thecardcheat
thecardcheat on Hacker News
> is considered more stable
Was not stated.
> Why shouldn’t they use stable technology they are proficient with?
This perspective is one of the major indicators of an engineer with more experience managing real projects. Making a technology choice or transition is a milestone/roadmap affecting decision. To do so for preference over deliverability has killed many a project.
All of this - and maintenance. The house that may be "inexpensive" re: sale price may cost just as much to fix. The cost of fixing X sq ft of thing or replacing appliance Y may certainly increase with the size of the home, but even small homes can have major expenses (and if you are in a "cheaper" area this means more home for less, so more to fix).
Lack of regulation in places without rigid building code enforcement can also make it hard to find people who aren't hacks (if you can find people at all) in construction.
In my 30s here, so past the heyday. I have lived in several regions of the US and traveled to the rest - these aren't very common.
Comcast may add a modem rental fee to your bill automagically even if you have your own modem (even if you have always had your own). This happened to me and the phone support told me they do this intentionally and they expect people to call and resolve it if it is not an appropriate fee.
For the sake of your time and your sanity you should do neither of those things. You should file a complaint with the appropriate state labor body, particularly in a US state like CA where the agencies are well funded. The chance of it benefiting you is virtually nil, but the chance of it causing pain for the employer - hopefully forcing them to change their ways - is non-zero.
Outside the US I have no knowledge of at what level those protections may/may not be enforced (but hopefully somewhere).
That's surprising to me as I have updated a large production Django code-base on my own for every version from 1.5 to 2.0 and it has never taken me more than a day, with an equal or lesser (typically lesser) amount of time dedicated to deprecations when I updated to the previous version. Any blockers past that point have always been due to slow-to-update third-party libraries.
The Python 3 update took longer and had a longer legacy of surprise breakages, but I don't ding Django for following the intended life cycle of Python.
For US Generation Student Debt, there's a significant long-term cost to that decision. If you don't have to double the years it takes you to pay back your debt to do so, maybe moving abroad is more of an option.
Beyond the obvious etymology that others have stated, the terms "sanctuary", "refuge", and "preserve" are used far more by the US to represent the idea you describe for animals, so the equivalence in terminology doesn't seem well founded at all.
The larger the org and the closer to government (unless you ask for more work), the more likely I find this to be the case.
I think @jcadam was being snarky, not serious.
A lot of opaqueness for a decision that apparently affects the steering of an open project. A rather peculiar set of half-elaborated and [REDACTED] posts that doesn't tell the whole story and makes the governance seem pretty closed off. Strange.
> Or, put another way, they choose to accept a high rate of false negatives to avoid false positives.
Which is how it is typically presented because it sounds much better than "reject a lot of candidates who would probably have worked out just fine". It is useful to perceive both the potential value in an approach like this and the shortcomings. Google can absorb the massive expense in man hours, lost opportunity, etc. that comes with trying to craft genuinely predictive interview processes, but a lot of the companies trying to emulate them can't. Too often, interviewees don't realize a process of this sort is stacked against them, and interviewers don't appreciate the negatives of adopting a still-nascent approach that sounds more reliable simply because it is quantitative - and assuming since Google does it it must work.
What matters is how much the company you want to work for expects you to whiteboard or code to pass their screens.
Big company? You almost certainly need to have your CS challenge question toolbox full.
Smaller company? Many follow the big company interview methodology, but some don't, so more likely you can get away with not breaking the spine on your Cracking the Coding Interview.
> The industry lobbyists’ ace-in-the-hole argument is that if they can’t hire more H-1Bs, they’ll ship the work overseas. But for projects on which H-1Bs are hired in the U.S., face-to-face interaction (between themselves and their American coworkers) is crucial. That is why employers bring H-1Bs to the U.S. in the first place rather than sending the work abroad, where the wages are even cheaper.
Considering the growth of tools that facilitate working remotely, and the flexibile schedule pursued by many software engineers, the willingness to ship jobs overseas is hard to merely cast aside.
Visa workers should absolutely be paid a fair wage, and it seems a realistic side-effect that there may be a shift in the type of roles offered to visa employees vs. overseas when the cost of in-house now represents a premium on the foreign employee.
Everything about this act, including the fact that the countries chosen don't actually represent active sources of terrorism and seemingly avoid harming Trump's business interests, are exactly in line with how he presented himself during his campaign.
> I don't think you're suppose to depend on the ordering of dictionaries. It's an implementation detail which might get changed, although it wont actually ever be changed because people will come to depend on it.
I came here to make the same distinction - though I will say I hope you are wrong about people coming to depend on it when OrdereredDict is still there for a reason. The docs still plainly state that Dict should be considered un-ordered and do not make mention of this implementation detail (nor should they).
The article states: "Multiple studies show that while under-compensation can definitely contribute to employee churn, over-compensation won’t make up for a bad workplace."
Does anybody have links to these studies? The under-compensation seems to be in wide agreement but I am curious as to what studies have been conducted that show that the preferred points (Growth, Impact, Care) are preferred over higher compensation.