|
Noam Chomsky posted:That's probably it, too, tbh. I'll see you all in the Foxconn factory where we'll all be working inside of a year to make incrementally different platinum iPhones for all of Mitt Romney's children. I hear they have nets attached to the building so you can relax by jumping into them.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Skandranon posted:I hear they have nets attached to the building so you can relax by jumping into them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:I hear they have nets attached to the building so you can relax by jumping into them. Pretty hype about that tbh
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:I hear they have nets attached to the building so you can relax by jumping into them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
It's completely different in the UK, especially in the north west where good* developers are as rare as rocking horse poo poo. At least according to recruiters; https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/war-digital-talent-north-west-ben-gledhill This means salaries are shooting up like crazy, there's unreal amounts of developer churn as people are fighting for anyone who has uttered the phrase TDD. * Good seems to mean good at the buzzword bingo and not a disruptive influence. gently caress graduates, people who may need some coaching, or the old.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
I just got an offer today  I've been demoted from full stack to front end, but at least it's an Angular house. And while it's a tiny pay cut, all the benefits and the lack of a commute especially make up for it.Now I have to give notice. I want to only give a week (long story short the three of us were sold a story involving a large degree of autonomy, but it turns out the founder loves to meddle and after two months of development he unilaterally imposed a stack that forced us to scrap everything and develop like it's 2010), but professional decorum says, obviously, that two weeks is best. How could only giving a week bite me in the rear end later on? I want to start the new job by the end of the month to get up to speed in time for the project start and get on the new company's health insurance on October 1st, but two weeks would have me starting on the 3rd so I'd lose the time to experiment with a few new frameworks without pressure to perform and I'd have to deal with COBRA. Can I just give, like, a week and a half?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
IAmKale posted:I just got an offer today They could not give you a reference or say bad things they're not supposed to or infer bad things if called to verify work history. They could also be precious about your final check. You can give as much or as little notice you want in most states in the U.S. Maybe check your employment agreement, but terms limiting your ability to quit have the ring of unenforceable garbage (IANAL). Insurance usually works out so it's valid through the end of the month. So you shouldn't need to deal with COBRA until like 6 weeks out from notice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Switch it around: how would leaving one week notice work to your benefit? It won't. Don't gamble on something with no payoff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Yeah, do the right thing. Give 2 weeks notice and slack off for it. Also, if it's a tiny pay cut, tell them, and ask for your at least your current! Never hurts to ask.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Alright, thanks for the input. I've just given a proper two-week notice. With any luck they'll just let me go sooner rather than later since I wasn't working on anything important anyway 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
why does US culture continue the insult of being expected to give employers 2 weeks notice to quit but employers are not expected to extend the same courtesy when they fire you
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:why does US culture continue the insult of being expected to give employers 2 weeks notice to quit but employers are not expected to extend the same courtesy when they fire you Puritanical Work Ethic
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:why does US culture continue the insult of being expected to give employers 2 weeks notice to quit but employers are not expected to extend the same courtesy when they fire you Well (in Canada anyways) they must pay you out 2 weeks, regardless if you work it or not. So even if they tell you to GTFO, you effectively get 2 weeks warning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:why does US culture continue the insult of being expected to give employers 2 weeks notice to quit but employers are not expected to extend the same courtesy when they fire you Why are you so insulted? Unless you're rage quitting there's no reason not to give notice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
sarehu posted:Why are you so insulted? Unless you're rage quitting there's no reason not to give notice. I think it's the asymmetry he is calling out. The concern is that if you, the worker, don't give plenty of notice and opportunity to replace you, you're at fault. But the employer can basically say "get the gently caress out" at a moment's notice and you're expected to leave and be owed nothing because obviously, if they gave notice to you, you might HARM THEM. Hilariously, today was the last day at my job(I have another lined up in a week) and when I gave notice, my boss literally tried to shame/beg/guilt/inspire me into not-quitting and/or giving him 3-4 weeks notice instead of 2 - but I held firm and...that was pretty much the last conversation we ever had. Is it usual for Fortune 500s to *not* exit interview their outgoing technical staff?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:The concern is that if you, the worker, don't give plenty of notice and opportunity to replace you, you're at fault. No poo poo. It's a totally banal point, because obviously you don't keep employing somebody that has no motivation to work hard or might have a grudge against you. Leaving with notice, on the other hand, lets your departure be handled much more economically optimally. This is all obvious and whining about it is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
A couple hours after I gave notice they responded with, "don't worry about coming to work anymore, we'll still pay you for the two weeks" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Anybody know if there's a difference between "Architect" and "Systems Engineer?" There's talk about creating a new position that more closely reflects my job duties and I'm lobbying for "Architect," but the higher-ups are leaning toward "Systems Engineer."
