speby

I have a better idea. Don't do take-home assignments as a candidate and don't give them as part of your interview process as an employer. Problem solved.

This does not sound right at all. A lot of "automated" checks by the IRS that result in a return being corrected (such as more money being owed, for example, because of an automated check that found a mistake, such as someone forgetting to report 1099 income), the IRS simply sends a letter indicating the correction, the reason for it, and any balance due. It's not "audit" when they do these automated checks.

However, don't also say nothing all the time, either. And you'll be perceived as detached, unengaged, and uninvolved.

Standups can be everyday and be useful. We do them via Slack and they take, maybe 3 minutes? 1 minute to perhaps type up your own standup to share and another 2 minutes to read the rest of the team's. They're quick hitters to get a simple baseline of the day and a snapshot from others on where they're at. Sometimes it can be redundant if you spoke to someone else the evening before about a thing they're trying to do, only to read about it in some form again the next morning. But that does not happen all that often.

Unfortunately, going to once a week or twice a week means teams will tend to drag them out for longer. They become more like discussion meetings or "status" meetings rather than super brief snapshots of the plan of attack for just one day.

This is interesting, at least. The 1-week 'test' so far is certainly a bit premature to declare success.

Let's also not forget about the need to sterilize the water further, thru boiling, or reverse osmosis, or whatever else, in order to eliminate bacteria, viruses, etc.

I mostly agree. I'm a "gamer" but not a very serious/avid one. Stadia has been great for casual play and a few of the family/kids games that I play along with my little ones. They have a blast. I also enjoy the cross-platform nature of it. Using a Chromecast is great on the huge projector and then sometimes more casual play on a computer (via the browser) since some games I prefer to play not on a huge screen and with a mouse/keyboard instead of their Stadia Controller.

I haven't bought many titles, personally, so if it is disappeared, I wouldn't be terribly upset. Annoyed, yes.

And it would probably cause me to go hunt around a bit more at Xbox Cloud gaming (Which I have also tried and looks promising with a nice but small library of titles) and I have yet to check out GeForce Now but have heard good things there, too.

A lot of comments in here misunderstand what it means when they think that teams at Big Tech aren't required to follow a specific process as meaning that those teams don't follow a process at all. The difference is that most senior, capable, and autonomous teams define and figure out their own process that works for them, not a pure absence of any process. Empowered and capable teams are simply better suited to figuring out and defining "just enough" process that works for them. It could just be an ultra-basic Kanban board managed through Linear.app or JIRA. Or it could be a more mature team that is still doing a more streamlined version of Scrum that probably is one or steps away from really looking more like Kanban. But autonomous teams does not mean that those teams "do whatever they want" with zero process at all. That's chaotic and doesn't yield very good results.

I would still suggest, anecdotally, that Google Maps is a bit more up to date and comprehensive over Apple Maps. However, that has narrowed a LOT over the last few years, to the point where I really don't worry about it much. I prefer Apple Maps' interface, smoothness, etc. over Google Maps. GMaps is still a good app and a great mapping/directions tool but being in the Apple ecosystem, Apple Maps works about as well (or close enough that it doesn't matter much, at least to me).

Oh, great, one more thing to soil the age discrimination problem we have throughout society. Even if this is all true or whatnot, it's still a pretty terrible thing for people the older they get.

I've known a couple of pretty good recruiters (and a lot of lousy ones) over the years. The biggest thing not usually discussed is that the recruiting industry resembles industries like real estate agents and sales. It's an extremely high-churn, revolving door, of mostly young people with no prior experience, themselves being recruited by agencies to do recruiting. And what happens is, generally, over time the good ones will stick around and will do actual recruiting for maybe 2-5 years or so and after that, generally, will lead (and/or manage) a team of recruiters of a book of business (aka a basket of clients or a region or an industry) and will stop doing individual recruiting pure-play by themselves. Some will also leave an agency and then go to do internal recruiting/HR for a specific company, too.

This isn't true, of course, for ALL recruiters, but definitely most. So as you can see, the only downside of finding a really good recruiter is that because they are good, they won't necessarily stay an individual recruiter forever. And the bad ones? Well, they churn and burn out relatively quickly.

Most states (maybe all?) have a common 3-day "regret" clause for many types of transactions, including car buying, mortgages, etc. So you can, in many cases, still 'take delivery' and then if you change your mind in 72 hours, you can return it. Again, I forget if all states have a similar set of laws for this or only a subset.

It still amazes me that some of the biggest (and many might argue innovative, progressive) companies like Apple but also Google and others, still struggle with basic tenets of 'work' and its future. Remote work is here to stay (and is not new, by the way); that part of the debate is settled. What remote looks like, however, is going to be an amalgamation of opinions made between CEOs and executive leadership and their HR departments across many companies and the response people have to it thru retention, etc.

