snoman

The next time it happens, have a conversation with him about time-boxing. That is, say something like this:

Him: <some question> You: "Hey, that's an interesting question. Time-box an investigation into that to 20 minutes, and then we'll dig in after that if you're still not sure about the solution."

If he asks what time-boxing is, then you can have the discussion about actively investigating a solution for a specific amount of time. If, at the end of that time, you don't have a solid lead on a solution, then you reach out to your peers. That means, you have input to answer questions if your peers have any, and you know some simple solutions that don't work, and why.

That's what I've done with jr engineers for a number of years now and it works great. You have to do it a couple of times before they turn it into a habit, and internalize it, but eventually they bother you less and become better engineers in the process.

I don't know. Sounds like the ratings might just be working.

Far more likely is that it was written on Sunday, didn't get a response by Monday morning, was put into the publishing pipeline/queue right then and there, and cleared the queue and hit the site today.

Those materials generally last longer and are easier to clean/maintain. As margins are driven down by competition, so will the amount expended on the decor.

Industrial design looks intentional (ie. Not necessarily good, but it looks like it's supposed to be that way) and is inexpensive.

You're probably right, but are you getting the tax deduction for donating, or is your employer?

400 * 15 * 12 = 72,000 / yr that your employer may be deducting from wages on the backs of their employees... voluntary or not.

Then they get to advertise their generosity and optional dress code.

I hate thinking pessimistically like this, but you get conned enough times... and it's not like they actually need a dress code, if they're comfortable with taking money for people not abiding by it.

But the optimization function is wrong here. It's not about how much uninterrupted work I get done. It's whether or not the product ships, and that's a function of how much work the team gets done. So if a teammate is stuck, interrupting me with a question can get them unstuck faster than if they struggled with it for 20-30 mins or more.

I think that valuing your uninterrupted time over the team and the product shipping is the truly selfish mindset.

edit> markdown

I got into programming as a boy in the 80s because I wanted to edit snake, went to college for programming and every project I begged teachers to let me warp the requirements into something video game related.

But by the time graduation was coming, even 20+ years ago, it was obvious that the video game industry was a terrible place to work. Low pay, bad hours, no security, bad publisher arrangements.

So, for a long time I never understood why so many engineers go through that. In my arrogance I would think "... surely _engineers_ immediately see the abuse and turn away." I guess that calling is just stronger for some than it was for me.

Is VFX any different? You'd be amazed that a majority of it is government/state funded. Good podcast on it here: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/no-hollywood-ending-visual-e...

It's a good thing your taste in art & entertainment isn't the bar by which the medium is measured then.

> A good engineer retained can often deliver 2X to 10X the value of a new hire. The company treats them them [sic] accordingly.

The turnover rate is generally less than 2 years.

People deride unions, but collective bargaining has also been a very effective solution in the past.

> In my opinion the real solution here is to be more understanding to stupid things people have done in the past.

If you think the real solution is to change the way the world thinks about, and judges, everyone else then you're being remarkably naive.

Of everything on the page, this was particularly clever.

It's not far from it. Software development is in small company with respect to the need for constant re-education and skill maintenance. The vast majority of developers with skills from just 10 years ago are wholly unemployable right now.

That's a pretty strong, derisive, opinion to have for tens of millions of people you've never met.

I think nebulous1 is is pointing out that it's one thing to say "We're just following the letter of the law to the best of our ability, because we want to be 100% above board." It's another thing to say "We're fighting in the interest of openness."

That is to say: don't pretend to be some white knight for principles when you're actually just trying to CYA. Be honest.

If I could be given a bit of latitude to generalize for a second, I've noticed that America has a very "self-focused" culture wherein the individual is often seen as being solely responsible for everything relating to their self.

That makes a lot of sense but I've seen this often taken to extremes such that the perspective is used to absolve various levels of government, corporations, and organizations from responsibility over making decisions about common goods or on the behalf of others (things like healthcare, safety/protection, insurance, privacy, etc.).

So this position from Facebook seems (to me) to be a very American approach to take. ie. "We give you a plethora of options to secure your information, thus it's on you what information we get. After that, once we have it, then its ours and not yours anymore."

> No, hang on, I get what the OP says and it's a reasonalbe assumption.

It's definitely an assumption, which is a problem to begin with, and it's not a reasonable one. Interviewers often go through training to avoid pre-judging candidates, and candidates would be wise to do the same.

