You, for owning and running it. You may then have a claim against Google if you can find fault or negligence. And yes, you'll have to have insurance just like you do now. If you lend your car to your friend to drive, you're still on the hook to insure the car for damage it can do to others, you just might have a legal claim to recoup from the friend.
It doesn't even need to be a phone. If all you need is data inside the clean room, a PC or laptop will do as well.
True, a degree doesn't mean they have those traits. But this is where conditional probability comes into play. More people with the degree will fall into this category than those without, because the degree gives them the knowledge to wield those traits effectively. That means that when looking at a resume, you're more likely to get a good hire from one with a degree than without. And several of those traits are positively associated with a degree. Additionally, the floor is higher- while even those with a degree can be a bad hire, a mistake is more likely to be a mediocre worker than a bad one. So you minimize your risks and maximize your potential gains by just dropping the other pile, looking for diamonds in the rough isn't worth the time and money. Especially since the type of person you're discussing won't be easily discernible from a resume, you're looking at phone or in person interviews at much higher cost/effort to have a chance.
One exception I would make is with a personal testimonial of the non-degreed dev's skill by a developer I trust. But you're looking at corner cases there.
No, it absolutely won't. First off- drop the idiotic lingo. All it does is make you look like a tool. Secondly- the "rockstar" tends to have a degree. That's part of why he's so good, he's studied the foundation of his craft and understand the costs and benefits of different approaches. Once again, someone with a degree is far more likely to be able to do that then one without.
Secondly, when looking for high impact workers- the things you want don't correlate to no degree. What you want is hard working, creative, a willingness to step up and take ownership, and high intelligence. Lacking a degree means he's not likely to be hard working, he wasn't willing to put in the work to go to college. It means he wasn't willing to take ownership of his own career path. And it means he was either too stupid to get into college, or too stupid to see the benefits of it. The only one you might get is creative because he "went a different way"- but he did so without thought or a good reason for doing so, which again isn't what you want.
So yeah, the non-degree holder loses again. THere's a few exceptions (although only 1 I've ever met and he had 3 years of college before quitting for health reasons and needing cash too much to return), but I'm happy to miss out on them- a given engineer is more likely to be high impact with a degree than without, so again I'm using it as a good first screen to weed out the 90%+ who are useless in that category.
Now I have found some good engineers with alternative STEM degrees and a passion for coding- physics, EE, comp eng, mech end, etc. But you have to carefully screen to see if they actually know what they should, I would expect their math to be on par (or better), but not necessarily their knowledge of CS concepts.
Because you have to prove merit. A degree proves that you've studied the field for 4 years. A lack of degree show absolutely nothing. Thus to have equivalent background you have to show much more.
Now we have a pile of resumes. 50% of them have a college degree, thus 4 years studying the field. 50% do not (and don't have at least 4 years in the field professionally). I'm throwing out the 50% without a degree because the signal to noise ratio is too low. Will I throw out a few good hires? Maybe. But I'll throw out a lot of bad ones, and that's more important.
THat doesn't even get into the fact that school teaches different things. School teaches theory. The vast majority of self-taught programmers without a degree that I've seen are very weak on theory. They can maybe throw some libraries together, but they don't understand how to actually solve hard CS problems and couldn't explain basic concepts, causing their designs to have massive flaws. Many of them even take pride in this, their entire attitude being that they didn't need that "academic BS". These kinds of programmers tend to cost time and effort in the long run. So yeah, I'd rather have the degree and someone taught the theories behind everything than someone who thinks reading documentation on weekends will make him a good programmer. SO yeah, no degree means you better have a LOT of experience to even things out. I'm not going to hire you as anything but a web monkey if you have less than a decade.
You should check out the unemployment and college debt numbers for law school grads. Unless you're going to a top of the line law school and are an extremely competitive person, odds are very good you'll never recoup that investment. Many law school grads never find a job practicing law.
That's all relatively recent developments. Until the 1800s, you were whatever religion the lord of your land was, down to the sect of Christianity. If you didn't like it, too bad- shut up or be jailed or killed.
You were a jew? You can't own land, must live in a ghetto, must be locked in at night, must be one of about half a dozen professions, and would regularly be killed in mob attacks by christians. It was literally better for them in Islamic territory where they only had to pay an extra tax.
