|
boner confessor posted:yes that is how dynasties work
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
my point is that even the oldest lived business dynasties have more or less collapsed much faster than royal dynasties but this derail is getting less lighthearted and amusing
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:my point is that even the oldest lived business dynasties have more or less collapsed much faster than royal dynasties but this derail is getting less lighthearted and amusing Our point is that a century or so is actually equally good going for either, historically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:my point is that even the oldest lived business dynasties have more or less collapsed much faster than royal dynasties but this derail is getting less lighthearted and amusing Whoops, you're quite right. Fun fact: The Thurn und Taxis family ran Habsburg postal services 1450-1866, which is quite a run.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Shirec posted:I am talking about actual studies and interviews that were done on why people leave the tech industry. And I currently work in more of a finance role, but I work with other women who have told me some skeezy rear end poo poo that has happened to them. I've been lucky in that regard, but I trust what my friends have told me. quote:programming anything tends to be a super lovely workplace with everything wrong with other industries turned up to 11 and very poor oversight I glad you work in finance where there's no issues at all with discrimination in the work place
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
jre posted:So you're just parroting third hand information that in no what so ever supports How dare anyone critique my profession, they must be ignorant in all things!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
T-man posted:How dare anyone critique my profession, they must be ignorant in all things!! Every job is profession X is the worst, my friend and this blog post said so!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:All the assumptions about programming work is weird. I have never taken a CS course in my life and I've been working full time as a programmer for a few years. The skillset for much of programming work, especially web applications programming, *must* be self taught. It isn't really taught in schools, though bootcamps are trying to keep up. 100% agreed on all of this. HR and outsiders in general tend to completely miss this point universally. Arsenic Lupin posted:And this is a great way to wind up with a workforce that matches the racial/ethnic/gender/etc makeup of your current organization, which is a problem not only because of justice but because you're missing out on talent that might help you solve problems in a different way. I know that's conventional wisdom, but it's "wisdom" that lets you fail to examine your hiring process. Missing good hires is a severe loss, not just the way business inevitably must work. I think there are many underserved groups. Ethnicity and gender are a factor, but I think class and income are much bigger factors. I think introversion is a huge factor. There are hundreds of thousands of potential awesome developers out there who are never even exposed to it as a possibility. Competent employers selfishly want the best talent pool out there, but they're few and far between. I put a lot of effort into coming up with a structured interview that I think is able to be effective in trying to identify core skills in a somewhat obscure area, and drive out bias to the best of my ability. (FWIW my hires have been close to 50% women although mostly White/Asian.) I ask them to pick a project they think best represents their work, walk me through it, and usually it's in an area that I'm very familiar with and can ask a good probing question about. Then, they're not given a brain teaser, they're asked to solve something abstract that's very similar to real world work we do with some of the details masked. There is take home work, but it's 1-2 hours to complete, and we give the same data set to every candidate. The idea of actually using that for anything seems insane to me. And 100% on the last piece. If I need to know how to do something, it's good enough if I understand the core logic, I can look up the proper syntax on Google.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Luckily living in the trendy parts of Manhattan isn't required to live. So, just don't do it? What's so hard about this? There's even a pretty good public transit system in place so you can live in Not Manhattan and work in Manhattan. You know, like over 1.6 million people do, every workday of the year. You can't dismiss 70% of the landmass as "trendy." Manhattan is not affordable, full stop. Neither is northern Brooklyn. That leaves some areas with commutes that aren't insane, but not many. It's not a matter of distance, there is a good portion of the city and/or metro area that isn't well served by transit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
T-man posted:How dare anyone critique my profession, they must be ignorant in all things!! The person critiquing tech does have a pretty naive viewpoint. The tech problems with diversity are old enough that a more bimodal distribution of companies show up now: Ones that are misogynistic shitpiles and ones that very actively strive to undo the 30 years of momentum that pushed tech in the wrong direction. The employees also sort into much the same distribution, but occasionally an employee buckets into the wrong kind of company. A manifesto later they get a chance to go find their kind of company. It probably won't be hard, there's still a ton of shitpiles in tech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I think there are many underserved groups. Ethnicity and gender are a factor, but I think class and income are much bigger factors. I think introversion is a huge factor. There are hundreds of thousands of potential awesome developers out there who are never even exposed to it as a possibility. Competent employers selfishly want the best talent pool out there, but