HN user
Trespassing charges would be thrown out immediately if they were ever presented to a jury. The police exercised apparent authority when they ushered the crowd in, giving them permission and the right to enter.
Vandalism would only apply to those who stole or defaced something, certainly not the majority.
And neither of these charges justifies holding a political prisoner for 6+ months without trial, as the US government has done.
And you would use the actions of a few agents provocateurs to smear the rest of the peaceful protestors who were let in by police?
It's pretty common to imagine the worst faults of oneself as being the motivators of one's opponent.
How can you storm a building when the police are holding the door open for you and ushering you in?
Apart from their obligations under the law, AOL did not police content. In one example, AOL banned explicit discussions of homosexual activity but did not ban anti-homosexual hate speech. They policed the first type of speech because the CDA required them to prevent the transmission of explicit material to minors, but they did not police the second type of speech because it was not illegal.
Facebook and Twitter are actively policing speech that is not illegal.
That is why your analogy is inapt.
Compuserve and a number of other credible alternatives to AOL existed during that time. Usenet and BBSes also existed. Myspace and Facebook (initially) were only for teenagers, college students, and people who never grew out of those phases. You might as well put Livejournal in this list, because none of those platforms (at those times) were as effective at corralling and suppressing wrongthink as Twitter and Facebook have been today.
The idea of allowing any kind of inbound connection into a secured network (other than to/via its DMZs) is anathema.
I don't even disagree with the logic, but the BigCorp Infosec Team heavy-handed approach to working with developers invites the developers to produce creative circumventions.
because I know better than the netsec team
For anyone who's been around the block a few times, there's a good chance this is true.
Most organizations' netsec teams are too busy throwing money at vendors to keep up.
The last time I needed an x-ray for a broken bone, I asked the x-ray tech for a lead vest to protect my torso and groin area.
He told me that it was pointless because I would be exposed to more background radiation throughout the course of my normal life. He did not understand that ionizing radiation damage is cumulative and that there is no safe limit for exposure. Annoyed with my request, he gave me the vest anyway.
Is there a safe limit for exposure to PFAs? I would readily concede that the risk to an individual is probably negligible, but like in the case of x-rays, population-level risks probably do exist for even the smallest exposure.
That said, I would also support eliminating all sources of PFAs, just like we tried to do with CFCs and asbestos.
The lowest temperature that has lead to bird deaths in a controlled laboratory setting is 280 deg C
"Did any birds die?" is an approach to this problem that I would expect from an undeveloped nation a hundred years ago. It is both excruciatingly short-term in focus and so imprecise that the results are useless for anyone who is not himself a rat or a canary.
Your data answers the question, "To what temperature must we heat PTFE in order to kill small animals?"
It does not answer the question, "What are the long-term effects on humans of short excursions outside of normal cooking temperatures?"
The idea that PTFE doesn't break down except at very high temperatures is not true.
Breakdown begins to occur at either 200 or 260 degrees Celsius (depending on what data you're looking at). These temperatures are well within the realm of temperatures that even a home chef might encounter.
Yeah, I agree that these things probably ought to be legislated out of existence, but I don't hold my breath on it.
My takeaways:
1. Open the windows as often as weather allows.
2. Don't use nonstick pans unless they're cast iron or some kind of fired enamel.
3. Use a water purifier.
Retirement, healthcare, and taxes eat up a significant portion of a US earner's pay.
The amount of money that actually gets delivered to a worker's bank account could be a little as 2/3 of their stated salary.
And many things cost more here.
It'd be a good idea to work the numbers and figure out what your take-home pay would be and how your expenses would change. There are some expat websites devoted to this.
It depends on the type of recruiter. If you're working with an external recruiter (like an agency recruiter), they're not going to do that. They'll just give you the client's expected salary range. I've never had an external recruiter play this game with me.
