The article is actually very interesting. It is not trying to justify the size of the code base, it is discussing the mechanisms they use to make a code base of that size manageable. I've never tried to manage anything bigger than 750KLOC, but even at that size build times and broken builds were a constant problem. So talking about the techniques that let people productively work on a code base 13x that size is interesting.

I disagree. I think that most people are happy to act on rational, substantiated and objective criticisms. I am, you are, and so is the OP. If you're the sort of person that thinks that everyone else is an ignorant idiot, maybe the problem isn't with everyone else.

Bingo. I think HR always considers the source in an exit interview. If you hated the company and can't wait to leave, the feeling is probably mutual, and they won't find your observations all that compelling. If you are leaving on good terms (and there are many reasons that can happen), they will probably be more receptive to what you have to say.

Where HR will take a keen interest is if a department or group suddenly experiences a bunch of turnover. New manager of a 10 person team all with 5+ years tenure, followed by 3 departures in 1 year sends up a big red flag and they will be looking for a reason.

Surely you are joking. Have you never written an email that could be quoted out of context, or exposed your ignorance about a topic? Or even ranted about what a huge PITA somebody was?

If you think government is ineffective and bloated now, wait until you get to a world where every conversation and email has to be treated like a press release.

Depends who you ask. An originalist interprets the text by "What did they mean?". A strict constructionist goes by "What does it say?". Typically both are more acceptable to conservatives than someone who interprets the text by "What is the most reasonable way to read this in current society and based on other precedents?". But to a strict constructionist, asking "what did they mean?" is irrelevant.

I agree that commuters are the likely target market,but that includes a huge number of high end car owners - at least I see lots of Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Lexus, Acura and Infinity on the road when I am commuting. My normal commute is about 30 minutes, and typically has at least 10 minutes of stop and go traffic a day. If I could trade that for an average commute of 35 or 40 minutes where I could be reading, working or surfing instead of driving, that would be a no brainer to me, and I suspect that many of the drivers of those high end cars I see would feel the same.

If you RTFA (no really), one of the conclusions is that the goal of the censorship is to provide a form of safety value. Let the people criticize the party/government, and even let that root out corruptions and law breaking. But when the discussion turns to protest or other forms of mass action, start censoring and nip it in the bud.

Not in favor of censorship, but I have to admit it is a pretty effective strategy.

We also have no credible evidence of any organized tampering of the vote, either in mechanical or electronic forms. The systems may be wrong, but they are probably no worse than they have ever been, and I haven't seen any smoking gun saying that the machines were tampered with.

I do see 3 forms of election fraud/dirty tricks commonly alleged:

1. Fraudulent registrations. Indicated by people with no valid address or suspicious numbers of people residing at the same address. Not something an electronic voting system can address.
2. Felons voting while still on probation. Not clear that felons vote for one party vs another, but even if it is organized, not something that e-voting would address.
3. Dirty tricks along the lines of too few ballots or machines delivered to certain precincts causing long lines. Or making precincts inconveniently large. These are potentially done by one party or the other, but a certain number of these snafus are certainly due to incompetence or unexpectedly high voter turnouts. Also not something that changing the voting machines would address.

So what is the problem that we are trying to solve again?

As an American, I think that the reason we are stereotyped as self-centered and oblivious to the international community is that we are oblivious to the international community.

There are some extenuating circumstances. Compared to most countries, the US is really, really, big. So you can take a 2 week driving vacation, spend thousands of miles on the road, and never leave the country. So even people who have the disposable income to travel internationally may not have the inclination, because there is lots of stuff in the country to explore.

Second, the worldwide reach of the US entertainment industry and the prevalence of the rest of the world learning English as a second language means that we tend to assume that everyone speaks English, and that everyone is at least aware of our culture.

Third, there is a significant percentage of the population that subscribes to what is called "American Exceptionalism", which is the belief that the US is unique in all history as a force for good in the world. To suggest that the US follows it own self interest and that we are not always the white knight is viewed as unpatriotic and America bashing.

So you have people that rarely leave the US, think of themselves as better than everyone else, and expect that everyone else will learn English and conform to our culture.

Stand in line - if you RTFA, 3 people are already vying for .sucks.

The specs for Windows Logo compatibility require that the x86 boot loader NOT be locked. I doubt that MS would create a tablet that does not meet their own compatibility requirements. Not impossible, but seems like a marketing black eye.

And I agree with that. My experience is that a contractor is easy to approve, but full time headcount is very difficult, because headcount represents a huge expense over time while a contractor is a temporary expense. But once the decision has been made to allow a hire, we aren't quibbling over nickels.

And for all the vitriol that my original post has generated, I don't believe I have ever hired an H-1B. I've sponsored people for a green card, but most of my team is US citizens. I will hire the best person I can find, regardless of origin, and within reasonable limits, regardless of price.

Increasing the size of the labor pool does drive down wages, no doubt about it. But I was addressing the perception that at the point of hire all that matters is the price tag, and not the applicant. In my experience it is the opposite - get the best candidate you can, even if you have to spend more than planned.

The company I work at has skipped annual raises twice now since the great recession. They don't ask people to taken an explicit pay cut, but by eliminating raises they have effectively done the same thing. On a personal level I don't like it, but it is one of the only ways that companies have to address their labor costs, because if you do push through pay cuts all the top talent will head for the door. This is the corporate equivalent of inflation - fix wages and let everything else rise, so wages take a lesser bite.

In my experience with several medium to large companies, the mantra is always "get the best person you can". I've never had *any* pressure to settle for the candidate who wants $80K instead of $90K. But the person that wants (and may well deserve) $125K isn't going to fit my budget. HR doesn't get involved as long as the offer I am making is within the salary range for the position, and finance doesn't get involved unless I am clearly blowing my budget - but no one is going after me because I budgeted the position at $88K and spent $90K. A bigger issue for me is that I don't want to bring in somebody making $120K if the average salary is $90K, because unless it is clear to everybody that the person is really worth the extra bump, I am creating an equity issue that leads to a bunch of unhappy people down the road.

I have no opinion about the quality of H-1B visas versus local candidates. To get hired they have to be good enough to make up for any language difficulties, so the bar may be a little higher overall. But I will say that someone who has the ambition and drive to leave their home country and culture and come to the US has already shown more ambition and willingness to take a risk than most local candidates. Not a knock on the locals, just a recognition that the immigrants are a self selected pool that have already demonstrated willingness to go to some lengths for their career.

And I think one of the things that really kills the brick and mortar stores are the people that go there to touch the keyboard or play with the camera, and then turn around and order it online.

I can't say I've never done it myself, and I don't think anything can be done about it, but the reality is that retail stores often serve as the showroom for all the internet only stores.

Total speculation here, but I wonder if the retirement of the shuttle has an impact here? Is it possible that these telescopes were sized to fit in the shuttle launch bay, and with no more shuttle that requirement has been dropped and they can build in a larger primary mirror?

I can certainly imagine that at some point in the last 20 years (which is probably when the authorization for these scopes happened), that somebody put in a requirement that they had to be compatible with the shuttle.