|
oliveoil posted:Very good question. I hadn't considered doing that. I just thought all the code schools were scams managed by idiots and it never occurred to me that I could make a better one. I'm not sure if I'd get rich as fast as I want that way but it could be very good. Maybe especially if I make it a self-taught class so I don't have to do any work. Or it's just really hard. Look, there are literally thousands of self-taught development courses on platforms like Udemy. Some people are actually getting pretty wealthy off of making them, but the ones that try to sell their courses as pathways to riches are absolutely scammers. The reason this doesn't work the way you want it to because there is drastically more luck involved in the road you're describing than you want to admit. If this wasn't true, then the path to wealth that you're talking about would very rapidly close up anyway.
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
I'd argue that sheer, dumb luck is a much larger factor than nepotism when it comes to jobs at companies like Google and Facebook. Software development has less of a nepotism issue than a lot of other high-paying fields, but luck is always going to be there. It's like pretty much anything else: skill and hard work are the cost of buying the lottery ticket, but at some point it largely moves out of your hands.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:there is no grand conspiracy to limit access to tech jobs! this must be reiterated, because if there was, that would make this problem SO much easier to address. what there is is FAR more insidious: a bunch of HR people tasked with finding needles in haystacks, armed only with the vaguest idea of what a needle actually is, and so in the name of making their jobs a little more manageable they start looking for shorthand signifiers for "this candidate is not a waste of our time." Right I have no experience at all with Google or Facebook or any other gigantic tech company's hiring methods so they may be the exceptions, but I spent close to a year doing consulting work on hiring systems for several mid-tier companies. Any job that is even remotely desirable will have more potential candidates that any human or group of humans can reasonably deal with, and that's after you've filtered away the vast majority. "Fair" hiring is essentially an unsolvable problem, and I'm honestly skeptical that even the best systems can give legitimately good candidates a 1 in 20 chance of having their resume viewed by an actual human.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
I think when most people (insofar as "most" people talk about a marketing term at all) talk about FMA, they're using it in a kind of colloquial way to mean that it's hard to displace companies with a strong market position and a ton of money. They aren't considering small companies that are first to market with something and just end up getting trounced by a big player later on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Being worth a million dollars (or a few million dollars, even) is the point where wealth is still understandable. When you move into billions, wealth translates directly into political power and becomes more or less unfathomable for anyone who isn't ultra-wealthy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
eggyolk posted:This has to be a large percentage of the economy. Some of the startups I've worked for were very up front about their goal of attracting someone from the 0.1% to open their wallet. We'd labour over some shiny trinket, lathering it in market speak and lofty aspirations, so we could pitch it to some investor who'd be our winning lottery ticket. So much wasted time and energy over a silly song and dance, but it's apparently a valid survival tactic in a world where the haves have way too much. I mean, there's a popular reality show where people grovel (sometimes literally doing a song and dance) in front of rich people for their money.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2019 17:18
|
|