they're few and far between. You don't actually have to pick between trying to find economic diversity and trying to find other kinds of diversity. Both are important. I am deeply concerned that the focus on top-10 universities excludes a lot of people who can't afford to go to anything but their state university. There are a lot of excellent people with degrees from "second-tier" colleges. I am also deeply concerned that, to name two, women and black people who enter the CS workforce are leaving because they were made to feel unwelcome. quote:I put a lot of effort into coming up with a structured interview that I think is able to be effective in trying to identify core skills in a somewhat obscure area, and drive out bias to the best of my ability. (FWIW my hires have been close to 50% women although mostly White/Asian.) I ask them to pick a project they think best represents their work, walk me through it, and usually it's in an area that I'm very familiar with and can ask a good probing question about. Then, they're not given a brain teaser, they're asked to solve something abstract that's very similar to real world work we do with some of the details masked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:You can't dismiss 70% of the landmass as "trendy." Manhattan is not affordable, full stop. Neither is northern Brooklyn. That leaves some areas with commutes that aren't insane, but not many. It's not a matter of distance, there is a good portion of the city and/or metro area that isn't well served by transit. It's not 70% of the landmass that is "unaffordable". Land mass is a stupid measure anyway, fully 18% of the land is a park! Of the places that aren't inherently unlivable like roads/other infrastructure, nearly 600 million square feet of the building space is devoted to commercial offices. Then there's a ton of government and other such space that you can't rent out and live in legally. And the median household income is only $20,000 a year higher than the US at large, there are clearly a ton of people who don't make much money at all that can afford to live there. What you're mad at, is that you personally will have a hard time finding a new cheap place at short notice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
baquerd posted:"CS math fundamentals" is a pretty broad subject area. Boot camps will certainly cover logical branching statements, but they're not likely to go De Morgan's law. Linear algebra and number theory is right out. Yea, it is, sorry. I was thinking that something like Discrete Mathematics for CS and a reasonably hardcore Fundamentals of Computer Science could fit enough in within a bootcamp timeframe. Math was my first goto because it is an area where deficiencies are generally hard for people to autodidact their way out of and the effects of a lack of exposure will be subtle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:You don't actually have to pick between trying to find economic diversity and trying to find other kinds of diversity. Both are important. I am deeply concerned that the focus on top-10 universities excludes a lot of people who can't afford to go to anything but their state university. There are a lot of excellent people with degrees from "second-tier" colleges. I am also deeply concerned that, to name two, women and black people who enter the CS workforce are leaving because they were made to feel unwelcome. Imagine you're Big Software Development, Inc., a big software development company that doesn't care about diversity either positively or negatively beyond its effect on quarterly profits. Your middle management/HR unit is thoroughly average and your main current problem is that you get asked to program a shitload of relatively simple widgets for corporate use but you don't have enough programmers to program all those widgets in time. Do you 1) launch the BSD, Inc. diversity initiative designed to bring your corporate culture into the 21st century, while using cutting-edge interviewing/assessment methods and lots of effort to filter out the very best programmers from a huge pool of applicants including second-tier and third-tier schools because you don't want to miss out on really smart people who didn't go to Stanford or 2) tell your mediocre HR crew to hire some Stanford compsci grads plus whoever an arbitrary recruiting service you engage recommends after giving them idiot questions like "Fizzbuzz on whiteboard", since all the new programmers are doing will be coding simple corporate widgets anyway and it's more important to fill those empty positions with someone minimally competent as soon as possible than to spend longer to get the smartest possible programmers, so you might as well use "went to Stanford" as a filter to cut down on the number of applications your HR crew needs to look at without increasing the idiot quota in your applicant pool ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 08:20
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Irradiation posted:I dont want to defend this guy but this is the correct thing to do. Too many undergrads are just trying to get in a lab so they can toss it on their resume and PIs have wised up to this. Now (good) professors will start asking about what your scientific contributions were to the group you worked for if you're interviewing for a graduate spot. I'd be interested to see what this guy actually did and if it's reproducible because if a guy with his attitude came through my lab we would probably rip his head off for being an entitled rear end bitch. Someone unwilling to pay attention to basic details like buffers has certainly made huge mistakes they papered over by being the right looking guy in the right place. The fact that he got a consolation Master's lends a lot of credence to that as well. This guy is an entitled rear end in a top hat trying to paper over his shortcomings with biotruth bullshit. Any decent scientist wouldn't dare risk their reputation on poo poo like Quilliam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
Why did Google even hire this guy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
