Pay may be part of it. However there are other motivations. The degree of artistic control, Sometime a fancier title means you get more say on your ideas. Creative types are known to take positions for less pay where they have more control of their work.
Inclusions at the C level meetings. Sure meeting are boring, and most of us really don't want to be there. But it is sometimes nicer to get the information before it becomes a surprise, and have the power to shoot down stupid ideas earlier.
Sure Apple is a huge player. But Google may want Ives, or Samsung, or Sony. Perhaps some little known startup company will get him.
My view is they should split up the infrastructure and the content providers.
Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure, and we can have a choice of ISPs and other content providers.
"Publish or Perish", Degrees that require new original ideas, Strict hierarchy structure...
Academic institutions are culturally stuck in victorian times. So if you want to work up, get the choice projects and research, you need to publish. The more your publish, the higher the chances you will move up. Because there is so much published material, people don't read it much, so they found that they can get credit for half ass work.
Your name becomes your brand, so when you try to get a grant your name+institution you will work for will get you the grant money.
There isn't any reason why Say State University of New York Buffalo can't get a grant to study seismology, but chances are it will go to University of California Berkeley not because they will do a better job, but because of the name.
Finally institutions haven't learned how to deal with today's political climate with the attempt for breaking news. Every Hypothesis is sold to the public as a new Theory... Then if that Hypothesis is shown false (as it is common in science) then the media who may have a political slant will go and say see Science is Wrong again, just like our political stance has predicted!
Science for the most part is quite work, collaborating with like minded people, with checks and balances to try to filter out strong egos. But it has gone commercial so these checks and balances are weaken as strong egos will win out.
If the resources of the government can be brought to bear
Then they will fuck everything up, and burn hundreds of millions of dollars in the process that could have gone into doing something real.
The problem will go unsolved and everyone living around the problem will be a hundred times worse off than they were before.
software dev pays well, but compare the pay to those of the fields you compared it to. All of them make significantly more than software devs do. Friend of mine, his wife is a dentist, she's pulling in nearly 300k a year
Yes, dentists are well paid - eventually - but they start earning late, a few years after a software dev, they have a much larger school debt to pay off, and just like a software dev, the early years don't pay so well.
You can't just look at peak earning power, but at lifetime earnings at a given age, and it takes a long, long time for a dentist or doctor to pull ahead. BTW, you can certainly make $300k as a software dev at a big company - that's common for tech track paygrades equivalent to a second-level manager at the big names. Of course, there are far fewer such positions than there are dentists in America, and for someone capable of both I'd recommend dentistry, but the gap isn't as big as you might think.
Coding jobs can be easily outsourced to wherever the going rate for labor is cheapest.
SOME coding jobs can be, but many cannot - there is aways going to be a market for good coders that pays far above minimum wage, and is also vastly more enjoyable than most other jobs.
At the very least we should not steer people away from a career than can be very enjoyable, even if you are right about pay dropping (which I see no sign of for good coders)...
I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't push girls into programming exactly but we should present appealing options for them to learn (like all girl coding camps), just for the sake of more women making a more informed choice as to what to study in college.
He's just saying that making the choice to be home-maker should be just as valid for women as any other choice they could make. And he's right; it's not even close currently, as many look down on "homemaker" almost as much as they would "prostitute" or "stripper".
Why should choosing to be a home-maker be a choice any less honorable? And YES that also goes for Men, though if you think about it there's less of a societal stigma for men becoming a house maker than a woman!
Pretty sure the "brogrammer" is a creature wholly found in Silicon Valley (MAYBE NYC). As you say in practice I've never found a professional programmer that comes close to this.
If you think about it it only makes sense that fracking in America creates underground pressures which *must* force volcanos to erupt worldwide to alleviate the pressure. Frackers Drilled, Volcanoes Killed!
Look for my paper on this in Science next month. It contains MANY data points which took me ages to fabri---er, collect.
And why on earth would I want to do that? Facebook has nothing of value to offer me that I care about
Well apparently now it does, or you wouldn't be complaining.
ProTip: It's not like you need to give Facebook any real data to sign up, and you can access it in privacy mode to thwart tracking cookies.
The problem with this is that companies don't really pay that well for the labour, skills, experience, talent and education necessary to succeed in IT.
"IT" is a crap career no one should enter. Answering calls on the helpdesk? No thanks - well, better than starving, but so are a lot of things. But we were talking about software development
Why would girls want to sit in front of a computer for hours on end, sometimes, even evenings and work also on weekends in order to launch etc.?
Check out the hours lawyers work, or the oncall duties as a surgeon (or a vet - but dentists, that's the job!). It's not the hours that's the problem, it's the lack of dignity of the profession. When the field was doubling every few years, that meant most software developers were in their 20s, and management could get away with treating all of us like college students. My work environment is more like a dorm room or college lab than a professional office environment - that's what we need to push back against.
As far as pay, after your first 5 or so years in the field, jobs that pay well are there for the taking, though you may need to move to where the work is. If you're past your apprenticeship in the field and you're not making at least 1.5x the national median income, you're likely at a bottom-tier employer: shop around. While we may top out lower than the doctors and lawyers, they don't hit peak earning potential until later in life - a doctor or dentist is typically in his 40s before lifetime earnings net of school costs put him ahead of a plumber or other skilled tradesman.
Personally, I think many women are put off by the limited social interaction involved in the job, or at least that's my theory for why so many female software developers choose career advancement into management or product management over the dev tech track.
The best thing they can do is forgo significant earnings because they have to be more timid in the 10-15 years leading up to retirement. If they didn't have to fear massive bubble collapses, your average investor could likely earn an extra 30% on their retirement accounts.
OK, but that's been true for 400 years, and isn't actually a barrier to retirement. You've IMO correctly understood the rules of the game, and under those rules anyone can retire on his own wealth, needing only to invest enough of his after-tax pay every year. I've been living on half my after-tax pay for 15 years now, and in another 5 or so I'll have the option to retire (though continuing to work would certainly improve that standard of living). You don't need to be nearly so frugal as "half" if you have 30 years instead of 20.
Good point all. I was thinking of a slow cooker, I've not used a pressure cooker for a while and knew the lids required sealing, but I could have sworn in the past the pressure cooker my mom used when I was a kid had a clear lid.
I guess it never occurred to you that, no matter how "personal" the nature of the typical Facebook account, those same people have plenty going on that they don't want made public.
Ar you sure? Why are you sure? There is absolutely zero indication that a large majority of people really care.
You need to back up your assertion with something beyond your own supposition - I have illustrated that many, many people post very private stuff all the time. Where is the equally large scale indications of people trying to hide anything?
If your gasoline powered car smells, something is wrong with it.
Not if you just filled it up and some gas spilled... that's not impossible or uncommon/