An interview candidate gets to talk to a couple of recruiters and have at most 2 conversations with 3-6 engineers at most. I would be pretty suspicious if any of those conversations were about the interviewer in any significant way to begin with, let alone about what they drive, where they're going on vacation, or what they make.

So I get what you're saying, and there's certainly people like that anywhere that pays their people exceptionally well, but making assumptions about the character of your future-coworkers before you've actually gotten to know them is a recipe for a bad time.

Wow. Lots to digest here, and I think I detect some strong frustration. My sympathies on that.

I have worked at the big 4 (MS) but I'm a consultant now. I do a fair bit of interviewing and what I propose is that you don't actually have a clue what the finances of your interviewers are like, and you don't actually have a clue what the finances of your competitors are like. You would be far better served putting it out of your mind and focus on just trying to be a good engineer (presuming that's what you are trying to be) and enjoying it.

The reason being is that, not only are you almost certainly wrong, but it doesn't matter. Interviewers don't care about how much money the candidates have because...

1. they get a perk if you get hired and retained regardless, so they're incentivized to place anyone that can do the job

2. the competition often doesn't exist: the big 4 will often just hire anyone and everyone who fit their criteria (high turnover and need leads to a few hundred engineers starting each week)

3. the job has a pay band, and if you're currently making low or nil, then you're far more likely to HAPPILY fit into the lower segment of the band

BTW: The other interviewers and I can tell when the candidate is crusty and/or resentful during the interview, and it reflects negatively on their performance.

The trend certainly will continue, if only because that's how it's always worked - even before twitter, or even the internet. TV, radio, newspapers, publishers, etc. have always had this power - you had to market yourself to enough people for someone with influence in one of the aforementioned medias to consider you worthy and propel you to visibility and success.

One might even say that the current state of affairs, or trend, is preferable because it's not some small group of people acting as gatekeepers, but instead it's "the hivemind" as you've put it.

> E.g. I spend less overall than I did a few years ago but each item I buy is more expensive... An app that capitalizes on people coming to this realization (and knows how to market and execute it well) could make a killing.

I think that nearly every person trends the same as they age and approach their adult size, even without coming to that realization, so I'd say that you're even more true than your post implies.

I'm just guessing that it's because it's not a stock or a bond. I don't ever hear what the market cap is for the yen, or any other currency.

Ostensibly, that already exists: https://www.statuspage.io/

Most of the time these status pages sit on, and store data in, the same infrastructure as the things it's supposed to be reporting on.

It references the primary concept, and it also looks like much of the information from MMM is already distilled into this - which is not hard to do; MMM is a bit verbose if I recall correctly.

> ... at the end of the day a job is about money.

This is short-sighted. A job is what you make of it - you can get lots of different things out of it. Otherwise pro-bono work, internships, etc. couldn't exist. If all you're in it for is the paycheque in 2 weeks time, then that's all you're likely to get out of it.

When you look at a career as a whole - from both sides of the relationship - then it is beneficial for both you, and your employer, for you to increase the value that you provide to your employer. That can mean learning more so that you can be more efficient, do more (volume), do more (variety), do higher valued things (ie. via promotion).

Also, you're not wrong that you can learn in a big 'boring' corp but the conditions have to be right for it to happen, and those conditions are often more prevalent in companies that have knowledge or skills gaps - which is more often the case in smaller organizations (doesn't have to be a startup, could be a historically-under-funded/under-recruited IT group in a well-established corp).

If you're doing trades through coinbase or similar, you'll get hit with large fees. Going to the exchanges is much cheaper.

Wow! That was an incredible talk/demonstration. Thanks for that!

Bitcoin is no less safe than any other asset re: civil forfeiture. One might even make the argument that it is moreso because there aren't the established communication mechanisms that exist between law enforcement agencies and banks that allow them to hold funds as quickly as they do.

Per your other argument: a whole host of executive orders spanning 2 years, nearly 100 years ago, designed to work around the federal reserve ratio, doesn't hold much water.

You tried to do the right thing. For what it's worth, that's very commendable. It's reasonable that you'd be upset because you're going to be burdened by the efforts required to further legitimize those earnings in the eyes of the IRS/law.

That said, you still did business in an unsanctioned proxy-currency. There's bound to be a cost to that.

Honestly, you should be upset with the broker (coinbase) for not providing you with suitable reporting documentation in the first place.