Readit Newshence the explosion in communication channels & those channels breaking down.
you don't have communication problems if say max 3 engineers are working on a product line.
This really becomes a problem when you have individual agencies making decisions on contracting resources even though they don’t have anyone qualified to vet the resources they are bringing in. If each agency had a decent to good lead architect around the $200k range they could save so much money on less than necessary contracts and cloud development “deals”. But that pay band tops out around $140k.
The only folks making good money at the state government level are sports coaches and medical directors. The pay for public employees is public so it’s easy to confirm.
At the beginning of a project, the government could spend above market for a great architect to lay down the data model and put some patterns in place which could then be reasonably well maintained by below market rate staff, but there are rules and public pressure.
Interestingly, my local govt hired Deloitte to put in a serverless AWS-based application that could have been a simple CRUD app hosted on a medium EC2 instance. It cost $1.5 million and didn’t work, in addition to the hundreds of thousands per year in cloud costs.
Could have been a Django app with Celery. The cost could have been in the low thousands per year.
It could even have been done with a succinct AWS serverless system.
But that’s not the schmooze that can impress high level stakeholders, themselves less familiar with good design patterns, and win the contract.
I agree.
“What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”
This “lack of privacy in public” absolutism would mean that there would never be certiorari granted for these types of cases in the first place.
Reductionist at best, IMO
See also United States v Jones, Carpenter v United States
Because the vast majority of job interviews are with terrible candidates, even if the majority of candidates are excellent. This apparent paradox has a simple explanation: excellent candidates selectively apply to a few companies and get interviews/offers at almost all of them. On the other hand, terrible candidates are rejected at every step of the hiring process, and have to constantly reenter the interview pool.
Suppose 90% of candidates are excellent and 10% are terrible. If the excellent 90% only need to interview at one company, whereas the bad 10% need to interview at 20 companies, then only 0.9/(0.1*20+0.9)=31% of interviews will be with qualified candidates. To retierate: almost 70% of interviews will be with terrible candidates, even though 90% of people applying for jobs are excellent.
Because the cost of a bad hire is so consequential, the interview process is not designed to efficiently handle a minority of qualified candidates, but rather efficiently weed out a majority of horrible candidates. It is therefore a terrible process for the people actually qualified to pass it.
> I disagree with this phrasing. We’re engineering after all. The entire job is thinking.
Well, sure. The implied full phrase - more technically-correct, but less pithily-quotable - would be something like "don't make me think unnecessarily; let me spend my thoughts productively. If you've already spent brainpower on figuring something out, explain it to me directly and clearly rather than forcing me to go through the same discovery process"
So - yes, if someone doesn't want to think _at all_, they shouldn't be a programmer; but if someone has an aversion to being forced to solve a problem that someone else has already solved, they likely have the right "shoulders-of-giants" mindset.
(For any potential pedants - yes, there are some practices you simply have to work through before understanding dawns, which cannot be explained directly. Still, though - the explanation should aim to minimize unnecessary thought-requirements so the student can get straight to learning)
You might choose to add comments and let the logic unfold in a less succinct way in order to improve readability and understandability.
You might also consider your colleagues’ limited cognitive reserves, some of which could be spent on more important issues.
We had 1200 applications for an extremely niche role. A huge amount were clearly faked resumes that far too closely matched the job description to be realistic. Another huge portion were just unqualified.
The irony is that there actually _are_ a ton of exceptionally qualified candidates right now due to the various layoffs at government labs. We actually _do_ want folks with an academic research background. I am quite certain that the applicant pool contained a lot of those folks and others that we really wanted to interview.
However, in practice, we couldn't find folks we didn't already know because various keyword-focused searches and AI filtering tend to filter out the most qualified candidates. We got a ton of spam applications, so we couldn't manually filter. The filtering HR does doesn't help. All of the various attempts to meaningfully review the full candidate pool in the time we had just failed. (Edit: "Just failed" is a bit unfair. There was a lot of effort put in and some good folks found that way, but certainly not every resume was actually reviewed.)
What finally happened is that we mostly interviewed the candidates we knew about through other channels. E.g. folks who had applied before and e-mailed one of us they were applying again. Former co-workers from other companies. Folks we knew through professional networks. That was a great pool of applicants, but I am certain we missed a ton of exceptional folks whose applications no actual person even saw.
The process is so broken right now that we're 100% back to nepotism. If you don't already know someone working at the company, your resume will probably never be seen.
I really feel hiring is in a much worse state than it was about 5 years ago. I don't know how to fix it. We're just back to what it was 20+ years ago. It's 100% who you know.
1. The risk of a bad hire is great, and this de-risks that
2. It facilitates more natural and spontaneous conversations, which for better or worse short-circuits a well crafted and pre-planned anti-bias interview process which can be too rigid for both parties to explore detail
I was surprised to find an anti-framework, anti-layering perspective here. The author makes good points: it’s costly to learn a framework, costly to break out of its established patterns, and costly when we tightly couple to a framework’s internals.
But the opposite is also true. Learning a framework may help speed up development overall, with developers leaning on previous work. Well designed frameworks make things easy to migrate, if they are expressive enough and well abstracted. Frameworks prevent bad and non-idiomatic design choices and make things clear to any new coder who is familiar with the framework. They prevent a lot of glue, bad abstractions, cleverness, and non-performant code.
Layering has an indirection cost which did not appeal to me at all as a less experienced developer, but I’ve learnt to appreciate a little layering because it helps make predictable where to look to find the source of a bug. I find it saves time because the system has predictable places for business logic, serialisation, data models, etc.
I had the experience to work in a scale up like Carta couple years ago where the company stoped to hire in NYC/Berlin and as far as I know they shifted their hiring to Philippines.
Fair play, the end of the day the company had their incentive structures to support this decision.
However, after that and other events I just started to do career movements towards companies that I know that I would bring unique features in my position (eg language skills, legal settings, specific regulatory knowledge, local compliance) to be more not entrenched but in a non-constant second thoughts professional relationships in a good sense or be in epistemically different worlds where international competition is irrelevant (eg clearance filters based in nationality, government and military, market that has exotic languages, etc).
I say that because I really do not like of this “Employee as a Service” where line an AWS console you just change the region and spin up labor like some EC2 machine; where in this scenario, you are seen as some expensive spot instance in us-east-1.
Maybe I am being highly defensive, but I do not see hereafter anything I that regard getting better since we have remote work and talent everywhere.
As kids find alternative platforms, perhaps they will be vendor locked to them instead of the Meta empire.