dadkins
On the other hand, yes, absolutely put the phone down at the dinner table and engage with those who are present. No questions there.
Finally, my kids are getting to the age where their friends have phones and use them to communicate. My kids don't yet have that and are reliant on me to text parents, which is a lot of friction for everyone involved. Their summer is very boring because they hardly get to see their friends. So, sure, fight boredom by entertaining yourself, but that's a lonely existence.
Sadly, this bill has been around since 2007, introduced by the very same Hank Johnson! I would love if Congress would put an end to the forced-arbitration bullshit that so obviously does an end-run around your 7th amendment rights and makes a farce of informed consent, but alas, they couldn't even get it through when Democrats held the presidency, the house, and 60 seats in the senate.
I've done a couple of cross-country moves with a full house and had fairly good luck -- North American Van Lines if anyone is interested -- and by far the best experience was when my stuff was last into the truck making the long distance trip. It was delivered a few days later by the same truck and driver. Nothing was lost or broken. There was no chance to screw things up with intermediate transfers to depots.
https://lbl.referrals.selectminds.com/jobs/site-reliability-...
"Work 5 shifts per week to monitor the NERSC HPC Facility, which includes 2 - 3 OWL (midnight - 8am) shifts. Some days may be onsite, some may be offsite. The schedule will be determined by staffing needs."
40 hours per week, full salary, full disclosure about the night shifts, but none of this 24x7 wake up in the middle of the night on top of your regular job bullshit that the tech industry insists on.
Interesting data point for the question: at what point in your career will you stop being asked to write code on a whiteboard to prove you aren't lying on your resume.
That says more to me about the companies practicing this style of interview than it does your degree or the institution granting it.
I have had almost no luck getting that information from recruiters without hopping on a call. None have ever provided that information upfront.
I only managed to get that info from an Amazon recruiter after pushing the issue pretty hard. At first he bragged that Amazon had upped their bands, without mentioning any numbers. When I asked how much, he pointed to a reddit thread and levels.fyi, still not mentioning any numbers. I finally straight-up asked him to stop being coy and just name the range, after all it's law in California and I'm going to keep asking until I get an answer. It took him a couple of days to respond, then I never heard from him again.
And this is the only recruiter that has ever actually given me an answer. Ever.
(350-475k total for "L6" in California FWIW)
The whole point of the separate individual ladder was to give an alternate career path to management. What a lie that's turned out to be.
I enjoy working with distributed storage systems, but I don't think I will ever carry a pager for one again. I wish the industry could figure out how to separate designing and building such systems, from giving up your nights and weekends to operate them.
Warren started working on PathQuery as a replacement for MQL. PathQuery was originally executed on Pregel and was far from a realtime query language.
A realtime query engine was later developed for PathQuery in the search stack so interesting search queries could be answered a la minute from the Knowledge Graph, rather than just pre-generating results for a limited class of queries.
This was all done in the 2012-2013 timeframe. Most of the people involved are long gone.
Of the situations you listed, the only valid reason for not showing up to court is because you weren't aware. But because the stakes are so high, judges in California require that parties have been personally served by a registered process server before they'll issue a bench warrant for not showing up to a debtor's examination. I assume other states are similar. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I actually think that the process that the courts have for enforcing judgements is much fairer than the tactics that debt collectors often resort to. There's a reason that laws like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act exist.
Debt collectors sue to get a court judgement against people who won't otherwise pay, so they can use the power of the state to garnish wages, levy bank accounts, etc. It's no surprise that they win in court. The debts are usually valid. It doesn't help debtors' cases when they don't show up. Then they get a default judgement.
Even with a judgement against you, you still won't get arrested for not paying. But if you don't, the creditor can then request a debtor's examination to which the court requires you to show up. At the examination, you'll be asked about your assets and income, so the creditor knows how to collect by force.
What happens if you don't show up to a debtor's examination? The creditor can ask the judge for a bench warrant against you. What happens next depends on the state and county. Sometimes the sheriff knocks on your door and gives you a piece of paper telling you to come to court, or else. Sometimes they do nothing until you get pulled over for some other reason and the warrant comes up.
In any case, what's happening to some people is that they're being sued over debts they owe, not showing up to court to defend themselves, getting default judgements against them, still not paying, getting summoned to court for a debtor's examination, not showing up for that, and then getting a bench warrant issued.
If you don't show up for jury duty, the judge can issue a bench warrant. They probably won't, but they can. If you get subpoenaed and don't show up, bench warrant.
All this is to say that far from the courts criminalizing debt or being manipulated by debt collectors, they are simply acting in their capacity to enforce civil judgements. You know, the seventh amendment? Suits at common law?
Corporations band together to stop consumers from banding together
The moonlighting, on the other hand, where you make money on your side projects, is not protected by Washington state law (California is much more friendly to that). If what you're doing is not a conflict on interest, you'll still have to negotiate it. If it is a conflict of interest, forget it.
Finally, you're about to sign a contract for hundreds of thousands of dollars and a good chunk of your waking hours. Consulting an employment lawyer is relatively cheap by comparison. They'll be able to fill you in on your rights under the law, what's standard in the contract, what's not standard, what's just plain unenforceable, and what you'll have to negotiate to protect the side projects you care about.
Now, let's address the problem in the article of employees not having enough cash to even exercise their options. If the company is truly concerned about this, then they can provide a signing bonus with which to exercise the options, plus a bit more to cover the taxes on that additional payment. Since the cash goes straight to purchase shares, which goes back into the company's bank account, it's a net zero on the books. The only expense here is the taxes.
Please, explain to me why this won't work. I'm genuinely curious.
According to census estimates, California had a natural population increase of 1,332,394 (births - deaths) from April 2010 -- August 2015. In that same period it had a net immigration of 568,884 people, consisting of +834,999 international and -266,115 domestic.
On the other hand, when you look at the San Francisco bay area metropolitan region, you'll see that there's no domestic exodus and a net immigration of 274,598 people over the last five years.
[http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/PEP/2015/PEPT...]
So, yeah, with a little over ~90,000 new people per year in the region, the picture looks very different than the one the article was trying to paint.
Journals don't need copyright to function. There's still value in editing, peer review, and distribution. They're just being greedy by insisting on it.