virtuous_signal

That chart counts nginx and openresty as separate categories. If you combine them (which I think makes more sense, since a lot of openresty's adoption must come from ingress-nginx), nginx/openresty would be at 34%.

"Mirror" is what this question is generally understood to be asking. I don't think swapping the direction of the edges produces a tree in general although it would produce a DAG. I think "invert" could mean "mirror" or turn upside-down depending on the context.

I agree absolutely. One of these people can stop whenever the experience stops being fun and the other has few other options. It's about as inspiring as poverty tourism or an episode of Undercover Boss.

> To get accepted and graduate from a reputable university you have to get good results in standardized tests and work your self through multiple courses for at least 3 years. That by itself doesn't mean anything but there's a level of rigor and self-drive required to succesfully traverse this experience.

It's worth noting that Lamda school actually does use an industry-standard "IQ test" [0], although it seems the cutoff is quite low (23 out of 50 whereas the median score according to Criteria Corp is 24).

[0] https://lambdaschool.com/the-commons/how-to-ace-the-criteria...

Academia may seem quaint but often accurately signals what is to come in the rest of the professional managerial class. Last year during an interview (software engineering) I was asked what I would do to support Diversity Equity and Inclusion. It was towards the end with other behavioral questions. I think I recited the Correct things but to be safe I should probably start studying Ibram X Kendi along with Cracking the Coding Interview.

Thanks for sharing that list, it definitely challenged some of my preconceptions. As someone who watched The Closer and didn't think it went too far, I think most would agree that there should be some fixed line to judge what goes too far and shouldn't be on their platform. It's sad that this line doesn't seem to be determined by any principles -- or at least any explicit principles. These 2 examples make me think the "principles" being followed are 1) Money, and 2) PR/current events (George Floyd protests in the case of removing episodes with blackface).

Well, the disincentive of wasting one's time (in practice that means generating an application link, or filling out a short form online) is much, much smaller than the potential reward.

I think the knowing-people effect is a better criticism about referrals generally. Given that most companies already accept referrals, at least with this setup, employees would think twice about referring someone who would be let go before 2 months.

> If you stay on the job for more than two months, your sponsors get double what they invested (minus our fees).

I feel like the linked Twitter criticisms just gloss over the fact. This is definitely a strange idea but it's a shame people dismissed it out of hand based on crude characterizations.

I think referrals, at least at large companies, have messed up incentives. If you and your direct team don't have to suffer the consequences of a bad hire, then of course you should refer random Blind/Reddit/LinkedIn strangers for a chance at getting several thousand dollars. The "large company" issue may be harder to fix, but if you have the potential to lose money, then you will be more discriminating.

I think of myself as someone who "follows the science" and the fact you present is what keeps me skeptical of expert advice. Another example was when the question of which vaccine to get was being asked. Any doctor who knew they were being interviewed, said to get the first one that's available to you. I can see this making sense from a population standpoint, but if I'm personally not trying to get COVID, then of course I'm willing to wait some amount of time to get Moderna/Pfizer rather than J&J. It's just like being told "don't panic", and I honestly don't know if there's any resolution that doesn't involve light deception.

> But rarely do I find something to keep the person on, their mind already made up. I respect that. When I close the video meeting, I settle. My mind is racing. “Can I try something to bring the person back?”

It's interesting reading this, as I have always been too -- shy? underconfident? I don't know -- to ever mention my job search to my manager, until I got an offer and accepted it. I worry about it being obvious that the time off I request is for interviewing and perhaps them placing obstacles in my way. I wonder if it's ever a good idea to mention a job search when one doesn't have any offers in hand yet.

>> You shouldn’t be allowed to pay your employees so little that they are eligible for government benefits.

Although a common talking point, it is not inherently a bad thing that low-wage workers can qualify for welfare [1] and it's probably less distortionary to the free market than mandating a higher wage. As an analogy, pretend that the government has decided it would be a good idea that everyone be able to eat apples. It is absolutely better to target an appropriate amount of money at the poorer population so that everyone can afford them, than to dictate that the apple seller must lower their apple prices. The latter would result in less people overall having apples (due to the seller restricting their supply or just shutting down).

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/does-the-government-subsi...

That could be true (although the case of 'academics' would seem to disprove it), but still wouldn't change the conclusion that at any given point in time, the majority of employees in X industry are liberal.

>...Basecamp already represents a diversity of experiences and we want the company’s software and policies to do the same ...

I think this is precisely the issue that guarantees we will forever have these discussions, whether or not a company bans political conversations. The software industry is simply much more left than the general population [1]. But rank and file employees ignore this, and assumes everyone else should hold the standard opinions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. So they pressure their company leaders, but the company leaders are obviously running a business, rinse and repeat.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi...

I had never even considered the possibility of something like this. I wonder what effective interventions we might be missing simply due to lack of creativity.

I imagine a version of these wide enough for a person’s waist and with a locking mechanism could be used for knife/fistfights and be much more humane than shooting. Perhaps they could be stored in squad cars the way shotguns are.

(non-paywall version) https://web.archive.org/web/20210408162031/https://www.latim...

> I applaud your focus on your family; I’d keep that out of the interview process. If I’m hiring an entry-level remote employee, I don’t want to worry that they’re taking care of a family member most of the time and trying to fit my work into the gaps. If that’s what is happening invisibly behind the scenes, great, but it’s irrelevant or negative to the interview.

This is really important. Don't think about employers "taking a chance" on you or having their hearts warmed by your story. (I mean, it might actually work when the OP is hitting the top of HN but in general...) They want non-risky choices.