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Anybody know if there's a difference between "Architect" and "Systems Engineer?" There's talk about creating a new position that more closely reflects my job duties and I'm lobbying for "Architect," but the higher-ups are leaning toward "Systems Engineer." I don't know how everyone else defines them, but in my current project Architect appears to imply technical leadership as well, whether it's on a project that has multiple systems or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 23:10
|
|
only
|
Job titles in programming and IT are completely loving arbitrary and vary wildly from one company to the next. I'd lobby for Architect since that's generally the more senior and respected title. But at the end of the day it's the actual role and responsibilities that matter. For context, my title is Senior Systems Engineer. I'm 100% on the Ops side of the house (though I write enough code to be dangerous). I spend my days doing anything from writing Chef cookbooks to configuring MySQL to troubleshooting hardware issues. Which I'm guessing is very different from your role, since you're posting in CoC and the title of Architect is also in play. So to me, Systems Engineer seems inappropriate. But I'm sure other companies use it to describe high level dev leads, and to them it sounds perfectly reasonable.  So yeah, I would push for Architect in your shoes. But I also wouldn't die on that hill if management is making a huge stinking deal over it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Titles are nuts but in general architect is pretty high up there on the chain while still being a primarily technical role. I worked at place where everyone was a VP, down to the help desk folks. Not sure how they ended up like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:Job titles in programming and IT are completely loving arbitrary and vary wildly from one company to the next. I'd lobby for Architect since that's generally the more senior and respected title. But at the end of the day it's the actual role and responsibilities that matter. I once interviewed at a place as a systems programmer and they asked me a bunch of CJ stuff when I was expecting kernel programming. It didn't go well 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Horn posted:Titles are nuts but in general architect is pretty high up there on the chain while still being a primarily technical role. I'm going to guess that the company was in financial services. Everyone is a VP because titles don't mean anything, but there are regulations around them anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
leper khan posted:I'm going to guess that the company was in financial services. Everyone is a VP because titles don't mean anything, but there are regulations around them anyway. Likewise, go over to your sales team and ask the 17 year old intern what their title is. It's probably Senior Executive Director of Business Development or something. Because sales is a horrible arms race between "I don't want to talk to someone who's just going to waste my time" and "I don't want to seem like someone who's just going to waste their time". I guess the real takeaway is "lol job titles" unless it's an industry where they're regulated by law. Where they're still bad but at least you know how and why.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Horn posted:Titles are nuts but in general architect is pretty high up there on the chain while still being a primarily technical role. A lot of companies don't have architects as a dedicated role, some places it is the nomenclature for a drag-n-drop UI based developer ala TIBCO Business Works or similar: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
There is definitely a connotation difference - an architect will almost certainly hold seniority over an otherwise equal engineer. However, companies have upped the arms race on titles with more modern terms like "Senior Member of Technical Staff" and "Lead * Engineer" which could supersede an architect potentially. I'm generally inclined to think a company that is a sales culture means an "architect" is probably in sales based upon my experience in such companies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
I have discovered the term "system engineer" is apparently very volitile in particular. It general implies integration, but it could be a weak technical, customer-facing position. If I were defining the role, I would consider it a system engineer role if it is dealing with a lot of plumbing to make things that are usually oblivious to each other. So it is broader where an architect would be deeper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Thanks, all. I was getting the impression, during our conversation, that "Systems Engineer" was closer to DevOps than I wanted my role to sound. My boss even said, "The role would be a developer who supports DevOps." and I suggested the term "DevOps" already encompasses that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Thanks, all. I was getting the impression, during our conversation, that "Systems Engineer" was closer to DevOps than I wanted my role to sound. My boss even said, "The role would be a developer who supports DevOps." and I suggested the term "DevOps" already encompasses that. That is a new one to me, but after the goofy Amazon interview I had for a systems engineering position, I am absolutely unsuprised. I guess a lot of places have decided that a systems engineer is to a sysadmin as a custodial engineer is to a janitor. So yeah, DevOps is DevOps. I hate having to get into semantics and establish taxonomies, but people keep coming up with their own interpretations of words that should be an industry standard. So is life. It is worth fighting over because it will lead to more misunderstanding later if you do not clarify this stuff now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:That is a new one to me, but after the goofy Amazon interview I had for a systems engineering position, I am absolutely unsuprised. I guess a lot of places have decided that a systems engineer is to a sysadmin as a custodial engineer is to a janitor. So yeah, DevOps is DevOps. The craziest part of that one is systems programming has been an actual thing since.. I dunno, the 60s?