rupert_murdaaa
The thing I've never understood about this approach is the reason it's suggested not to give your number first is, presumably, it can anchor your salary negotiations lower than what the company was originally prepared to offer.
I've switched jobs a few times for no other reason than to get a huge salary jump, and I've always given my salary requirements to a recruiter or during the interview process based on the high, high end of industry salary surveys in my field based on my years of experience. Sometimes the conversation will stop then and there, but a few times they've bitten and I've gotten the huge raise. Not to be smug or anything, but I'm fairly sure I'm making quite a bit more than most of the co-workers I've had in similar roles, even if they have more experience than me.
From my perspective, I'm anchoring the salary negotiations on the high end, as opposed to letting the recruiter spit out a number first and anchor the negotiation on the low end. What would I gain from letting them make an offer first?
This is only really an issue because of the way that climate change has been unnecessarily politicised, though. We see dramatic stories reported on from other areas of research ("Hey, we found planet X!"), and yet there hasn't been a huge amount of effort spent on discrediting astronomical research, so the public accepts that the peer review process has worked and there's no controversy ("Scientists are all just elitist liberals, where's the research from conservatives that says planet X doesn't exist?").
It seems to me that sticking everything in CTEs would be equally as jarring. Writing SQL or reading and understanding someone else's SQL is almost always a non-linear process, not least of all because the processing order by the database engine isn't top-to-bottom.
After seeing how difficult it is at any company with an HR department to approve raises or approve title changes, I'm not even going to bother in the future with trying to do that. Do a good job somewhere for 1-2 years, accept offer at new company, rinse, repeat.
That kind of works both ways, though, doesn't it? As a 30 year old developer with a family, I don't want to waste time interviewing somewhere that has the expectation I'll work outrageous hours. If I get filtered out early in that process because I'm not involved in multiple OSS projects or whatever, all the better for me.
That being said, resumes are a really shitty way to get an idea of someone's experience and talent. If I'm hiring someone and they can show me a github profile or blog entries or a Stack Exchange profile or slides from a local user group presentation or anything besides their resume, it really helps me get to know them better, and -- all else being equal -- will probably set them apart.
It's like the tray at the 7-11. You take pennies from the tray, right? We just do it from a much bigger tray, millions of times.
I don't really think that's a fair statement. 6 seems a little high for 10 years, but in my experience changing positions every 2 or so years is par for the course for people who A) work hard enough to outgrow their responsibilities in that time, and B) respect themselves enough to seek significant raises every couple years.
If companies in general were in the habit of offering internal promotions it might be a marker of instability, but I've met few people worth their salt who will stick around at one company for 5+ years for raises that barely keep pace with inflation.
At least being simply self-employed is easily explained away by just wanting to do some freelance work or consulting for a few months or whatever.
if passwords are being hashed, which i guess i would have to believe they are, at least in the BOA case, what's the point of restricting character counts (especially to 20), or choosing random characters to exclude?
OK