cloudsec9

I would agree that every 6 months - year you should interview for job(s) you are interested in. Once it gets to an offer, maybe it's a big increase in pay or title or whatnot, and it might make sense to move. Or, maybe it's not as enticing, and you can negotiate a bit.

Hiring and interviewing is a two way street, and in the end there are many candidates and usually just one position. Just because the one you are interviewing for isn't a fit doesn't mean you don't love the place if they have a different opening. Just let them know!

PLEASE PLEASE consult with a lawyer to make sure you are getting what is fairly owed to you, and don't sign until you do.

In many places you have to be given time to do such a consult; if not then the document isn't binding.

If you've consulted and things are okay, then don't delay, I fully agree.

When copyright was drafted, the idea was to protect a publisher (and his pipeline) from someone just selling cheaper copies. This was changed when our friends at the RIAA would win cases against music infringers but then were able to collect $0.00 because the infringers weren't charging or making a profit. This needed to change to discourage infringing (rather than, adopting a more reasonable pricing structure).

Looking at it through that lens, VidAngel was a commercial entity looking to profit on the (performance?) of the streamed videos, where the Internet Archive (to my knowledge) doesn't charge patrons for materials, akin to a library.

IANAL, but it seems feasible to me that the judge could agree that IA is in complete infringing territory, but COULD assess a fine of $0.00 as that was the "damage" caused. I think the preferred outcome is that he finds for their theory of fair use, as that allows all libraries to continue as they are today without fear another venue could assess a non-zero fine.

Many "leaders" have stated that their business is growing, they have good cash reserves, but they felt they had to cut now. This isn't a downturn or a crisis, and it's not demand changing.

If we were in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of a recession, and everyone was bleeding, I think your statement makes sense. But if they have to lay off 10%+ of their workforce because they can't raise another multi-million dollar round, what does that say about their long-term business plan?

They are stating a fact WITH a citation, but it annoys you?

I never understand this false outrage, honestly. Females and minorities have minuscule numbers in tech, and having a modest attempt at growing numbers has a big backlash. And in THIS case, the fact cited is that disadvantaged people are MORE likely to lose their jobs.

I think I had one course on "parallel"(concurrent) programming. I had exactly zero courses on SQL or relational algebra, although we did write a basic database. I had one course that MIGHT have touched on a bit of network programming.

So, academically, I would have had little or none of what you are considering is "foundational" CS knowledge.

I actually did learn SQL during a job I did during school, and I was fascinated with race conditions and mutexes so knew a fair bit about the theory of concurrency. And I loved learning about all kinds of protocols, like SMTP and Telnet and FTP, so I knew quite a bit about networking.

I think the disconnect here isn't that "students don't learn the fundamentals", it's that you think the fundamentals are what they need to "do work" on day 1. Back in the day, University was supposed to train you to THINK in your field, and so things like data structures and algorithms, yes.

And, I have to say, it has done well for me. I started as a C/C++ programmer, then moved to Java, worked in PHP and have now been writing a lot of Python. I've helped with C#, Visual Basic and a number of other languages.

And if tomorrow I need to use Go, or Rust, or $whateverLanguageOfTheWeek it is, I'll be able to. I understand what can make a program run fast or like a dog.

If someone can do all of the work through 3/4 years of university, they should be able to learn and do a large variety of tasks.

Nowadays, it might be that a CS program requires some or even all of the courses you mention in their study. But do you expect someone who took this for 1 of perhaps 20 courses to be an expert at them?

Right now, they have to be technical (or at least pay $$ to tech people) to get that going, and it does slim down the numbers a little.

Getting the software lined up is the easy part, truth be told. It's the anti-spam/malware/anti-relay etc etc that is the challenge. And most big Email companies weigh how long you've been around, so you also have to be patient for your reputation to get high enough not to be in people's junk boxes all the time.

I would argue that the overhead of setting things up is more pricey then paying for smarthost forwarding, but maybe I'm too practical,

Is it an utter PITA to have to chase a dragon's tail of stupid things that you don't control to have RELIABLE e-mail? Yes.

While running your own server is great for a hobby or as a learning exercise, 99%+ of people just want e-mail to WORK. And many of the big providers have an endless amount of hoops to jump through, and have little to no transparency or feedback when things aren't working.

Papers and news magazines exist by selling copies to people, and people want compelling stories. It's a reporters job to write something readable, while covering the facts.

A few commenters seem to have disdain for "mainstream" media. But, who are they? Is that a stand in for popular, or top 5? top 10? Fox news is one of the most popular in prime time, and their anchors tend to be politically biased in one direction. But if a more "neutral" network report favorably in the other direction, we hear cries of unfair coverage.

> News media shouldn’t have a “side.” This is rubbish, straight up. First, news should have a bias for the truth, and not reporting what it thinks the audience would like to hear (ala Fox news). Second, it should be Objective in the coverage. People all have internal biases, but good reporters can check that to go after the story.

Web 2.0 was supposed to give us better info; I think in a lot of ways it gave us easier access to propaganda, without always having the tools to know that.

I'm not saying you should blindly trust any "media", but how do you hold the media to account? Do you vote with your wallet for quality outlets, or do you scream into the comment section of blogs?

What I'd say is since everyone is shedding employees that the next 6 months - year or longer, however long the recession is bad lasts, will be bad for all tech people. But as the economy improves and the recession recedes, good companies are going to want to know where to spend money to capture that growing market.

Scripts I think are meant to be run by tech people so might lack documentation, error checking, etc.

Often you'd write a script to set up the environment for a program; paths, environment variables, rotate previous logs and write PID files. Small scripts can evolve, and if they are part of an important program, can be more complex.

Programmers tend to write programs, while system admins used to write the bulk of scripts.