Having led, grow, and work on remote and hybrid-remote teams for 12+ years now, I almost feel like I just repeat myself all the time when I say the right answer is about flexibility and choice at the team and individual levels, not at a corporate mandate level. And also, maybe it goes without saying, focus on results and outcomes rather than arguing how the sauce has to be made. People will be creative in many settings and supporting them and helping them navigate how they work best (whether that is in an office part-time, full-time, or fully remote) is going to be winning solution. Not biblical commandments like "Thou shalt be in the office 3 days a week."

> It's not that it has to be 'better' than the best $12 bbq joint you've ever been to, just different

The high-end places are not only about 'better' food per se. It's all about the ingredients, the preparation, the presentation, the uniqueness [of the dishes, menu, ingredients, etc] and perhaps as or more important than the food itself is the level of service. Combined, it's the full experience you're paying for, not just 'better' or 'different' food. Essentially, you are paying significantly more to sort of 'upgrade' everything about the entire dining experience. It is not only about the food (Though the food is indeed very important).

Remote work was already a very long-term trend before COVID. COVID pumped steroids everywhere on that trend, thus making Zoom and others see tremendous growth. I suspect the growth will "slow" relative to the first 6 months of, say, March-September 2020, but as remote continues its long-term trend, including the after-effects of COVID's steroidal injection, the growth rate will probably wane but will still be strong cumulative growth regardless.

Got rid of my Twitter account a couple years ago. Have not missed it once.

Yes, that's true, but even cars are not the same as the model T or other cars available in 1919. Besides cars being relatively "new" to society at the time, they also lacked, well, everything on this list and then some:

* No heater * No air conditioning/cooling * No radio/CD/Bluetooth/Carplay/Android Auto * No speakers, let alone not 6 or 8 speakers that some cars have * No heated and cooled seats * No power mirrors * No power seats * No power steering * No power brakes (!!) * No ABS brakes or traction control * No self-driving capabilities, blind spot detection, automatic lane change, "smart" cruise control or any cruise control at all * No rear defrost * Not even a dome light! * No power windows * No power locks * No all-wheel drive. In fact, it was mostly single-wheel drive! * No in-screen dash or touchscreen controls * No massage seats * No "slow close" doors * No door sill illumination * No turn signals (until later, that is)! * No seatbelts (or if there were, they crude early versions) * No meaningful safety mechanisms, like collapsible steering columns and automatic airbags, side impact airbags, and proper crumple/structure design * No in-car entertainment options for movies, etc. * No in-car navigation systems * No OBD diagnostics to let you know when you are running low on oil or other critical fluids

We could keep going ... but on the one hand, cars might cost "similar" or even more in today's standards, but they also DO so much more. Even if you said, well let's build the same vehicles they had then today, you couldn't. Government regulations force things like safety mechanisms that will cost more to deliver a final product.

I find a lot of those 'review sites' are really just lightweight b.s. marketing sites that are really designed to generate product referral fees by providing a convenient link to Amazon or wherever else rather than truly a real attempt at providing good review.

Selfishly, from a hiring perspective, it bums me out that the secret is now well-known. I've been working remote/hybrid-remote and recruiting remote/hybrid-remote teams for 12 years. I absolutely LOVED that all the dinosaurs were resistant to remote work because it was a recruiting magic wand. Then the pandemic came along and suddenly everyone was more or less forced to see that remote work works and now that recruiting advantage has lessened some.

Besides that, though, things are not binary. We're never going to go to a world where 100% of all people/all-roles that could be done remotely will ONLY be done remotely. There will always be a mixture, however small perhaps, of people that will do in-person companies and/or in-person jobs even if they don't need to.

One thing is clear though... remote is and has been a trend for quite some time. COVID merely thru jet fuel on that existing trend and sped it up probably by 15 years. And I would say that's a good thing.

I haven't had a cable subscription in years. I think almost 5 or 6 years now. It's been a combination of streaming, movie rentals (streaming), and BitTorrent downloads.

And yes, it definitely can be cheaper if you willing to actively manage what subscriptions you need and don't need one month at a time.

Yep, agree. And as an example, things shift (i.e. transfer attention from one "account" to another another "account") such as TV consumption: https://www.statista.com/statistics/186833/average-televisio...

tldr: It's down. But why? Did everyone wise up and decide watching as much television was not good for them so they started to do more productive things? No, of course not. Time was simply shifted to other entertainment mediums, like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Youtube, and so on.

In another 10 or 20 years, it wills surely shift several more times, too. And so it goes...

