albatross

Is that really a reason for skyrocketing pay though? Struggling to come up with any instances where this actually happened and such "hazard pay" was "justified."

Friend of mine had a Bear Stearns cigar box (humidor? My poor underclass brain knows not the word). Was pretty good for a laugh.

If you find yourself with significant free time but don't want to abandon the comfort of your current role, start a side project.

> Even in a no-limits, fully-government-paid education system, Tidmarsh Community College is going to have to convince students to come there instead of Harvard or State U. They'll have different resources.

I think your argument here is missing the fact that places like Harvard have a competitive admissions process and carry a reputation which will continue to attract distinguished faculty and high-achieving students, regardless of funding scenario.

If a student living near Tidmarsh doesn't get in to Harvard and still wants to attend a school, they may be forced into a second choice school anyway. The top university in many countries is often partially or completely linked to the state (point being gov't funded), and admissions are gated based on academic achievement.

I'm not really sure why you think this system would break down if suddenly if budget worries were suddenly eliminated. Not everyone can go to Harvard in either scenario, and for that matter, not everyone wants to go to Harvard either. If I wanted to be a welder, there are likely dozens of schools better equipped than Harvard to teach me those skills.

I'm a little unclear why socializing university assets would be problematic, but open to clarification on that point if you care to provide it. In my view, a vigorous and stable educational system benefits society as a whole, and seems a reasonable thing to socialize as a "public property" of sorts.

Made the following assumptions about rough classes income brackets:

- Those at the low end, eligible for financial aid. May be eligible for complete housing/tuition financial aid, but likely to leave school with some amount of debt

- Those in the middle, above meaningful thresholds for financial aid. Perhaps family pays for some tuition/housing, but student is saddled with some amount of debt (full cost of tuition/housing or some fraction depending on family contribution)

- Students in the highest tier have education and housing covered by family or another source. No student loans after graduation.

My issue here is that graduate in the first two categories have less freedom to pursue their career goals compared to a student unburdened by debt. Paying off student loans becomes a driving factor for decisions made after graduation.

Agree that sports and similar are likely unnecessary money sinks, but I don't know whether in some cases these actually bring in more money than they cost (via donations, reputation, or otherwise), but I doubt it.

It seems like an educational instituion relying on income from real estate properties points to the greater issue here: General lack of funding for education.

Making money off housing will disproportionately affect students of differing income backgrounds, so this is not the same as moving that cost to tuition fees.

Schools shouldn't have to run themselves like a traditional business, yet that is exactly the model most are forced to follow in order to survive.

Edit: "shouldn't" not "should"

You could write the cleanest, most bug-free and user-friendly app, release it in the US, and likely never see this level of adoption (I believe is the point that is being made here).

I think the average non-technical reader could figure out that "plain text" refers to some variant of "········" rather than "password," even if the understanding is lacking technical depth.

I'm sure the folks shorting TSLA would disagree on Elon's DMs.

Maybe Kanye's DMs would reveal he's really just fucking with everyone and hasn't actually completely lost it.

Well... Maybe just the former.

I feel like a lot of the debates going on in the comments here are missing the forest for the trees here:

Those with much money have too much of it, and those with little have too little. The issue here isn't "the poor need more handouts," but rather, "the richer need fewer."

And on that note, I have heard the arguments "hard work will take you far" and "startup CEOs are the hardest working people I know" too many times to count, almost always from people in tech. Single parents working two or more minimum wage (or potentially less if you happen to be undocumented) jobs to feed their children work as hard or harder than any CEO just to get by with the bare minimum. I don't disagree that those who work harder should be rewarded more than those who choose not to, but in what world is the system we all exist in an actual meritocracy?

I'll adjust my search parameters. Thanks for the advice!

To some degree, yes. However, I've found there is often a chicken/egg problem of needing experience in the role to be hired for it.

That said, it's been a few years since I looked at these,so maybe it's time to reevaluate and maybe pursue a certification of some sort.

I have been a generalist my whole life, and have struggled significantly to translate this into a meaningful career. I have thrived in interdisciplinary roles, but have always found myself carving them out once I have forced my way through the door in a more specialized role.

Is it simply a disconnect between the hiring process and these sorts of skillsets that is causing this issue, or something else?

I worked at a 3D printing startup and found myself liasing between hardware, software, and materials teams (and sales... and marketing... and...) and was the happiest I have been professionally at that time. I don't know where to look for roles similar to this. Do they even exist?

Any advice?

Sawstops are great and likely the reason I still count in base ten (I set one off in my university's woodshop years ago). The saw I was using at the time cost upwards of $10k (I was told) and the cartridges that stop the blade were ~$100 each at the time.

Even though I was using a tool with a very high tolerance for error, it was thoroughly impressed upon me that each cut I make requires consideration of the danger I am exposing myself to.

I use a $150 table saw today, and for every cut I make I run through a mental checklist to determine whether what I am going to be doing is within my own personal acceptable margin of safety, because that thing will not care one bit if my finger is in the way.

I'm all for safe tools, but my fear is that it grants a false sense of security for the user (in particular new ones), particularly when translating those skills to a new tool (another table saw in this case).

A video is a series of pictures, so not "technically" inaccurate...

- Given $2000+ laptop by company

- Complains

I get that a lot of folks here are engaging in what they view as "healthy design criticism," but, as a creative professional who does not have the budget for such a machine, it's hard to see most of the complaints here as anything more than privileged whining and failure to adapt to changing tools.

Laptops (and more broadly, personal computers) are designed as general purpose machines; no knowledge of the end-user is assumed. There may be a pool of activities a hardware designer may expect to take place on the machine, but designing for any one of them in particular is likely to come at a detriment to the others.

Special purpose tools exist for a reason, and perhaps such is needed in the "Programmer's Laptop" space, but criticizing a general purpose tool for not being purpose-built for a specific application is ridiculous.

Edit: because i English bad

I believe this only works if it is coming from a corporation and targeted at an individual -_-

Information has been lost and reconstituted for as long as civilization has existed (and longer).

Short of preserving the actual experience, all of what we perceive to have experienced is filtered through a lens of one kind or another (be it historical, memory, or something else) and reconstituted.

I trained in school as a photographer, and it took me a long time to learn to set my camera down and experience life as it happened around me rather than to preserve it for later. Do our Instagram photos preserve anything for us, or do they just facilitate a flawed reconstruction of our past that we somehow value as "better" or more accurate than our memories provide?