If it's an internal recruiter, you might get that question. In that case, have a good idea of what you're looking for, and throw out a number at the top end of the range. If you're talking about a senior software engineer job, and you know that, in your area, they generally pay $120-150k, then say $160k. If you want, condition it based on total comp and benefits. Most Fortune 1000 code janitor jobs will offer a nominal bonus, anywhere between 5-20% of salary. Nothing like the huge FAANG bonus structures. But saying "depending on TC and benefits" gives you some leeway to ask for something even higher later on. And it tells them that, if they can pay you $150k plus a 20% bonus, then you could be happy with that. It leaves the conversation open.
If that makes them walk away, then you didn't want to work there. And don't feel bad negotiating like this even if you're going for a code janitor job. Compensation correlates with negotiating skill more than software engineering skill. It's just the way things are.
But if that turns sour then I'd likely be looking for 2-3 "code janitor" jobs in parallel in order to protect my mental health for a while.
Oh, I wouldn't try to juggle multiple code janitor jobs. It only takes one good one to pay my bills. And it would defeat the benefits that I perceive in the code janitor job. If someone wants to put that level of effort into his career, he's better off aiming higher.
Maybe I am doing something wrong, I am open to that, but I really am not sure that I want to expose myself to such toxic time wasters. Any advice?
Ask for the client and salary range immediately. If they don't give you a straight answer, politely end the conversation.
19.5 years of programming, but mostly web programming for the last ~12. I want to move away from that, I am sick of it already. There's always something more to learn and even though I don't mind at all -- it keeps my mind sharp which is something I want to keep all the way to my death! -- the churn of knowledge in there is exhausting.
The churn of knowledge can be limited by choosing technologies that don't require constant adaptation. (Time to offend the .NET fanboys): If you pick .NET, there isn't that much difference between .NET Framework 4.5 (from 2012) and the latest version of core. The job still gets done, just with a different set of packages. If you don't have a use for async/await or the TPL, you can go as far back as 3.5 (from 2007).
I am not from USA and have no degree. I am 41 y/o and I'm a self-taught programmer ever since 12 y/o. Not sure how well that flies on interviews; I feel the US companies put a lot of value on degrees?
Some do, but with 19.5 years of experience, this wouldn't be much of an impediment for you in the United States. All of my opinions apply only to the United States. I haven't worked in other countries and can't comment on them.
They'll require a ton of time and attention every day.
IMO, a "code janitor" doesn't just sit around all day reading HN. When I use those words, I mean the type of job where you're expected to fix bugs and implement features and not much else. Even if there is talk of higher expectations, there are never any consequences for just going with the flow. You'll rarely/never be asked to work overtime or learn on your own time. You'll only pay lip service to clean code, clean architecture, and long-term thinking. You'll still be expected to show up by 9, hang around until 4, and not screw off the whole time. The job is still a job; it just doesn't strain your brain.
I'd agree but I've neglected networking -- both physical and virtual -- for most of my career and now at 41 y/o I started to feel the negative effects of that. :|
Headhunters are the antidote to this. When a recruiter wants to connect on LinkedIn and have a short phone conversation about an exciting new position, you always say yes. And if they're not sending connection requests to you, then you send the request to them.
Adding a new hoop is the desired effect, and it does solve at least one problem. If you're at a tech company or some other org that interviews well, you might not have seen it yet.
Many devs are not good at their jobs. They mean well, but they can't solve basic problems without looking at stack overflow. And by "basic", I don't mean leetcode, I mean iterating over a collection.
Anyone can trivially study and pass
Yes! At that point, I would know that the guy sitting next to me did at least some amount of studying of the fundamentals.
Well, where are you coming from?
Getting the first few years of experience is going to be the hardest--hardest relative to the rest of your career; it's not that hard by any absolute measure. Apply broadly, and take whatever comes. If a company is looking for a junior or mid-level SE and wants "1-3 years" of experience (which is common), your degree is that experience. If you have a CS degree and are in a low- or medium-cost of living area, you should expect $60-80k to start. If have a CS degree and are in a high-cost area, you should expect $100k.
