I am a Team Leader / Lead Engineer. I report directly to the Software Manager, who reports to the Product Development Manager. I am on the same "level" as the Project Managers, who report to the Program Managers, who report to the Product Development Manager.

I do the (mostly) technical aspects of managing my team[1]. But most of my work is still design and coding. The PjM handles the project level administrivia while my manager and the PgM handle other administrivia.

That works for me, so I am reasonably satisfied with my work situation.

For a different employer, I've been as high as Product Development Manager, but I disliked 90% of the work. Even as Software Manager, I disliked 80% of the work. As a Team Leader / Lead Engineer, I only dislike 30% of the work. (When I was a Senior Engineer, I disliked 20% of the work.)

( [1] For me, team management involves delegating tasks, discussing effort estimates with team members, overseeing design and code reviews and other things entwined with the technical realm. While I do provide input on the technical aspects of my team's performance, I am not responsible for doing performance reviews, nor other administrative things.)

Another detail that the founders could not have predicted at the time. Though the founders attempted to provide for the unforeseen in the 9th Amendment.

Back then, staying several meters from other people meant that while you and whomever you were talking with could be seen, you could not be heard - at least not without the would be snoop being painfully obvious[1]. The founders had no concept of "wireless bugs" nor today's tiny, super direction microphones and highly sophisticated signal processing nor other surveillance tools.

( [1] In theory, even back then, some one with a small telescope could attempt lip reading, but lip reading is not reliable and requires a lot of context. Depending on the presumed context, a snoop could easily turn totally innocuous speech into dire threats.)

In terms of programmers most of the employers I know would deem employable, they are only looking at the best programmers so they only see a few percent at one end of the slope. The rest are just increasing numbers of increasingly unacceptable programmers. The shape of the curve doesn't matter to them.

For some job postings I've seen, "Entry Level" means less than 4 or 5 years experience. And when you factor in "internships", having a recruiter or HR staffer say "you don't have enough experience" to an applicant for an "entry level" job is no longer the oxymoron it once was.

My employer already requires its employees to keep their education "up-to-date" (at our expensive, though the company will pay for any classes it requires us to take). I happen to use an Android device - but not for accessing company resources as the company expressly forbids that. I also happen to use electronic bill payment - for my convenience. The company doesn't care. And while my employer happened to find me through Linked In, they don't care about my "social network" usage (I last used it during my last job hunt, years ago). (The closest the company comes to "social media" is an internal IM/VOIP conference system they have us use instead of using conference rooms for meetings.) They also don't care that I've contributed to open source projects unrelated to the company's business. (They would care if I contributed to a project they view as competition, of course. Nothing new or surprising about that.)

Unless the job I was applying for actually involved working with social media, Android, iOS or electronic bill payment, such requirements would be improper. Unfortunately, it would still be a major pain to get yet another ruling to that effect.

I recall reading that a researcher figured out a way to spoof the "Law Enforcement Access Field" shortly before the US government dropped their push.

So far, in my experience, cloning a PC's mac address to your own router's WLAN port has worked for me and for friends of mine. And since my router (as well as most of the PCs in my house) is running a version of Linux, I can truthfully say I'm running Linux.

More likely, the arbitrator would not have believed you and rejected your appeal. Maybe after the DOL investigation, assuming they manage to confirm your accusation, you could appeal again.

One client I worked for, software developers were issued 2 PCs. One for email, Word and Excel documents, and other office stuff. The other for SW development. There was also a separate LAN for the SW dev PCs. The only support IT provided for the SW dev PCs was (1) an install DVD so we could re-install Windows and (2) hardware repairs (for example, replace a failed hard drive). Otherwise, IT treated us like an outside vendor.

As of the last time I rode Amtrak (a few years ago), there was no security theater, the coach class seat were more comfortable and more roomy than any airline first class seat I've ever ridden in, and there was a 120 VAC outlet for each seat. Supposedly, Amtrak has expanded its free WiFi offerings to more trains. Unfortunately, the TSA has "promised" to expand its operations into train and bus stations. I am quite sure this will soon affect - if not already - at least 2 of the stations I would be likely to use.

Having done some software dev for websites, in my experience, the problem arose as more and more designers wanted precise control over every pixel on the screen. Thus they would design to a specific pixel width. If your screen/window wasn't wide enough, you had to side-scroll. The wide variation in screen size and resolution in mobile devices has forced designers to cede some of the layout control back to algorithms.

It is unfortunate that so many schools are unable to offer true merit scholarships any more. The school I went to (and, later, my daughter) still offers true merit scholarships. And even with the need-based scholarships they don't raise an issue with a yearly family vacation - and especially not a vacation involving visiting grandparents or other family members.

It would not be news, if a corporation, that had purchased a similar tablet based course-ware system and what the supplier delivered did not meet the needs (however hazily defined the requirements), stopped further payments and filed suit to collect a refund of payments made.

Suppliers deliver dodgy products to corporations, government organizations and ordinary citizens, alike. And even corporations issue hazy, clueless or even bad requirements. If a supplier supplier promises to deliver a satisfactory product based on questionable requirements, caveat vendor.

As a component supplier, our point of view is far smaller. It is normal for a new project to take an existing design then modify it as needed. Sometimes, this involves combining changes from different variations from a common ancestor. When this involves a single physical part, as opposed to an assembly, this requires some kind of "design merge". Sometimes this involves taking one of the 3D models and modifying it to incorporate the desired aspects of its "cousins". How much of this can be done automatically depends on a lot of things. The hardware designers have told me it usually takes very significant effort on their part to achieve the intended final result..

Still, we have a lot of metadata associated with the designs that we track.

My point is that, while we have a "wish list" of improvements to our tools, we're already doing what Jono said the maker community needs to figure out. Many of my coworkers - and I - are part of our local maker community. And I'm sure other local area maker communities have similar experts as members. Just a matter of education and sharing.

Where I work, this happens as part of our normal product develop processes. Design documents, whether for hardware or software, are still documents. Granted, "merging" changes in a "blueprint" or 3D model is harder to do, but not impossible. Right now, it still requires a lot of human work, but that can improve over time.