I'm not sure these divisions are as clear anymore, but that feels like how things originally evolved.

Do companies provide such benefits directly in the US, or at least in certain areas? In cities I'm familiar with, childcare services are a personal choice, even if there is a daycare in your office building.

I do have some ideas and approaches, if you might want to connect I'd be happy to chat.

Unless they are doing this on a streetcorner, they'll need SOME admin support. And, you know, to be paid. Small stuff like that.

I'm not trying to argue that higher-ed might not be bloated -- I'm saying the author isn't connecting the dots. They are doing "things" _he_ doesn't like, so they should stop doing THAT! Except, it should be the consumers (ie students) who should have a say.

But why herd cats and build consensus when you can proclaim and get on a board where you can dictate what services people should not get.

And now you've realized you might have another line of business, and you'd like to monetize that, right? From other comments, I think this piece is where things are fuzzy for me and others. If you could give an example of what you envision here, there might be some advice we could give.

Does he break out comparisons to an earlier era with data? No, it's just a handwave of "back in my day" and some Rand Paul-esque "I don't know what these people do, but they are obviously not needed".

Here's a radical idea: How about asking the students, you know, the ones PAYING the tuition, what they think? No no, too logical, better to campaign on "firing 9 / 10 and reducing tuition".

There isn't even a bit of the article where he talks about how much the average student spends on all of this "waste" as he claims it.

I mean, there might be massive waste and he might be right. But as written, this article has zero evidence, and I would say as the author is a lawyer you think that evidence would be an important facet of your argument.

"appears current subscribers have around 4 weeks" MS: "as of Nov 2023"

I'm thinking someone mathed wrong, but by my calculation this is over a year from now, not around a month.

My cost comment comes from seeing cars "surplus" for a few thousand dollars, but I'm guessing they might need significant upgrades to be eligible to hook up to Amtrak, not to mention being comfortable for the owner.

1st Amendment: Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW [...]

Curious, isn't it?

I'm not sure why you think that Congress, which is likely near the MOST PARTISAN it's ever been, will responsibly and reasonably use this "force" to ensure viewpoint neutrality, instead of say, amplifying the voices that support their position.

Also, part of the 1st Amendment is allowing people to associate (or not) with each other. As long as you aren't discriminating for an illegal purpose, you can make whatever rules you want. If you don't like the "big tech" rules, don't participate. But if you break their rules, they can kick you out.

The first amendment means that the GOVERNMENT can't silence jerks, but is ALSO means that people who don't want to hear jerks don't have to listen.

These companies were regulated because of market dominance. It isn't efficient to have 2 electric or 2 telegraph or 2 phone companies when they were established -- so government set a reasonable profit margin and then drew up rules by which the companies had to abide to stay in their position. (I'm guessing bus/plane was more about not crowding others out, as they don't have the sunk costs or moat that the other companies acquire by their nature.)

Except no, you don't. Criminal cases involve losing your liberty or worse, so defendants have rights, including examining witnesses and evidence, and a high standard of proof. In civil cases, the penalty is usually monetary. There is discovery and depositions, but there are more limits on who might have to be deposed or testify. Also, importantly: Who are the accusers here? Hint: In the court case, it's the Plaintiff. My opinion here is the plaintiff is trying to frame it otherwise, but as I said earlier, as long as the conference didn't ban someone for illegal reasons, they can.

> pretty clear that the alleged issues aren't just not attending a conference.

IANAL, but I've read some lawyer reviews of the case, and it doesn't seem to be strong and might not go very far. Did he get all of his customers from just this conference? (If so, that seems to be a poor biz decision) But I don't think it helps the case that the Plaintiff has been trying to draw attention to the case, including accepting a "surprise" speaking engagement on cancel culture. If you are suing for lost business, I'm pretty sure you have to actively try to mitigate, and leaning in is the opposite of that.

Sorry, you don't have the "right" to attend a conference -- and as long as it's not based on things that are prohibited (sex, race etc) -- a conference can exclude you for any reason, or no reason at all.

Honestly, I only heard about this a while back because Hadnagy made a fuss about it. DefCon, on the other hand, hasn't said too much.

If the root of this was a criminal action, then you'd be right about facing accusers and cross examination. But this isn't that. You don't have constitutional rights to attend a conference.

Poor funding seems to be strangely well correlated with poor educational outcomes in public education. And well funded systems seem to produce good results.

Do people on the low end of the tax scale not deserve to be educated?

I'll agree we need a system of credit histories, but what we've got now is terrible. The current vendors have no serious liability for breaches, and are pretty lax in how they do things. I'm opposed to the way they do it now.

Things could be much improved, and transparency brought into the process. Make vendors accountable for privacy and accuracy.

I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but this is something congress can fix, but they just don't have the will to.

I have to ask, what happens once they finish school? Do they not join the legion of taxpayers? Is it only CURRENT taxpayers that have a say in this, and not say all voters?

I do think there is a lot of upside in letting people pick what and where to study. It's a collective investment in our future generation.

I think people hear "private" and they think "better". Which in some cases, sure. But when you hear "private" you should think "FOR PROFIT". And we all know the way to maximize profit is by maximizing spending and minimizing revenue, right?

I am blessed that public schools in my area are EXTREMELY good. To compete, private schools have to have smaller class sizes and charge a LOT more then a comparative public education costs. If you drop all students in the public system into a private system, to have things COST the same to parents, you'd have to ramp up class sizes or cut what you are providing. Plus, you have to run a profit, so more incentives to skimp.

I think in a lot of areas, due to chronic underfunding, the public school system is bad. But the way to fix this is adequate funding, not the notion that private schools are magic and that the same funding level will lead to similar outcomes.