sbenj

Hello Dhruv. From the site it looks like none of the positions are remote?

This is monstrous. No other word for it.

That people can justify this in the name of some sick version of bureaucratic efficiency... Who are the people that go along with implementing this?

Propel | Israel, US and Remote | Senior Full-stack (Angular, Java), Senior QA | Full-time | https://www.propelmypr.com/

Propel is a PR platform that helps users discover, pitch, monitor and analyze their earned media. We are a small team that is growing significantly in the next year. As an early member of our team you'll have a meaningful impact.

Currently we're looking for

- a senior full-stack developer, with experience in server-side java development as well as angular or react. You should be familiar with both SQL and NoSQL databases. You don't necessarily need to be a front or back end specialist, but you will be expected to dive into the stack wherever necessary. https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2881148458/

- a senior QA engineer with automation experience. You'll have a chance to set up and design our QA process https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2896449586/

You can also email me directly at steven [at] propelmypr [dot] com

I thought references to scientific evidence and "understanding of statistics" made it sufficiently clear that I was joking.

Actually, it will take someone actually compromising an election in a way that is unassailably and unquestionably broken. At that point the elected officials (who presumably have succeeded under the existing broken voting system) will rise up to fix the problem based on scientific evidence and their understanding of statistics.

Thankfully we can be sure that our votes have not been compromised in the past and there are no actors in the system who might benefit from avoiding looking into possible compromises.

Oh wait..

Am I the only person on here who is bothered by the specs of the base models? For $2400 you get a 2.2 Ghz machine with a 256 GB ssd and 16 GB of Ram. That was seriously overpriced and it hasn't budged in this new release. Seems like you've got to spend well north of 3K to get a reasonable machine. That is way over the market.

The model in the review is fully loaded. Apple will charge you a cool $3200 to upgrade to that 4TB ssd mentioned in the review. Apple's habit of gouging on peripherals is not... endearing.

Also, aren't many premium laptops 4K at this point?

I'm also both an answerer and asker on SO, and I've been using the site off and on almost since the beginning. The larger issue for me (and what is just touched on in this article) is the change in character of SO as its grown over time.

In the beginning I found a number of open and interesting questions (occasionally some of these were closed as being too opinion-based or broad, which bugged me a bit as they were some of the most interesting and illuminating (granted, you could argue that that is not the intention of SO. Still, having an interesting conversation closed seemed, at the very least, excessively pedantic).

The larger issue, I think, is that most open questions now are either of the "How do I do obscure thing X in framework Y under rare condition Z" variety, or beginner "Please do my homework" or "I have a bunch of things in my array it's not printing" sorts of questions.

Not sure what the right answer is for this. And, even so, I often get good responses when I post.

Actually, I think the market has created this. To me it looks like universities have moved from things like subjects that represent the apex of current human knowledge (hard sciences, philosophy, literature...) to a far more vocationally focused curriculum (business, marketing, game design, hospitality...).

To me this looks like a loss of idealism and a move towards a market idea of what sorts of things make up valuable knowledge. It also seems like a real loss of something important.

There's the nugget of an interesting point in here. A lot of journalists are struggling with the difficulty of covering someone who's essentially taking advantage of the norms of evenhandedness to get a platform for outright fabrications. The funny thing is that in other forums people use this to argue exactly the opposite, that journalistic standards force people to normalize craziness by presenting it on an even platform with sanity.

But of course, in this context, this guy is just playing the refs.

The writer draws this conclusion from the fact that many newspapers are attacking Donald Trump and are therefore unfair. It's also a bit funny to see something from the NY Post here (from NY). It is (to put it mildly) not a reliable source.

I have nothing but admiration for the writers hard work, and I (as a Bernie fan) want to strongly object to it. I think my objections and his mirror the political divide in this country - the left wants a more compassionate world, the right sees the desire for redistribution as lazy people wanting to take from the people who've actually earned. While there's a bit of truth in both viewpoints, I'd ask him to consider :

- because he had to go through this experience, should everybody? would it be better if we had, say, government-paid college? more opportunity? maybe he could have studied something he wanted?

- do we really want a society where you pretty much have to choose between entrepreneurship or starvation? No poets? physicist? Teachers?

- college is far less affordable now then when he or I went to school (didn't read the cite at the end, sorry, but the fact is there regardless of who's responsible)

- Our society has unquestionably become more economically savage in the last few decades. Out of work? good luck on your health care, sucker. Do we really want a society where everybody has to give up everything to strive to be wealthy because that's the only safe harbor?

For software jobs, if the coding interviews are too easy it's likely you will be working with people who are not very skilled, both because the low bar allows poor programmers in and because it's a sign that the people putting together the interview aren't very good. And of course that means you're likely to be working with lousy code, and we all know how much fun that is.

These arguments always seem to make the bait-and-switch of "Steve Jobs is worth this much money therefore CEO _ is as well", conflating people who's financial value we can see (it would be hard to argue with the financial value to Apple of Job's vision) with people who are simply in an advantageous position to skim money off the top.

This is so utterly clueless: "In light of this, the most natural explanation of high C.E.O. pay is that the value of a good C.E.O. is extraordinarily high.". Can't possibly imagine another reason why people in a position to influence how much money they're paid seem to end up with higher salaries. Nope, nothing comes to mind for me.

Well, there's really something else going on - I'm sure the phenomenon is there but I think they're asking the wrong question.

Stackoverflow tends to get a mix of questions that would require an experienced person to give a great deal of thought to, or things that require specialized knowledge ("good questions") and things that look very much like someones first year CS homework or questions coming out of pure laziness. In the worst cases the posted could have solved these questions by just checking public API docs but didn't bother. Often the worst questions are anonymous or accounts with single-digit reputation, display a fair amount of ignorance, and are syntactically mangled. The posters will generally not bother to take the trouble to upvote, respond, or thank for the replies.

I wonder if this phenomenon would disappear as a trend if they filtered out the "clown" questions (lets say, questions by people who posted less than 3 or 4 questions and no answers, or questions by anyone who had questions downvoted as homework).