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
in the mainframe world, "systems programmer" means "sysadmin".. originally it was just the same as it is more generally, a coder who worked at the OS/infra level. but they did so in order to control the machine itself, because high-level operating systems didn't exist. over time the role morphed to not include any programming at all, but retained the title
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:There is definitely a connotation difference - an architect will almost certainly hold seniority over an otherwise equal engineer. However, companies have upped the arms race on titles with more modern terms like "Senior Member of Technical Staff" and "Lead * Engineer" which could supersede an architect potentially. I'm generally inclined to think a company that is a sales culture means an "architect" is probably in sales based upon my experience in such companies. And this is why you don't try to generalize job titles too much between companies. When I was at Oracle years ago, Member of Technical Staff was the second individual contributor role, above super-entry level position that a new college grad from a good school would skip completely. Senior MTS was my position, and the guy who had been there for 20+ years and was on the company wide architecture review board was a Senior Architect, the highest individual contributor role in the company.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Steve French posted:And this is why you don't try to generalize job titles too much between companies. Working in Development: Don't Try to Generalize Job Titles Between Companies
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
I love how associate means partner in law offices and intern in software. It's like navy captain vs army captain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
God drat it. I got a PHY to identify itself, but it won't send out network traffic. The TX clock is all hosed up and I'm not sure why. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
leper khan posted:I love how associate means partner in law offices and intern in software. Home Depot uses that word too. One of my first jobs was "Lot Associate" which is somehow more demeaning than "Cart Bitch"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Home Depot uses that word too. One of my first jobs was "Lot Associate" which is somehow more demeaning than "Cart Bitch" I read that two times as "Lost Associate." I don't know what is worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
leper khan posted:I love how associate means partner in law offices and intern in software. I'm a language lawyer with a JavaScript practice, OP. I also dabble in personal inj - uh, I mean CSS. Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Home Depot uses that word too. One of my first jobs was "Lot Associate" which is somehow more demeaning than "Cart Bitch" Walmart does similar things; pretty much everybody was a "sales associate" as their actual job title. You could get more specific and be all like "I'm a dairy associate!" or something. A few jobs were just the job like "unloader" was a guy that unloaded trucks. But really anybody that wasn't below a department/shift manager was a cashier, unloader, or associate. Somehow calling somebody that stocks shelves a "sales associate" doesn't seem quite right. When I quit that job I was still a "sales associate" even though I was quite often hiding in the back sorting freight. leper khan posted:I love how associate means partner in law offices and intern in software. Let's also not forget that sometimes an entry-level programming position might still have the word "engineer" in the title. Or you might work at a place that hires developers but none of them are "engineers." Or the IT guys will be called "engineers" while the software guys are "developers." Who the hell even knows?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
My team actually just changed names from "systems engineering" to "architecture" last week, interestingly enough. We did then rejigger the reporting lines so that the system engineers now report to one architect. In our area the architects figure out what features are going to end up in what releases, how the different parts of the stack should talk to each other, and generally figure out the strategy in getting things done and merged without shutting the bed. The systems engineers take ownership of a feature, and then make sure the developers aren't being dumb and that the work is doable and makes sense given the bigger picture. My limited understanding being pretty new to this world, at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:38
|
|
