With hookers and black jack.
Actually, forget the cryptocurrency.
With hookers and black jack.
Actually, forget the cryptocurrency.
I hated all of you before social media.
If pressed, RRA, you'd have a very hard time supporting those statements.
Now if you had said gushing torrent instead of drip-drip-drip, played back at double speed, you'd be on to something.
What fanatical point? In response to someone saying they weren't aware of Trump saying anything racist, I referred to a racist thing Trump said.
It's not moving the post, and it's not a red herring. I didn't say everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. I will say everyone who voted for Trump should have been aware of the racist things he said. It's not as if there was any lack of media coverage for Trump during the campaign.
But I don't consider myself racist, and I'm not quite sure the major racist things Trump has said or promotes.
That you don't consider it racist when Trump questions a judge's qualifications and ability based on that judge's ancestry says a lot about you.
So supposedly some survey says Americans support municipal broadband. And then those Americans go out and elect politicians who outlaw municipal broadband.
Surveys say Americans support a higher minimum wage. And then those Americans go out and elect politicians who will fight any minimum wage increase.
Surveys say Americans support the individual aspects of the Affordable Care Act (when asked about the actual policies and not just about "Obamacare"). And then those Americans go out and elect politicians who will repeal the ACA.
Surveys says Americans value clean air and water. And then those Americans go out and elect politicians who will defund and eventually destroy the EPA.
Either these surveys are full of shit, or Americans are.
I'm guess the truth lie somewhere in "all of the above" territory.
Company accused of bias claims there is no bias. No one got "schooled."
Any old 8 or 16-bit software from decades past, if we have any of that software around today, it still works. And all we'd need to run it was the appropriate hardware.
Software you buy today, might not work in 6 months. It almost certainly, like 99.99% certain, won't work in decades. And if it even works today as you buy it, it only works when it can connect to some authorizing server. So we have no idea, literally no idea what is required for current software to run. You have the software, the hardware, an internet connection, and some mysterious something out there on the other end of the wire.
So what do I miss? I miss software that works.
You get all my mod points.
Which unfortunately today is zero.
No one was arrested because they sent a picture someone didn't like.
If the facts as reported are true, there was real intent and possibility of injury.
Water will stay clean, air will stay fresh, fewer industries will be crushed by pointless over-regulation
Your view is very short sighted, and quite frankly, contraindicated by reality.
The EPA and regulations like the Clean Water Act didn't just spring forth from some left-wing conspiracy. They were developed in response to real problems. Maybe people forget blankets of smog over major cities, trash lining major roads, rivers catching fire. The things we're talking about here are not luxuries, are not options. Air to breathe and water to drink are basic necessities.
Sometimes solutions outlive the problems they are intended to address and should be removed, but there's no reason to expect that to be true here. We continue to see people make short-sided decisions. I'd say "over-regulation" is a statement of opinion, I'm not going to argue your opinion, but "pointless" is a statement of fact, and you have your facts wrong.
As an analogy, it's easy to think vaccines are unnecessary or not worth their risk because, hey, when's the last time you saw someone with polio or small pox? But it's precisely that vaccines are so effective that you don't see those things.
So sure, we have for the most part air we can breath and water we can drink, but it's because of the EPA. And when the EPA goes away, so will those things.
Their software not only has a preference for left turns, it seems to calculate that saving 1000 feet by directing you to a left onto a busy major road without benefit of a traffic light is quicker than driving those extra feet to an intersection with a traffic light, where you may wait for the light, but at least you're assured of getting in a left turn some time today.
Obviously, but your salary is categorically not allowed to be covered by NDA
Because mine has been on several occasions.
Where are you that an NDA covers your salary? In the USA, where many folks involve a third party in preparing tax documents, not sharing your salary is impossible.
The key is to getting a good salary is to know what your work is worth, what people are paying for your skills.
This is Hard to find out. Also, to persuade people in a negotiation you need to be able to get some kind of source to be able to prove your claims.
It also varies between local markets, and near as I can tell, there aren't even companies I can buy this information from....
I agree early in a career this information can be hard to find. But by mid-career (5 to 10 years in), in addition to the resources mentioned in other responses, you should know the market for your industry and profession. If everything else fails, at the very least you have been discussing pay with your peers, right? RIGHT?
McDonalds knows what Burger King charges for a hamburger. (Heck, they also know what they pay their employees.) You should know what the guy or gal in the next office or cube is charging for their hamburgers. As for difference between markets, that's why you're comparing notes with the folks around you. The idea that employees shouldn't share salary is a myth started by EMPLOYERS who don;t want you to have that information.
As for sources or proof...I'm the source. "I'll accept this position for the benefits as outlined and salary of $Z per year." The proof is if they offer less than $Z, I don't take the job.
The lesson is to answer the _real_ question. When a hiring manager, or especially an independent recruiter, asks about your current salary or salary history, what they really want to know is, what are you looking for in _this_ position. And that's how I've always answered.
My most recent job search was coming from a employer known to pay below-market. But rather than complicate things with a response like, "I'm getting $X now but in my next position I'd like $Y," I'd just say "I'm looking for $Y."
But that also presumes I've properly assessed my position and am actually worth $Y on the market.
Torque is cheap.