You want wars? Well, there were the crusades. And a whole fleet of wars across Europe, especially in Germany, over which particular sect of Christians everyone needed to be.
Even one of the more enlightened countries, England, basically kicked out anyone who wasn't mainstream enough to the colonies. Where they still didn't have religious freedom, you just had areas ruled by smaller sects.
And even today in America, a very tolerant society, you have 1 political party that kisses the nutjobs asses and is moving to make abortion and birth control illegal.
Yeah, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two.
JDB is a text based java debugger. Most IDEs are graphical shells for it, similar to ddd and gbd in C land.
The two solve completely different problems?
Make is horrible anyway, the syntax is just bad. But ignoring that- make, bash, perl, or python build scripts solve the problem of building code. That's not what an IDE does (in fact it generally just calls a build script when it does do it). An IDE is a graphical editor with built in features useful for editing code and a tightly linked debugging environment. THe build stuff is a minor component of one. Even most people who do use home rolled scripts to build use an IDE to edit.
I don't know a single Android developer using it. I've heard of them, but everyone I know still uses Eclipse- in fact many rather program in a text editor than that- stability is more important than anything else.
The problem with making statements like this is that major tools like this tend to fragment the population into two groups who don't interact much. So each side sees itself as "everybody uses". You need data, which nobody has (number of downloads is an ok-ish metric, but isn't really that good as download != use). The best metric I have is how often do I see problems about a particular IDE on programming question sites, and going by that one Android Studio is either perfectly bug free and easier to understand than any IDE ever made, or it has near 0 uptake. I'll bet on #2.
There were legal mp3 sites like emusic from the late 90s. Not to mention it being legal to rip cds you own for your own personal use. And the thousands of bands which purposely posted songs in mp3 format for free as a form of advertising.
Its hard to compare car insurance directly since it depends so much on driving history, type of car, and theres a lack of quoted prices. However having lived in 3 states on 2 coasts in the last year, it didn't change much.
Different calculators give different results, but they converge tot he same numbers within a percent or two, with one bad outlier website. Here's an example of what I could find:
Seattle vs Quad cities
San Jose (southern silicon valley) vs Quad cities
75K in quad cities is 96K in Seattle or 116K in San Jose. Financially the cost of living argument just doesn't hold up, as you can beat that in Seattle and EASILY beat that in San Jose. The lack of employers pushes down salary more than the cheaper prices make up for. You also generally have to choose between fewer interesting jobs as well, although that doesn't matter to everyone.
Even cost of living adjusted you're being screwed. A senior in Seattle (more expensive, but not silicon valley prices) will make 120K plus stock. A senior in the valley can make 160+ not counting equity and bonuses. A senior coming off a big success like working at a sold startup can make twice what your combined salary is (that's not counting what he makes on the sale itself). And cost of living isn't as huge a deal as many people make it for two reasons:
1)The only thing that's hugely different is housing. Even if you pay 2-3x rent, you won't pay 2-3x for car insurance, the car itself, food, etc. That tends to be more 10-15% max (and usually much less, some things are even cheaper). You're most likely figuring the COLA wrong. The right way to do it is to break your costs into categories and figure out the adjustment for each category, not straight multiply by the rent adjustment.
2)If you save the same percentage in either place, you should still prefer the place that pays more because you can downsize someplace cheaper at retirement.
If you have personal reasons for wanting to live out there, that's totally different and understandable. But understand that you are getting fucked financially by it, it isn't just a cost of living difference.
I don't know what setup you used, but the only thing that regularly crashed mine, even back in the day, was eventual slowness and crashes due to memory. It was normal for it to run nonstop for several days. Really the whole Firefox split out was a big "but their code sucks because it isn't how I'd do it", resulting in a worse product. A case study in why you don't throw out working systems really.
That's never what Firefox was about. It was a big rewrite because a bunch of Mozilla devs decided they wanted everything written their way and if it wasn't they'd rather restart from scratch. Even initial versions were actually more heavyweight and leaked more memory than mozilla suite. It should never have existed in the first place, they should have just moved the browser in Suite to a standalone download for those who wanted just that functionality.
Amusingly enough the old Mozilla Suite is still chugging along as SeaMonkey. Its still more performant than firefox and doesn't suffer from the feature creep or the "what features of chrome UI do we want to rip off this build" issues that FF does. Its a better product by a longshot.