Significant Ant posted:Why did Google even hire this guy? Circling the drain~~~~~~~ Well, regarding their moon-shot projects at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
Significant Ant posted:Why did Google even hire this guy? Well I guess he was a minimally competent programmer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
He fizzed seven buzzes at the same time, then was able to finish the entire "Ultimate Brain Teasers and Puzzles Travel Book" a full ten minutes faster than any other candidate. He even got that really tricky one with the 3 gallon jug and the 5 gallon jug!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Bastard Tetris posted:This guy is an entitled rear end in a top hat trying to paper over his shortcomings with biotruth bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
I wasn't meaning to downplay the issues with sexism in my last post, just a point that if they're being this sexist and not even understanding why they have to hide it, imagine what the gently caress else they're doing. Especially since this seems to be mostly weeding out the ones who are dumb enough to be loud about it. It's disturbing how much even the Democrats are pushing 'entrepreneurs' as the future of the country to solve all its problems when this is what it looks like in practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/hadas_gold/status/894980955047374848 See guys, he said that he's in favor of diversity! Therefore, if we disregard everything else he wrote, he's not "anti-diversity"!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Even more history from the Google dude I realize he's tripped into milkshake duck without even being the good guy first, but it turns out he was the lead of a sexist performance in grad school that the deans felt they had to apologize. Also, in passing, that he left grad school for Google, which isn't quite the same as failing out with a master's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Imagine you're Big Software Development, Inc., a big software development company that doesn't care about diversity either positively or negatively beyond its effect on quarterly profits. Your middle management/HR unit is thoroughly average and your main current problem is that you get asked to program a shitload of relatively simple widgets for corporate use but you don't have enough programmers to program all those widgets in time. If all I need is warm bodies in the seats, why on Earth would I pick Stanford applicants when I could probably get State U Of West Indiana students who have the same skill as far as basic programming but also expect less pay in general? Significant Ant posted:Why did Google even hire this guy? Why wouldn't they? "Guy who researched something else but also did programming and programs ok" is a pretty significant chunk of the Google workforce. fishmech fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Even more history from the Google dude I realize he's tripped into milkshake duck without even being the good guy first, but it turns out he was the lead of a sexist performance in grad school that the deans felt they had to apologize. Also, in passing, that he left grad school for Google, which isn't quite the same as failing out with a master's. Apparently it was a masturbation joke during a roast. I wish the article included the actual remarks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:You don't actually have to pick between trying to find economic diversity and trying to find other kinds of diversity. Both are important. I am deeply concerned that the focus on top-10 universities excludes a lot of people who can't afford to go to anything but their state university. There are a lot of excellent people with degrees from "second-tier" colleges. I am also deeply concerned that, to name two, women and black people who enter the CS workforce are leaving because they were made to feel unwelcome. While I don't disagree with the gist of this statement, the top-10 universities tend too be quite cheap for people of modest means due to huge endowments which allow for large need based scholarships. The lack of knowledge of this system may prevent some people who would otherwise be admitted from applying. There are a whole lot of income based hurdles before you get in, but once you get in wealth is less of a factor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
nm posted:While I don't disagree with the gist of this statement, the top-10 universities tend too be quite cheap for people of modest means due to huge endowments which allow for large need based scholarships. The lack of knowledge of this system may prevent some people who would otherwise be admitted from applying. I went to a top 10 university and my need based financial aid grant was more than tuition. I do feel like I had a fairly privileged upbringing in many ways, but my parents were not wealthy (nor were we poor)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
nm posted:While I don't disagree with the gist of this statement, the top-10 universities tend too be quite cheap for people of modest means due to huge endowments which allow for large need based scholarships. The lack of knowledge of this system may prevent some people who would otherwise be admitted from applying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If all I need is warm bodies in the seats, why on Earth would I pick Stanford applicants when I could probably get State U Of West Indiana students who have the same skill as far as basic programming but also expect less pay in general? 1) Even after accounting for Stanford being full of privileged upper middle class kids, it's likely an above-average proportion of Stanford compsci grads will meet minimum standards for warm programmer bodies in seats, compared to e.g. University of Phoenix Online 2) If you're already at the point of arbitrarily limiting the applicant pool because you're swamped with sufficiently qualified people, why not arbitrarily limit it in a way that emphasises how much of an in-demand employer you are (see, we don't just take any compsci grads, we only take ~elite Stanford compsci grads~  ).
