Not quite. You're selling your house using a real estate agent who chooses to be part of the MRED network.

Your agent is not the seller, you are the seller. Your agent is your broker. Your broker may be a member of the MRED network, or not. MRED is just a listing service that your real estate broker will use if they are a member of the MRED network. MRED is neither the seller's agent nor the buyer's agent, they are just a place where you can list your home for sale.

If you use MRED (through your agent), only other buyer's agents who are also part of MRED will see your home, because MRED doesn't share. So if you don't want this restriction, go through Zillow instead. It's really that easy.

Compass is not the seller, you the homeowner are the seller. MRED and Zillow are simply listing services, i.e., places where you can advertise your home for sale.

I don't have a problem with either Zillow's or MRED's approaches. They can fight it out.

I was objecting to the OP who said, "You shouldn't get to list a home "privately" to limit competition while still demanding access to Zillow's massive public traffic" I say, there's no actual problem here.

You're making the opposite argument than OP, who said, "You shouldn't get to list a home "privately" to limit competition while still demanding access to Zillow's massive public traffic."

If I want Zillow to list my house, I can list with Zillow and not with MRED. If I think MRED is a better deal and will get me a buyer sooner, I can list with them.

No, I'm not conflating the two meanings of "private."

If I want to broker my house through MRED exclusively, and also advertise on Zillow, how is that a problem? If I don't want to broker my house through MRED exclusively, then I can actually list on Zillow or elsewhere.

The Amazon/eBay analogy doesn't fit. Neither Amazon nor eBay list products sold by the other site, at all. The analogy would be like Zillow and MRED not sharing listings with each other at all. A better analogy would be a Google Products listing that points to Amazon products. Amazon retains the right to exclusively sell the products, and also list them for sale on Google Products. Google shouldn't, and doesn't demand that Amazon list all of its products on Google Products. Amazon gets to pick what things it wants to offer for sale via Google Products advertising.

Why not?

If I want to sell my house, why shouldn't I be able to sell it and advertise it how I want to? I could do FSBO or through a broker or through MRED, that's my choice. Why *shouldn't* I be able to access Zillow's advertising service and sell my house privately? Selling and advertising are two different things, there is no ethical reason to tie them together.

So, I mostly agree with your points.

Degrees aren't trade schools. Correct. And this is kind of the point. Degrees don't teach students things they will need to know to be good software engineers, and advanced degrees continue the progression of learning in a direction that is not aimed at what businesses need. And that diverging learning path makes such students less relevant to engineering jobs, not more.

You're also right the BS grads don't learn these things in school. But the good ones understand that their degree isn't teaching them "real" programming, so they take their degree and run to the job market ASAP.

I have never seen a master's degree candidate in databases, despite reviewing thousands of resumes, so I can't comment on such people. Do they exist? I suppose they do, somewhere!

As for PhDs, I've personally reviewed genetics software written by PhDs, when I managed the software development team at a major genetics laboratory. It was *atrocious*--buggy, and slow. Not just one candidate, but many different candidates, including some who actually got hired. I can't speak for all PhDs, but I have seen enough to observe patterns.

I'm sure there are lots of other hiring managers out there that would jump at a chance to hire candidates with advanced degrees. They would be impressed with such credentials. I am not. Show me you can do the work, research projects don't do that. So go interview with some of them, and we'll all be happy.

It is like toddlers who try to turn every interaction to how much they like their legos. And the same level of maturity.

Do these haters think that Americans don't know our problems? Do they think their country is bereft of issues? Do they find their commentary useful?

As a corrolary, do they believe that the response to every subject should be US citizens making unprovoked and snide comments on issues in their country? Is it proper for me to point out ongoing racism in Europe when any topic is brought up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , a place of active genocide until the mid 1990's. Roma are not allowed to swim in Bulgarian pools today! Enlightened Europeans, claiming superiority just like they did in 1930's Germany, an inclination that will come out again if given the chance. The superiority complex is the start.

No, it isn't appropriate or even displaying any intellectual ability. It is like 5th graders sneaking mommy and daddies laptop and agitating at a similar level. What it is - is exceedingly small minds that are trolling hard and poorly. And it is a very bad and destructive look, and in prior activity, quite similar to the trolling by people with severe psychosexual problems and general hatred that brought down USENET. When I first was on USENET, I could have conversations with actual experts in my field. Then the perverts and axe grinders swamped the place. The experts and even the dilettantes all left eventually. I fear the retreads might do the same to Slashdot.

It's all a small price to pay for Eat Your Veggies.

Let me spell it out for you. Here are some specific areas the university folks have no idea about:

- They usually learn little about different database systems, and the factors that set one apart from another. If they've used a database at all, it was a trendy NoSQL database like MongoDB. Ask them to contrast SQL Server with Postgres or MySQL, and they usually can't tell you the strengths and weaknesses of each, or how you would choose one over the other.
- They almost never know about ORMs such as Entity Framework or Hibernate or Dapper, or whether it's a good idea to use a framework at all.
- They know nothing about scale, or what it takes to support millions of concurrent users.
- They usually know nothing about solid unit testing principles, or mocking.
- They usually know nothing about authentication flows or scopes or nonces, or which flows are more or less secure, and why.
- They rarely know about security vulnerabilities, even trivial attacks like SQL Injection, or how to prevent them.
- They usually know nothing about deployment automation, why you do deployment automation, or the purpose and necessity of lower environments.
- They never know about engineering large, interconnected software systems. All they've ever built are little demonstration projects to turn in to the professor.

You show me a candidate with an advanced degree that can demonstrate knowledge in these areas, I will happily hire them. Most, however, do not, because school doesn't teach what it takes to engineer software in the real world.

Wow, I'm becoming famous!

Different era - that would be the Big Foreplay.

You could be like this guy.

https://www.mercurynews.com/20...

Sounds like *you* have a chip on your shoulder! Maybe you have an advanced degree, and take issue with my statement for that reason? That would explain a lot. If so, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. But I don't take back my observation.

The strikes against these developers aren't *my* doing. They don't have "a strike against them" because I don't like them. The degree itself is the strike against them. Their desire to pursue higher degrees is a side effect of the goals students strive for. Those who strive to be developers, see higher degrees as an impediment to getting out there and doing what they really want to do: create software. Those who strive for higher degrees, are more interested in pure knowledge than actually doing. So what I have noticed is not due to a prejudice, it's simply a correlation I have observed.

And is it your thesis that teh EU can enforce their will? Because someone will. Or is it your thesis that the EU should be isolationist and rely on their superior qualities to bring the world to a different conclusion, ruled by that moral superiority?

Whether you like or dislike the USA, do you believe that there are no reasons ever for military involvement? Example, After WW2, and the late 1940's, the USSR and China were very expansionist, the US stood in their way, in a series of proxy wars. If this happened with the EU as the top dog, should they just allow that to happen? And if they stood in teh way, would the US be able to sustain what the USA did?

the questions and answers are not as simple as many believe, Would you like to live under Russian or Chinese influence as opposed to having the USA involved?Another tough question.

Another tough question - is the EU capable of withstanding the integral issues and mindsets that brought forth the National Socialists and their resulting genocide? There were even genocidal actions in the 1990's.

Am I wrong for being concerned, or has the EU changed so much that it will never happen again.

Do you have concerns about left wing extremists?

And you know - every word you write drips with hatred for the USA. I ask questions b asked on the fact that no country is immune from perfidy, and you write more invective.

So this has become pointless, if you don't think you hate the USA, you have been brainwashed.