhaps more conservative - that actually explains and weighs the torrent of advancements as they happen and gives them some context.
What is the likely impact of crispr, of rosveratrol, of telomere-foo, of gene-therapy, of blood cleansing, of stem-cells on logevity in 10 / 20 years ? Where and why should we rationally allocate research money ? What is likely to benefit Alzheimers patients in the 5 year term ?
Its the kind of state of play you need updated on a monthly basis, due to the pace of progress.
Does such a report already exist ?
Fairness Only rich people will get it. (no tech has ever done this.) Better to give money to the poor than science. (family,city,state,nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.) Bad for society Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.) Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistant) Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.) Stop having kids Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136) Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age) Bad for individual You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related) You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?) You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.) Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.)
Man up, save your family, save yourself.
Disclaimer: I'm half way done with a book on this topic. Mail me if you're interested. Scivive on the most popular email service.
P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horribles comes true, even earlier.
"In living mice they activated the four genes (known as Yamanaka factors, for researcher Shinya Yamanaka, the Nobelist who discovered their combined potential in 2006). This approach rejuvenated damaged muscles and the pancreas in a middle-aged mouse, ... "
"... These (other) approaches can reverse some aspects of aging, such as muscle degenerationbut aging returns when the treatment stops, he adds. With an approach like the one Belmonte lays out in the new study, theoretically you could have one treatment and go back 10 or 20 years, he says. If aging starts to catch up to you again, you simply get another treatment."
Still a ways off for human use but definitely interesting research.
1) Doing anything to the aging of cells in culture has next to nothing to do with what goes on inside aging tissues, or where it does that is heavily dependent on the details. The article doesn't tell you enough to decide, so you should look at the paper.
2) Doing anything that attenuates the effects of an accelerated aging phenotype, actually usually a DNA repair disorder, almost always has nothing to do with aging as it happens in normal individuals. You can hit mice with hammers, and then evaluate the effects of a hammer-blocking cage, but that doesn't tell you anything about aging - and for exactly the same reasons. This is generally true except when it is isn't, and that depends on the fine details. Again, go look at the paper.
3) The interesting experiment is the one in which pluripotency-inducing factors are upregulated in a normal mouse, but temporarily. This is the thing that people have looked at in the past and said, well, turning on widespread transformation of somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells sounds like a really bad idea. Cancer seems the likely outcome, and that has in fact been demonstrated in a couple of studies in mice, but there is also the point that your central nervous system rather relies upon maintaining the fine structure it has established in many cases, such as data stored in the brain. Running in and randomly reprogramming any CNS cells that take up the vector or the pluripotency signals seems like a bad idea on the face of it.
So on the whole it is fascinating that a good outcome was produced in the normal mice, analogous to the sort of thing that has been produced via stem cell transplants and telomerase gene therapies. But I'd still want to see what happens to the mice over the long term after that, and would expect cancer.
Babies make everyone around them happy.
Old people are racist and suffocatingly repetitive. They never have any new ideas and spend all their time in the past. They're the brakes on progress.
Life is all about novelty. Let's have new people in this world.
A cybernetically augmented human might gain an intelligence completely alien (and hostile) to us non-augments. And an immortal-except-for-catestrophic-accidents could amass an unseemly amount of wealth and control over non-immortals over their long lives - moreso than the elites of today could dream of.
My concern about those that metahumans will hold such disproportionate power and they'll quickly get bored. Idle hands are the devil's playthings after all, and they could really make life difficult for the rest of us.
I want to see what a many-hundreds of years healthy life will be like and live many lives, but I do not want to have implants or devices that warp my mind/memory. I want to stay human, just minus the frailties. I'm hoping that these evolving new technologies sort neatly into two buckets: those that enhance but still retain the essential (limited) human experience, and those that seek to obliterate and replace the human experience (so that I know which ones to avoid.)
1. Fiber optics - this is growing, and companies which have a lot of it are continuing to lay it out (albeit slowly). Also see, Altice's recent announcement. My hope is that post-election Google Fiber will ramp back up, simply for the legal defense of saying that they too are a cable company and the same laws should apply. In any case, consumers want it. High-end consumers will pay a premium, and the cost for urban footprint fill-out is not exorbitant.
2. Cable coaxial wire - this is a big thick wire that continues to upgrade nicely. DOCSIS 3.0 is basically the same old 1980s/1990s cable with better comms protocols. It's getting to the point to where they can compete on a reasonable basis with single strand fiber, at a lower speed and price point. So cable companies build out the back-end with fiber, but don't have to replant single homes.
3. Crappy copper telephone wire - this stuff is thin, it's painful to maintain and upgrade and always lags copper. Companies with a lot of this (Windstream, Verizon, AT&T, Frontier) are trying to run it for cash flow rather than spend a lot on upgrades. The telcos push fiber to the node, but it's a slow grind and involves very careful cost benefit analysis.
3 different technologies. 3 very different strategies. The election has further complicated things. Should VZ save up it's ammo and make a play for Sprint, Charter, Dish, or T-Mobile or invest in more broadband plants? I'd save the ammo given that Tom Wheeler is out on January 20th..
Time passes and few months ago there was a spin-off using that infrastructure for telecom (Copel Telecom ).
Great speed and reliability with a average price.
So 1/3 less, for twice as fast internet, or ~5x faster internet for the same price.
So, I don't really see why anyone with a choice would choose AT&T in my neighborhood.
Bandwidth is a scarce resource, and they're often the only seller for a given market. The more demand, the more the market will bear for that resource. The more contentious and oversubscribed their infrastructure, the more likely they are to make seemingly-convincing arguments for rent-seeking (Internet "fast-lanes"), deregulation (because competition lowers prices), and consolidation (more efficiency drives down prices), all of which they can leverage to increase profit while holding prices steady -- or raising them -- due to further-increasing demand.
Building and maintaining increased capacity increases their expenses and lowers the value of their product.
Why in the world would they invest? It would be the stupidest possible thing for a telco to do.
edit: it's worth my noting that my basis for asserting ever-increasing demand is that of induced demand for network services
I really like the approach that places like Longmont, CO are taking [http://www.longmontcolorado.gov/departments/departments-e-m/...] or Greenlight in Rochester, NY. Love their pricing page:https://greenlightnetworks.com/pricing
I'm in Pittsburgh and have FIOS and that's set the price-performance bar at which I am not willing to drop below.