Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Point is, presume any review has ulterior motives unless you have evidence to think otherwise.
This is a logic I just don't get, but seems extremely common amongst
I think the mistake with the change they are making is that they are throwing away potentially useful information when making a hiring decision. If you make me an offer, and you've incorrectly valued a skill I have, then not hiring me because you won't amend that offer is inefficient. It's naive to assume that companies are good at accurately and rationally valuing potential employees.
When is the last time you negotiated prices at the grocery store?
When was the last time you didn't negotiate prices on a house or car? And which is selecting an employer more like, buying you milk and bread for the week or a major purchasing decision?
Rather, what actually happened is that the spy agencies watched everybody, and by and large didn't care about people who weren't throwing up red flags. If it weren't for Snowden and the Internet-fueled rage he spurred, you'd never know that you'd been investigated at all.
And if you never found the camera your neighbour installed in your bathroom you'd never know he'd been watching you and your family naked, but that probably wouldn't stop you being pretty pissed about it when you found out.
When your government begins using mass surveillance on the entire population, and does so in secret and against the protections your government tells you that you have, it should be a pretty obvious sign that you can't trust them.
Exactly. It sounds incredibly stupid.
What he's doing isn't stupid if he is willing to pay the ~$1k+ premium of running & maintaining that set up + viable backup for the benefits he feels it provides.
It is however incredibly stupid to compare it to online solutions like Google Drive and this Amazon service. It's like comparing buying chopped tomatoes with having your own tomato farm and processing plant because you want to know the origin and factory conditions.
that could make sense if the addition was 3 million / 30 guys - not 1 billion. 1 billion extra needs some manufacturing contracting price to rise.
Not at all. You're confusing the cost of staff (which he didn't talk about) with the cost impact on the project of a drop in staff quality. When you're making decisions about things that cost millions, or billions, then losing a top talent with experience could lead to gigantic cost increases. The difference in shock resistance between a $200 million design that can withstand launch and one that can't will be small, but get it wrong and the worst case could be throwing it out and starting over.
Will I look back on my life and consider it a success if I watched these shows?
No, but you're spending your time on
Checking whether two functions coded by different women interact is a really poor proxy for the lack of gender issues at a firm. It would comically easy to game, and I can't see what it offers that simply looking at the proportion of women employed in coding roles doesn't do better.
If you can substitute the term "white male" into your premise and suddenly find it offensive, then was actually racist/sexist all along.
Why on earth would you find this offensive if you made the swap? Because you're a white male and it would highlight how virtually no software fails the white male test, but a huge amount fails the female test?