As a self taught graduate in an unrelated major, in a rural area, I was fortunate to get an entry level job and then a fully remote job this past year. If you can do any contract work or part time work in the field to start with, that would help. Welfare helps. Then I would try to make sure not to target FAANG types of jobs or any markets where every job posting gets 300 bootcamp applicants. Some concrete advice below:

I learned javascript + basic web development stuff like everyone else, because that's where the most beginner resources are. But the job offers I actually got were due to my learning Java (with some Java enterprise edition mixed in) and having some book knowledge about it. There are vast swaths of industries that will help you enter the middle class, and then some, by working on their old Java or C# applications. A ton of career advice out there is targeted towards the 1% who are shooting for Silicon Valley. We don't need that.

Also try to get proficient at Leetcode and come off as intelligent. A lot of your competition is computer science majors.

Lastly, and this might involve some conscious or unconscious deception: Make it sound like you intend to move to wherever the job location is, post-COVID. This works better if you are already in that state. Once you land the first job, maybe they'll offer the remote option eventually; otherwise keep applying to a couple jobs per day; this job search will be slightly easier and you will actually have the leverage to ask for a remote option when it comes up.

>With Hart Taxis you get:

- Smart drivers who have been working a maximum of 12 hours in a single shift and a maximum of 6 shifts per week.

- Smart, washed and valeted cars

- Road legal vehicles with full service history.

- Vehicle tracking services so you can see where your driver is from when they accept your job to when they arrive.

- Text information detailing the make, colour and registration of the vehicle that will be picking you up.

- Meet and greet service at the airport where we monitor your incoming flight and only send the driver at the appropriate time.

- Bottled water on arrival at our airport jobs.

- Automated booking via our Oliviar booking system with the industry’s leading booking and despatch software

- Full E-receipt provided on completion of job, if required.

If I understand things correctly, then the only difference between this and Uber/Lyft is primarily item 1 (although I'm not sure why it matters that the driver is "smart"). Items 2 and the bottled water could probably be gotten through Uber Black which also costs more.

So it seems one pays a premium to help certain drivers earn a living wage, and support an ethical company; more cynically, to not feel like one is participating in Uber-style exploitation. I imagine that some in the effective altruism community[1] would consider this and other sorts of ethical consumption to be "ineffective", and would recommend people just donate the price difference to needier people, or to an organization better equipped to create structural change. But I'm not an effective altruist so I may be misrepresenting that perspective.

[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/Change-A...

> Football, Baltimore, black. That example growing-up environment does not exactly favor a kid to be encouraged to pursue intellectual strengths unless you have an incredible teacher or parents for example.

Wikipedia says "Urschel was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. His parents, John Urschel and Venita Parker, were a surgeon and attorney, respectively. He grew up in Buffalo, New York, where he attended Canisius High School." With no other information, that "growing-up" environment (notably including a private school) sounds great for an academically precocious kid.

It's amazing to think how much welfare a single person's free work can add to the world. Basically FOSS but for learning math. I used this site ~12 years ago when taking calculus courses, and more recently I put it as a recommended resource on my syllabi when teaching those same courses. Apparently many others benefitted as well. A gift for exposition + selflessness + a permanent domain name (I'm guessing, due to his job at a university) = profit for everyone.

I had the same question (and tried it with my webcam app and a handheld mirror just to make sure I wasn't crazy) but I see another commenter has mentioned Zoom's feature.

The tech community has shown up in a huge way for BLM in the United States - but it's pretty clear that even mentioning 1 million+ Uighurs being detained, or Hong Kongers losing their democracy is rare enough to be newsworthy.

>And that's a shame because the live coding exercise is both a better predictor of hands-on job success and it's a better recruiting tactic

I'm very interested in this claim. Every interviewing-is-broken thread, someone mentions that pairing, or take-home exercises, or work samples, or their favorite method, are better predictors than algorithm problems. On the one hand I doubt any but the biggest companies could conduct studies on this; on the other hand individuals at smaller companies might honestly remember only those times their hires filtered through this method were successful, due to confirmation bias. So it seems like an inherently difficult thing to study.

Whereas, algorithm questions lend themselves easily to a "rubric" and seeing, 1 or 2 years later, if higher "grades" corresponded to better job performance.

It's actually not very hard to see how discimination-in-favor can be compatible with overall low numbers. The simplest way is if they comprise less than 7.4% of the applicant pool. Another way is if they comprise less than 7.4% of "qualified" applicants, in some definition of qualified. But those breakdowns of the applicant pool are typically not shared except from lawsuits.

The adversity score in this case wasn't directly related to race, but I think some facts about your school and neighborhood, so not illegal in the way that assigning point values to certain races would be.

Right, at the beginning sure, and ideally it would quickly improve. But why have all of these institutions do it individually, and out of the public eye? I doubt some random Yale admissions specialist has unique societal insights that the other institutions don't.

Remember when The College Board was developing an "adversity score" but then dropped it in the face of criticism?

I honestly wish we would just do that. We would actually have something quantitative instead of vague generalizations about "personality". The methodology could be scrutinized, and centralized (instead of every college coming up with its own special formula), and we could stop talking about this every X months.

When I was teaching college math classes, there were people who tried to argue for more partial credit after exams. Not to get into specifics but most of the requests came from the same demographic. If I as an instructor hadn't watched out for this and set a universal, and uniformly applied policy (and if I had an agreeable enough personality), then I would have consistently made the scores of this group higher. Would you say this is fair? Should math grades reflect whether someone has that "it doesn't hurt to ask"-attitude?

If there is a vastly overpaid asshole in the group, they could throw others off their scent by adding a really small, or even negative value. Then when the overall sum is revealed, they would be able to calculate the correct value for themselves, while everyone else stays gruntled.