- 1 Post
- 37 Comments
I think the problem is that unions are famous for fighting for equal pay across the board for the workers they represent regardless of individual competency or market demand. For this example they’ll give COBOL developers a raise to 120K and give web developers a pay cut to 120K.
Or best case scenario they give the COBOL developers a short-term raise to 150, then raises across the industry stagnate in coming years to offset the fact that employers feel like they’re overpaying for some people. But sure, a few years later the union can come in to look like a hero arguing for a fraction of the raise the web devs could have already gotten.
Three days later, on November 20, the Seko union, which represents postal workers, will stop delivering letters, spare parts, and pallets to all of Tesla’s addresses in Sweden.
It seems troubling that there aren’t regulations in place requiring postal workers to deliver mail indiscriminately.
What if the postal union decided not to deliver mail-in ballots they thought might support a policy they disagreed with, for example?
I use a “real name” domain. My last name ends in the letters “in”, so I bought a .in domain, such that the domain name is my last name with a dot in it.
Can’t honestly recommend that approach. It’s a cute gimmick, but when non-technical people ask for your email address and it doesn’t end in a TLD they recognize, their heads explode. I usually give out my gmail address.
Is it the employer’s responsibility to determine that somebody is or is not a spy? Like the scam here was to do the actual job and send money back, not to steal company information etc. companies have legal obligations to make sure people are authorized to work in the US etc, but the government sets those standards. If you’ve got convincing enough paperwork, it’s the governments job to enforce this stuff, not the employer.
That said, I’ve interviewed several remote people who were clearly using fake identities and also clearly didn’t have the skills for the job. Seems obvious their scam was to just collect a paycheck doing nothing, so if that’s the same group, then the employers bear some fault for hiring unqualified people… but on the other hand if the North Koreans were actually doing the jobs they were paid for, no reason the company should care.
Way too many other meetings. Meetings all the time.
There was a nice period where we had 2 meetings a week. One team meeting, then one social happy hour meeting with just the devs and no manager. (Mostly so we could complain about the manager, but general social bonding also). We also did plenty of ad-hoc meetings as needed, but generally the two regularly scheduled ones struck a good balance of getting things done without wasting time.
In hindsight, that manager could be a difficult person to work with, but the overall balance of trade-offs was way better with him than it is now. Very few, very efficient meetings, were one of the positive tradeoffs for sure.
How much does your SDK do? If it’s just wrapping calls to an HTTP API, use something like OpenAPI / Swagger to document the API, then auto-generate client libraries based on the OpenAPI specs.
Then if you add any language-specific niceties on top of the auto-generated code (i.e. accessor functions to set up user credentials etc) you have to write tests for those parts in that particular language. But the bulk of the API you can test in whichever language you prefer, then just assume the code generator is doing its job and creating a compatible API in the other languages.
Fully remote job and we have people spread across time zones. We just moved it to 8:45 AM west coast time, because the previous 7:15 time slot wasn’t working for those of us way over here. I kinda feel bad for the east coast people who have to do it at 11:45 now, since that’s usually lunch time for me.
Really I wish we’d go back to just not doing standups.
My salary, I guess.
Everybody on my team is required to do on-call once they have enough experience (except for the low budget offshore contractors who I wouldn’t trust to do it anyhow…)
We have 2 people on call at a time, 1 primary and one backup. You do a week on backup, then the next week you’re primary.
There’s no set time limits etc, but if you get sucked into some fire, people are reasonable about letting you take some time off the next day or whatever.
All in all, there are very rarely fires that happen inside or outside of normal working hours. Making the whole team be on call helps incentivize everyone to write more stable code since it’s your own ass on the line.
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is it would depend on what kind of business you’re in and what kind of services the Christian customers asked for. You could say “I do websites for weddings, but not Christian weddings” for example.
As I understand it, this ruling still wouldn’t necessarily protect broader discrimination like “I own an ice cream shop, but I won’t sell ice cream to certain people”; whether the people you’re refusing to sell to are Christian, gay, etc…
That’s a big departure from the spare tire analogy. The spare tire analogy is based on the principle that affirmative action should be a stepping stone that gets us to the place we want to be and then stops being needed. Whether we’ve gotten to that point or not isn’t a topic I want to get too weighed down on, but I think the point is that the goal is a world where we don’t need affirmative action.
But a wheelchair is (in general) a tool that compensates for a permanent problem. People who need wheelchairs need them forever. Are you arguing that’s what affirmative action is? Systemic racism can never be undone and affirmative action has to live on in perpetuity?
Not trying to get too bogged down in the analogy itself, but it seems you’ve got a fundamentally different view of the issue than the person you’re replying to.
From the majority’s opinion
nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice
Sounds like schools can still look at specific circumstances of a person’s life; just can’t make a blanket assumption that because they look a certain way they must have had things hard or easy.
If the goal is to provide restitution to people who have been impacted by government policies, evaluating whether or not they were actually affected, and to what extent, seems reasonable to me.
Piling on more systemic racism makes things worse, not better. We should focus our efforts on addressing systemic racism in the areas where it still exists, not on compensating for it elsewhere. Provide better funding for schools in low income areas. Support economic development to pull those areas out of poverty, etc.
Thinking of instances where I’ve seen it happen:
- they did a big reorg to avoid layoffs. Good sign it’s time to start looking. The company didn’t exactly pull itself back after that.
- company got acquired and incompetent management at the new parent company thought we had more people than we needed. Another red flag, since they made decisions without consulting the individuals affected, and against the recommendations of middle management who knew the context.
- an underperforming junior dev who showed potential but had clearly burned out and also had some interpersonal problems with specific people. They wanted to give him a clean start and a second chance. Given the job market at the time, it was a good deal in some ways, but it’s the same kind of red flag as being put on a pip. Better to find some place new to get a real clean start if you can.
Anyhow, tldr, it’s never been a good thing in my experience. wouldn’t hurt to start looking for other options.
Reddit has every right to charge for their API, but the amount they wanted to charge was too high.
Other use cases aren’t relevant here either. They could have come to an agreement with Apollo etc that would have charged them reasonable rates while charging more to data scrapers. They could have done ads and dev share on the mobile apps. Most people wouldn’t have objected to that.
That part’s not a Reddit-specific problem though. I’ve seen a similar pattern play out at several companies I work for:
- charge extra for a new premium feature
- a new client with deep pockets comes along and wants part of that feature, but doesn’t want all of it, so doesn’t want to pay for it
- sales really wants to catch this big fish
- sales promises to build a new feature that does the same thing as the existing feature
- the company loses more money than they would have by just giving the feature away for free, since now they’re also paying engineers to build the free version.
I just want a game where I get to name my character after myself and the voice-acted NPCs use AI to dub my name into their lines instead of awkwardly avoiding using names.