bbarn

For example: You and I HAD to be willing to go through that, and we were fascinated by it. There are still plenty of great FE and BE young devs who see something and instantly ask "How does this work" and keep going down. The difference is, most people in employment don't HAVE to do this like all people in our early career did. If those shortcuts to getting paid existed in our early careers, many of us would have taken the money and not cared. It's not an experience or a "You had to be there" thing, it's simple curiosity and motivation that sets people apart in this regard.

Interviewing sucks for everyone on either side, and efforts to improve candidate experience on my end have often been met with resistance in the company. One thing I've done is try to be as clear as possible at the end of interviews where someone stands. If it doesn't go well, I try to relate what didn't go well and how it applies to the position we're hiring for. If it goes well, my interviewers and I try to send out invites for the candidate to schedule the next interview within 10 minutes of completion, and I tell them that during the call.

So many companies are so risk-averse though, that they act like interviews are a poker game. I've generally had nothing but positives with my approach, and yes, someone may sue us at some point for being blunt and upfront, but my experience so far is people appreciate honest feedback if you deliver it kindly on the spot.

At one job, we had an expensive office built out as our company grew. The CEO and CTO came in from out of town to do the ribbon cutting so to speak and welcome us to our new office. I was there as a manager doing setup before we moved the main workforce into the new office, and the CTO came through the kitchen to talk to me, and smashed his face right into a glass wall. Broke his nose and had to fly home eventually.

The day before the team moved in, I convinced the CEO rather easily to put the company logo decalled on that wall.

My company applies that same standard nationwide with remote engineers, so kind of the opposite of what you're saying.

As someone who found computing in general through the joy of taking broken electronic things apart and trying to fix them, it does sadden me too when I see a black blob over a circuit board but most people are just happy they're cheap and easy to replace and toss em away. Most developers I know today can't understand basic electrical circuits, even though they are the very foundation of everything we do. But like my previous analogy, most would rather just see the magic happen when they install something, write a little bit of code, and see results.

Some of us do value privacy, security, and even the underlying things that make stuff work. We're in the minority. The vast majority of people simply don't even care. I've tried explaining it to my wife, or my mother, that some piece of software might track them, know about them, restrict them, whatever, and the opinion I usually get back is "Oh, it doesn't already do that?" People joke about Facebook ads being something they just talked about all the time and it doesn't even phase them that the reality is very near to that.

People simply don't care enough to make a change in the laws that would prevent things like this.

Also, many things aren't emergencies until they are. Having to walk home 20 miles in the desert when you can't push your bike isn't an emergency, until you've been out in exposure for 5 hours. The plan here is quite literally, everything is fine unless something happens, then my husband knows where I am and will come get me.

I know the newer near a thousand dollar models can get better battery life but my 2 year old version and her 5 year old version do not last much past 24 hours.

It's very easy for people who wear pants to live a life where their phone is never switched off of vibrate mode and lives in their pocket. They will never need a noisy phone, and this is how I life my life.

My wife has pockets on about 10% of her clothes, and so typically her phone is in a purse, or on the table next to her. She will not notice it vibrating, thus, she uses the convenient for her feature where it audibly rings. My mother is the same way, but she uses hers so infrequently it simply sits plugged into a charger and works like an old landline. She also uses the ring feature.

Your own issues with noise (which I share many of, by the way) do not entitle you or I to request "mandates" that affect others negatively. The world's a big place and you have to learn to share it with other people.

In the industry the "duck curve" drives a lot of decision making and messaging around the grid in California.

Energy use late at night is not as bad, because there's less of it used. It's the 3-9pm (Usually I hear 4-9, but same thing) hours when solar supply drops off and demand peaks at the same time that they are speaking about. People plugging in cars to L2 chargers when they get home, lights all go on, AC on, etc. It's usually just talked about in the context of grid availability, not so much with GHG emissions, but things are changing in that direction as regulations continue to change.

Shameless plug - If anyone is interesting in developing in this field, we're hiring at olivineinc.com for C# and node/react developers :)

In my experience, very few of the women racing actually want longer distances. When I was involved with putting on races, one or two loud voices would advocate for it, but come the day of the event, races that were equal length in the pro/cat 1 fields would have dismal attendance if they were the same length as the pro/cat 1 men's fields. Of those that did show up, the abandon rate was much higher than normal for those same local fields at other races. We even went as far as surveying all the teams and racers before one stage race, and overwhelmingly the women did not want the men's length (for road races) and times (for criteriums). Admittedly, at the pro-tour level this might be different, but to get to the pro tour level, racers must start in amateur and local pro levels.

We mandated equal pay outs at the state level, and some races dropped off the calendar because their budgets couldn't support it (or lowered men's payouts to compensate). Those that didn't saw no increase in attendance in women's fields after the increase either. That wasn't really a surprise, as most people are motivated more by the racing itself than some payout until you get to pro-tour levels. Men and women both effectively pay for the privilege to race in all but the most elite fields. More than being sexist, cycling is incredibly classist. The equipment is obscenely expensive, and the time it takes to train and get better is out of reach for most people with "normal" jobs. The funnel of junior racers coming in decreases every year, and the only fields we see growth in are masters categories (who can actually afford to race).

Rape is an act of physical violence, and you're arguing about a small price to use a free service.