Gosh, building any tools that target developers as customers is a gargantuan task. Kudos to you for attempting something new here and giving it a whirl. We developers are some of the harshest critics around, no matter how legit or unfounded our criticism may be. Keep it up!

What you're seeing is really the same pattern as the late 90's dotcom boom-bust. Then, too, TONS of people (and their sisters and mothers) went into the "Information Superhighway" to become "WebMasters" and develop "Web Sites" for businesses large and small as more and more money plowed into those companies and a rush for talent, including not-very-much talent was drawn into the field because of the $. When the dotcom bust happened, and believe me, there will be another (even if different) correction again in the future, many of those same people will exit the field from layoffs or finding another job in tech again becoming hard. They'll migrate to another field that pays OK that they can find their thing.

And then, rinse-and-repeat, we'll probably see the same cycle again in the 2020s thru the 2030s.

Better AND Worse? Streaming video. The convenience of on-demand and a sort of a la carte experience that we've always been clamoring to have since the days of "regular" Cable TV are here. And while that's nice and convenient in manys (i.e. high-quality streaming feeds of many kinds of both live content, popular shows/movies, and past/old movies and shows).

The downside is now it's a huge pain in the ass to remember what streaming network has what, in some cases down to which show's seasons exist where. Example? Yellowstone TV series (w/ Kevin Costner). You can watch the first 3 seasons on Peacock. But Season 4? Only on Paramount Network. Oh and don't get confused with Paramount Network versus Paramount+.

It's an upgrade in some ways but offset but incredibly frustrating and annoying experiences trying to figure out where shit lives in order to watch it.

Reminds me a little of an oldie but a goodie: expertsexchange.com

No "machine learning" model can successfully peer into the inside of the home, and in the walls, or in the plumbing, to get an accurate sense of the worth of the home because no machine learning model would have that information. It isn't available until you actually go and look, with real human eyes, into the house.

No pricing model will ever get this right.

If Zillow had "figured it all out" on solving the magic pricing problem, they could have put the entire appraisal industry out of business. Well, guess what, they didn't and they didn't even come close.

Because of shear dollar amount. Let's say on trade, you can sell your car to a dealership for $8000. Privately, maybe you can get $10000 or 10,500. Now, of course, $2,500 is not nothing but for some people, that is a trade they're willing to make to simply get the car off of their hands rather than go thru with a full-scale private sale process.

On the other hand, for a house that you could sell "instantly" for, say, $450,000, but that you could potentially get by selling privately for $480,000 or $500,000, that is now leaving 10 times more dollars on the table. Proportionally, the difference between the car and the house might be similar but in absolute dollars, it's a huge difference.

No no no no. Let's go down the list, shall we. Remember, COVID or not, remote work trend accelerating or not, things have not changed as much as they seem:

* People STILL want to migrate to the US and it will remain one of the top choices. People move her for economic/job opportunities, sure, but that's not all.

* Outsourcing (or hiring remote teams in remote offices), as well as setting up remote and international offices has been going on for .... I can't even remember. 100 years? This was already happening and will keep happening.

* Timezones are a physical problem and cannot be fixed. Sorry. Remote work or not, people don't want to work at 1 AM so they can talk to another team half-way around the world at 7 AM. This was true yesterday and it will remain true today.

* Culture issues will remain. True yesterday. True today.

* Language issues will remain. True yesterday. True today.

* US will continue to remain a country people WANT to live in and stay in once they are here. Remote work will certainly allow some people to move abroad and continue working because that's something they really want. But the data definitely doesn't suggest some sea change here. True yesterday. Remains largely true today.

Lust may be the wrong word here. Infatuation is more like the term I tend to associate with people's initial attraction and substance of their relationship with someone else. The simple reason has more to do with the fact people simply CANNOT truly know each other, their values, and the result of their behaviors and choices, until enough time passes.

It is also worth mentioning that people's lives arc on their own, in that they change. Preferences change. Values might even shift for some people over time (e.g. a religious person becoming totally secular or even atheistic later in life). And those changes also do not typically emerge in a couple of months of dating and flirting with one another.

It's.... just human nature.

This is itself too much of a generalization. Great developers with a lot of experience across tech stacks, even if mostly back-end focused, will have very little problem getting up to speed on a complex (e.g. Angular) front-end. Learning curve? Sure, but these are the people that have proven time and again they have no problem and no fear picking up new tech stacks and applying their general problem solving skills across a huge variety of languages, frameworks, etc.

A more concerted challenge is not whether a senior developer can pick up front-end technologies, but rather whether a strongly backend focused engineers wants to do front-end. I find the latter scenario (which is more about desire and preferences) to be far more important than whether or not they have the ability, experience and aptitude to do so.