This seems like a really great way to ensure you never retain any decent employees ever. Who would stick around under an employer who would treat an employee like this, even if they had been totally honest about salary history?
2,025 karma · joined October 24, 2012
And this is why contractors love doing business with the Government of Canada. Bill, baby, bill.
So basically the problem isn't the inherent complexity of payroll systems, it is project management and process.
How many tens of thousands of university kids go through the hiring pipeline at Facebook each semester?
When you are doing things at that scale, you need well-defined processes. The process here was we need you to put exactly what this position requires on your resume, probably because the resume needed to be OKd by some keyword-checking system.
The candidate either was incapable of or refused to follow the process. Therefore, no hire.
Clear no hire.
I didn't attempt to tell you that, I did tell you that.
>Comparing it to Stalinism is silly, and surely disrespects
No, making a comparison of abstract forms of government is not in any way disrespectful to people who lived under a regime. It can only be construed as disrespectful if you are looking for an emotional tangent to distract people reading from the argument at hand (which, incidentally, indicates that you know your argument is bad!)
There's nothing wrong with communities promoting themselves. If people don't know about your thing, they can't try it to make their own decisions about whether or not it is worth using.
And it isn't yours or a community leader's or a maintainer's job to protect users from disillusionment and disappointment. If someone actually has a hard fall from realizing that a programming language isn't as great as people said it might be, there are way bigger issues there than the programming language at play -- on the side of the disillusioned, not the language/community.
Not to mention that Goldman isn't even paying top of market. So your statement about greed is completely misguided.
This isn't true in natural language. Do something enough times -- 'wrong' or 'right' -- and it becomes a part of the language. Like it or not.
Crack an Oxford English Dictionary sometime. Look up your favorite word. Notice that there will be tens of different definitions, including a historical trace of 'first uses' through semantic changes, for the single word.
>People make grammar/useage mistakes not because they consciously want to change the language but because they don’t know any differently
Consciously or not, they are changing the language. Language isn't a fixed thing with unbreakable rules. It is mutable. A language is however people use it; it isn't a thing to know in its entirety before using.
Well, no, you default to a neutral state of receiving information, sans judgment.
Also it is not true that if you do not show skepticism, you default to some specific state. You could hold any number of opinions without showing skepticism -- what you are showing the other party is irrelevant. "Showing" or expressing belief is not the same thing as believing.
>As in, you believe your colleague at face-value
If you are pretending that you believe your colleague while silently reserving judgment or judging disbelief, you do not believe them in any meaningful sense of the word. You are disguising your judgment of what they are saying so as to not cause further conflict -- i.e., acting. That is very different from believing what they say or even 'believing at face value'.
Why would I recognize something that isn't an established fact, but your personal belief? That isn't reasoned debate, it's you wanting us to pander to your narcissism.
14:30 - moderator assumes another panelist's position 'surely you're going to take issue...'
22:30 - moderator explains another panelist's research for him, for nearly 2 full minutes. Attempts to talk over panelist when panelist starts to speak, but notably the panelist consciously speaks louder and repetitively to cut off the moderator.
26:20 - moderator rambles while ignoring a panelist who raises hand wanting to speak (and then hands the conversation to the female panelist)
31:00 - moderator spends a full minute 'explaining' a panelist's philosophy completely incorrectly, before panelist says the summary is incorrect and corrects.
38:00 - moderator rambles about definitions of inflation, asks a cosmologist to explain, cosmologist explains, moderator isn't satisfied and explains more about different definitions of inflation, asks cosmologist to explain better than he did before.
The moderator is simply a dominant personality who wants to play a central role in the conversation rather than moderate it.
Do you have something to add to the discussion, or a question you wanted to ask of me that has some value? I'm not sure what you think your comment accomplishes here.
This kind of behavior is extremely common in STEM, and happens to everyone. If you don't talk with confidence, purpose, and animation, you're going to get talked over by the alpha nerd of the group. Man, woman, or purple elephant. Problem? Yes. Sexism? No.
When a client voluntarily makes a request to a server, it presents a bunch of information for the server to see and consume. This information is not meant to be kept secret from the server. Among such pieces of information can be some about the characteristics of the user agent, including OS. It is disingenuous at best to call collecting such voluntarily-presented and clearly-transmitted data as "spying" on a user.
A basic requirement for spying is for a collecting party to be obtaining information that can be reasonably considered confidential or restricted. Details about the system from which you send a request are by definition of the protocol not confidential or restricted to the recipient of your request. It is not reasonable to expect a server to not look at or use information you present to it. Therefore, it isn't "spying" for the recipient to consume the information. The information might be used in ways some people(e.g., OP) don't like, but that does not make obtaining the information "spying".
In the case of this 'one friend', she was not handcuffed to a job because of equity considerations. Therefore, no problem for her to quit.
Kind of works against your original point, not for it.
That isn't what 'forced' means. Any of the people you are talking about could quit. They control their own lives and are responsible for them. Some theoretical equity in a company does not somehow hijack personal agency.
Then there are situations where the code you write must play nicely within a massive, already-complex system, wherein it will work with potentially huge inputs. Like at Google.
So, saying in a Google interview that you don't think Big Oh is super important, and that you prefer shipping whatever correct solution you come up with first and then worrying about efficiency if it ends up being slow, would likely not get you very far.
Yes, you can buy a house there more cheaply than in Toronto. But is owning a pile of bricks worth living in a wasteland? Personal preference, as they say.
Conveniently, you chopped the word "more" off of "more equal society". Kind of unfair to argue against a point the person didn't make.
Have you tried HTTParty? https://github.com/jnunemaker/httparty
NYC exists under the same capitalist system as SF or LA or wherever.
Nothing you have described (need to drive, no clean water, etc.) applies to NYC.
Therefore, your gripes aren't caused by the capitalist system you are blaming.