If you don't have a degree or experience, it's going to be harder. But why should a shortcut be easy? Is there a secret backdoor career path for people who want to become physicians without going to medical school? No. Do the work, and earn the reward. There are plenty of online and nighttime options for earning a CS degree.
If you apply somewhere and don't get a call back, don't sweat it, and don't take it personally. It just doesn't matter. Hiring is a noisy process, and the cost of a bad hire is tremendous. Most companies will try harder to reduce the number of false positives than to reduce the number of false negatives. Again, apply broadly and treat it like a numbers game. There are limits, though. If you've applied for 10 jobs and not gotten a single interview, pay a professional to rewrite your resume for you.
If you're getting interviews and bombing the technical questions, then study. If you're bombing the cultural/behavioral questions, read some self-help books and join Toastmasters. If you think you're acing the interviews and not getting any jobs, then you're probably bombing something but are too clueless to realize it. Hire an interview coach.
If you're at the point where you have a degree or 5ish years of experience (or ideally both), you are ready to be a $100k code janitor. Learn a common stack well enough to do smart things with it. For instance, if you learn .NET, you should be able to manipulate collections in interesting ways with a single expressive LINQ statement. Pick one from each category (but don't combine Java with SQL Server - I don't think you'll see it as much in the wild):
1. Java or .NET
2. Angular or React
3. SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, or PostgreSQL
I'm going to offend a ton of niche fanboys now: Don't pick Vue, Go, Erlang, Haskell, or Rust. I'm sure each of them is amazing in its own way, but getting a job is your goal, so you don't pick a technology used by only 1% of employers.
Now I'll offend the embedded and systems programmers: Don't pick C or C++. They're just not widely used in business applications. I know both (at only an intermediate level), but I've never seen either used in a business application. You should know both on some level, but you're not going to get a Fortune 1000 code janitor job with either of them.
Congrats, you are now qualified for the majority of SE job postings at non-tech companies.
I think a lot of this is because our profession does not have an accepted universal bar everyone can jump over to be considered ‘qualified’.
Credentialing organizations already exist[1], but none have lobbied the US government to prevent the uncredentialed from practicing.
Perhaps it's time. If none of the existing orgs are good enough, start a new one.
1. https://www.computer.org/product/education/professional-soft...
What's so bad about... mediocrity?
Nothing, if company managers would admit it.
Instinctively, they know it. The old cult of management-as-a-profession believes that by skillfully directing the activities of replaceable cogs, a company's managers can achieve outsized results.
But they can't admit it because they're afraid that knowledge would demotivate the replaceable cogs.
I've never seen this question posted by anyone who had either a CS degree or any nontrivial amount of experience.
It might be hard to get a FAANG job, but it's not hard to find a $100k legacy code janitor job at any old Fortune 1000 in a flyover state.
Truth doesn't evolve.
What's true now was true a year ago, even if we didn't know it.
This idea of evolving truth is a mealy-mouthed way of saying, "We were wrong."
We all need to update our mental models if they don't match the reality we're presented with.
What I reject is someone else's claiming the right to censor my comments or append a wrongthink warning to them.
Negative - if these are going to be treated like keys where the integer value needs to retain the same meaning between builds, then an enum is the wrong abstraction to use.
Complete with spelling errors, semicolons in place of commas, shouting snake case, and unnecessary explicit numbering. Definitely enterprise-grade.
They're literally changing nothing except the mRNA sequence.
This is like comparing my house to the Willis Tower and saying, "they're literally changing nothing except the blueprints."
mRNA codes for proteins. Coding for a different protein will produce different effects in the body. Most will probably be harmless. If a vaccine codes for a protein too similar to proteins that already exist, that vaccine will produce autoimmune disease.
I agree 100% in principle.
In practice, US foreign policy doesn't recognize international law and never really has.
The US could annex Afghanistan, and apart from the CCP doing a lot of complaining about it (primarily because they want access to Afghanistan's mineral wealth), nothing would happen.
It did until a few days ago.