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:There is a large area within which you're too rich for need-based scholarships but too poor to pay cash. Those are the people that wind up with crippling debt burdens. They're also generally well off enough that I don't feel terribly sorry for them. At least in my experience, need based aid at these schools is quite generous, though that may have changed substantially since I went to school.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:There is a large area within which you're too rich for need-based scholarships but too poor to pay cash. Those are the people that wind up with crippling debt burdens. Not at top Ivy schools. Not unless your parents are squandering the vast majority of their income and refuse to support you, and even then. e.g. a couple making $150k would be expected to contribute $15k/yr to Harvard https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Apparently it was a masturbation joke during a roast. I wish the article included the actual remarks. It is well-known that only men masturbate 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Steve French posted:They're also generally well off enough that I don't feel terribly sorry for them. At least in my experience, need based aid at these schools is quite generous, though that may have changed substantially since I went to school. When did you go to school? It's quite relevant. baquerd posted:Not at top Ivy schools. Not unless your parents are squandering the vast majority of their income and refuse to support you, and even then. e.g. a couple making $150k would be expected to contribute $15k/yr to Harvard https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works "about 60 percent receive need–based scholarships and pay an average of $12,000 per year." Graduating $48K in debt is a significant burden for a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Not at top Ivy schools. Not unless your parents are squandering the vast majority of their income and refuse to support you, and even then. e.g. a couple making $150k would be expected to contribute $15k/yr to Harvard https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works I might be dooming myself to the guillotine here, but there's a bunch of cases where parents can both make more than $150k and still be nowhere near able to fund Harvard. High cost of living areas, multiple kids, all sorts of stuff. Edit: My own personal experience was Caltech, who has a similar "we only do need based aid, we are need-blind, if you get into Caltech you will be able to afford to go" policy. They told my Dad that he could afford to pay 30% of his gross income to send me to college. I didn't end up going to Caltech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
From Stanford's non-binding aid calculator page:quote:It is not designed to calculate contributions for students whose natural parents do not live in the same household because they are divorced, separated, remarried or never married; Stanford determines both a custodial and non-custodial parental contribution in these cases. If either parent is remarried, we consider the step-parent's contribution in our official needs analysis. You can use the calculator to estimate an expected contribution for each parent by going through the calculation twice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:"about 60 percent receive need–based scholarships and pay an average of $12,000 per year." Graduating $48K in debt is a significant burden for a lot of people. $48k of debt is a decent chunk, but a Harvard degree tends to be worth a bit more. Unusually, degrees from absolute top schools also tend to still be valuable 10+ years into your career because the name recognition on the resume still has an effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
baquerd posted:$48k of debt is a decent chunk, but a Harvard degree tends to be worth a bit more. Unusually, degrees from absolute top schools also tend to still be valuable 10+ years into your career because the name recognition on the resume still has an effect. That's valuable 10+ years into your career *if* you, as an 18-year-old, decide that you can shoulder $48K in debt. (Which may well have to be co-signed by your parents.) Saying "it will all be worth it eventually" is not as persuasive as "Or you can go to State U, and graduate without $N in payments every month."
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:That's valuable 10+ years into your career *if* you, as an 18-year-old, decide that you can shoulder $48K in debt. (Which may well have to be co-signed by your parents.) Saying "it will all be worth it eventually" is not as persuasive as "Or you can go to State U, and graduate without $N in payments every month." And in the vast, vast, majority of private institutions, it's not worth it to take that debt on. My argument for the most renowned colleges of the era being "special" doesn't end at simple name recognition on your resume though, a person is going to have an alumni network consisting of many upper-class elites, likely ease of initial job placement through said network, world-class professors and visiting speakers, immediate prestige out of the gate, and just in general, a great many opportunities that you won't get at a state school.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
baquerd posted:And in the vast, vast, majority of private institutions, it's not worth it to take that debt on. My argument for the most renowned colleges of the era being "special" doesn't end at simple name recognition on your resume though, a person is going to have an alumni network consisting of many upper-class elites, likely ease of initial job placement through said network, world-class professors and visiting speakers, immediate prestige out of the gate, and just in general, a great many opportunities that you won't get at a state school. "This calculated risk is probably worth it" is not the same as "Everybody has access to Harvard/Stanford/whatever". e: There's a zip-code lottery for Top 10 CS schools. If you're a very bright Georgia kid, you can go to Georgia Tech. California kid? Berkeley, CalTech, UCSD. Arkansas? Good luck. Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
$48k in debt is less debt that you'd get going to any UC, whose tuition is around $15k per year. Please note that the Harvard estimate seems to include all room and board, which makes it likely cheaper than most CSUs. Also, that is an average number, and remember that the average harvard student is a poo poo ton richer than the average anyone else. In fact, to pay $12k per year based on their calculator, you have to make between 110-115k per year household. That is a lot of money, even in the bay area. I'm not weeping crocodile tears for the poor "middle class" 6 figure income families. Also, regarding the $150k just isn't that much money argument, if we want true economic diversity, we probably want to include the middle class, rather than just henrys. And not even those making $151k get left out in the cold, there is a sliding scale there as well. Someone making $155k pays $22.5k per year, which, for the record is less than what Berkeley thinks it will cost to go there ($28k, in state) including room and board. Those making $65,000 or less go for free. The average household income is $52k per year. Even in California, it is $62k. Even in San francisco, it is less than $80k per year (This family would pay $7k per year, FYI.) Below the top 10-20 schools, need based aid drops off a lot, but at the really top end private schools, once you get over all the economic hurdles of actually getting admitted, they are a pretty killer deal for anyone making under $150k or so. nm fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 17:10
|
|