nph5667

I remember the same thing in 2000 when my colleague brought "Sore/Loserman" sign mocking (unknowingly) my candidates. I could not help but think less of him. I am not proud of that, but that was it. It's inside our DNA, to live in tribes. At work, it'd be better if we belong to the same tribe. Please, keep your other tribes outside.

The problem is that you call it "clearly racist". If that is so clear why it took months to decide? In reality it's not that clear and you know it. You just moved a goalpost a little to include something that yesterday nobody complained about to become "clearly racist". And tomorrow will be something else.

You are right, thank you.

What bothers me is the speed with which this process - "accused -> convinced -> executed" happens. We are not discussing things anymore. Today, you could tweet any accusations, and, no matter how ridiculous they look at first, it will lead to a race of who is taking them most seriously. Something definitely is broken. Look at what happened to the "okay". 4chan forced that meme 5 years ago in what they thought is a mischievous parody of ridiculousness of the cancel culture, and recently I watched CNL where the audience gasped in disbelief when one of the sketches included "o"-word. 5 years only, and most common (almost used "o"-word, sorry) sign became a synonym of hatred and racism. And now, Dr. Seuss. What's next, someone will tweet the act of breathing is racist? Do you really think it's impossible?

While I totally relate to the frustration, it's still like stating "I walked away from cooking" after describing work hurdles at McDonald's.

I agree, and frankly, at this point, I think the changes did not pass the point of no return. But this depends on whether the vaccines eventually work and for how long, will the virus mutates etc. What I know is that never before the industry had this global "remote operation" training on such a global scale and who knows will it result in changes or it was decided that it's unsustainable and everyone wants to be back to normal asap.

Ah, I see. But I was trying to say that I do not want to change a job right now because of the global uncertainty, not that it is harder for me to do it.

Sorry for not understanding, but I still don't quite get why is it a good time? From the description of your situation it looks like any new job right now is a temporal job. At least that's how I read it.

If you say so. As an outsider (although I used to work close, in Sacramento, for 5 years), I only can say that I did not hear anything about substantial govt participation, similar to post-war infrastructure projects, or recent push for green energy. But, of course, I will be glad to find out that the Valley is the coproduct of some govt program, not only a lucky star alignment.

From my own experience, it's just not a good time to change a job no matter how enticing it sounds.

You are spot on and I am surprised that this is often overlooked. The industry is either on the the track to the massive shift how it operates, or, after COVID it comes back to the traditional in office MO.

The point was the local govts did not contribute to the the rise of Silicon Valley, not that no one in the Bay area was involved

After 50 years of software development people still a) are surprised that a framework/approach fails to simplify the software development and b) suggest a new framework/approach.

I think the bigger issue with the dominant social/publishing platforms is not a free speech, but their ability to ruin a business without ability of the business to appeal, go to court, sometimes even without a right to find the reason. They are increasingly becoming a marketplace and, as such, they have to be legally forced to keep it transparent and fair. Utility companies cannot turn your electricity off just because some clerk inside PG&E decided that you use this electricity in a way he personally does not like. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter do it many times a day.

Do you think so? I am not familiar with doctor's state of things, but do they have to prepare for 10 years for each interview during their career, or just once in a lifetime to get into a profession? Are they tested on irrelevant stuff to their job's duties every time they change the job? I am genuinely interested. I see that the current state of job search/acquiring in software industry is inadequate both for employers and candidates. Both sides can tell you horror stories in that regard. And I cannot say nobody tried to innovate here. They definitely did - certification efforts, recruiter's tests, not to mention each company has it's own "system". Nevertheless, what I see here is that you are almost always tested for irrelevant stuff, stuff you can completely get out of your head the moment you are hired. Until the moment you have to find a new job. Something's wrong here.

I find it quite amusing the efforts programmers have to put into a job interview. Especially comparing to what they will be doing every day at job if they are accepted. It's two separate worlds - job interview and job itself.