Link is NSFW.
Also, even if we take "online" as a euphemism to mean "web" and ignore UseNet singles newsgroups and who knows what else before that, the article makes no mention of Dan Bender, who launched American Singles on Feburary 14, 1995.
Without sociology skills (my blog) on a data science team, hypothesis formation and ability to model clients will suffer. It would seem particularly important for a people-focused company like Dice.com.
I'm a moderate anti-vaxxer -- one of the many who separate, delay and select. When I read the Slashdot summary that said "5 vaccines", I thought, "oh, that's not so bad." But I just now looked it up and it's really between 7 and 11 (11 for those of us who separate, as two of the 7 are triple-vaccines):
Science fiction reaches its zenith when it is commentary by analogy to the present human condition. The original trilogy reached this as it was Lucas' protest of the Vietnam War. This was evident even before Lucas' public statements, from the 1976 novelization and its prologue Journal of the Whills. The prequels were, from the strict standpoint of plot and political commentary, a satisfying fulfillment of this 1976 prologue. That the prequels were released during the Iraq War, a mirror in many ways of the Vietnam War, couldn't have worked out better for communicating Lucas' original 1970's message. Everyone caught on for Episode III, but it was all there in Episode II as well. Episode II was released so soon after 9-11, though, that most people weren't able to key in on it then.
The prequels suffered by having too large a budget. Lucas did better in the original trilogy when budget constraints forced creativity. In the prequels, Lucas felt obligated to have ridiculously short filming schedules for the human actors, and then to leave most of it on the editing room floor so as to not waste all the CGI footage. But the stories in Episodes II & III were outstanding.
Now that Star Wars is in the hands of the Bono-seeking corporatocracy, I have dim hope of any continued criticism of government and monopolies -- and certainly not of any drawing of parallels between the Dark Side and contemporary power structures.
My blog post today argues that it takes as much or less time to train an existing employee on new skills than it does to train a new employee on the company's domain knowledge.
I.e., yes, companies should be training instead of churning. And training doesn't even cost anything any more except for the paid time to do it -- everything is online now.
The mindset in 2003 was different:
1. Network security was not as high profile. The term "Patch Tuesday" was only just invented in 2003.
2. The industry had not yet experienced a painful Microsoft EOL. Windows NT 4.0 was not EOL'd until Dec. 31, 2004.
So please stop judging with hindsight.
Statistically, women are bad at spatial reasoning. There are many sociological and political reasons for this, of course, and there is even a natural component. Even the same woman, when at a point in her cycle where testosterone is low, performs worse at spatial reasoning than when her testosterone is high.
But regardless of the source, the good news is that spatial reasoning can be taught.
So if facts uncovered by doxing becomes accepted as legitimate grounds for disqualification, then the only people who will get the good job positions or get elected will be the liars who are exceptionally good at covering up their history or shifting blame onto others.
Such job disqualification is a handy tool for HR departments these days as it neatly addresses the current job vs. candidate imbalance. Think Elysium (which was really about today and not the future) or this week's past Dilbert strips. We're in a state of transition where the mid-20th century concept of "a job" is falling away, and "disqualifications" are a new-found way of blinding ourselves to that fact.
In the future, when no one has a 20th century job anymore, doxing won't matter anymore. But today, it can transition a victim onto the leading edge of joblessness that we'll all be facing eventually.
Fast, cheap, good: pick two.