Right. I've had a great time having lunch daily with some groups of co-workers. Others have been boring as hell and there's no way I'm going to spend an interminable extra 30-60 minutes making small talk with them.
If you know that's on the cards when hiring, then I'm sure it's a filter you might not use otherwise, i.e. can I handle having this person at the lunch table every day.
Does anyone not feel a sense of unease when applying all of these "social" filters to hiring decisions? The end result here is you end up hiring people exactly like yourself (and the rest of the group). Being able to do the job well is no longer enough; you have to be "interesting" enough to spend an hour with at lunch everyday. What this essentially comes down to is you need to also be a part of the same culture with the same personality type. This is a very insipid form of discrimination and sadly it seems to have widespread support.
I agree. I've been fortunate enough to work with mostly interesting people over the years where a few have become life long friends. I've also been to offices where lunch was dreaded because most people there you didn't want to have to interact with anymore than required.
I don't need to work with best friends, but if I hated spending any social time with my co-workers I would find another job.
The fundamental law of resources in this world is: if you can't farm it, you must mine it. They're a yin and yang. I come from Montana, a state which basically has only two industries: farming and mining. When you live that close to the land, it becomes very apparent who the actual producers are.
Everything else is wanking. Productive wanking, but wanking nonetheless. The welder is nothing without the miner. Without the farmer, he can't even eat. Me, as a software engineer, I'm so far removed from those who are actually producing things that what I do is as ephemeral as the wind.
I change states on a magnetic disk all day. I lift weights, run, and have a stand-up desk so my body doesn't decay while I do this ludicrously minimal amount of work each day, but because I know how to shape those bits in a certain way, society values me much more than the guy who feeds me, or the guy who mines the rare earths that make my job possible.
Miners use software to find minerals to mine, farmers use Combines and harvesters run with software. The farmers plant seeds and use fertilizers and pesticides that were created with the help of software. Mining and farming equipment is designed and built using software. If a farmer or miner gets sick, a doctor might use software to display and interpret their MRI or ultrasound.
We have come a long way from subsistance farming, and computers, software, and the people who create them have helped make miners and farmers (and everyone else's) lives much easier and better than they would be if people only mined and farmed.
After doing Rails for about 4 years, and Django for about 2 months (but I've been doing python for 10 years now) ... save yourself some pain and learn Django instead, if you can at all help it.
Ruby's documentation culture is hair-tearingly frustrating. Half a paragraph, 3 examples covering the barest functionality of your module, and pages of badly-interfaced mechanically-extracted documentation made me want to punch the monitor several times a day.
Oh, but it's got a pretty web-2.0tard design-minded web site, and of course gitardhub, which is especially a joy if it goes down during a deploy.
Well gee. It's been a while since I've used Digital UNIX, Irix, SCO, or VMS.
Because they've become totally irrelevant.
Seems like a waste of resources when there are more pressing things to do than worry about the 5 people who (a) use VMS and (b) demand a bleeding-edge Apache.
No need to be so acerbic. They are providing a valuable service to you, for free. Apache is older, much more ubiquitous, supports more modules, has a more familiar setup and configuration system for many people, runs on more platforms, etc. It has more legacy issues, which are why it's so popular, but also why it moves slower. Nginx is much newer, doesn't have the same legacy issues, and so could afford to focus on speed.
There's a reason that Apache is installed on just about every random web host you can find, and has a module for every language or environment you need to deel with, while Nginx is a bit more of a specialty web server, usually used for dedicated sites that can spend the time to tune carefully for the highest performance. They both have their place.
It's great that Apache is still innovating moving towards loadable MPMs as well as adding an evented MPM. But it's not a bad thing that they're moving slower than a new server like Nginx; there's room for more than one great free web server in the world.
Your also missing something though. The amount put away into a 401K is much higher in SF then in San Ant. TX. I would much rather work on San Fran for a few years, make a ton for my 401k then move some where cheap and rural in my 30s. San Fran people also have more cash for trips compared to Antonio. Overall, The higher salary is better in the long term.
This dude is ranting about the wrong thing. There are parts of Avatar and Transformers, etc, that look like you're running a game on an overloaded computer.
The problem here isn't televisions running at a high rate. The problem is film adhering to the bleeding edge of what was possible 100 years ago. 24fps is not adequate to handle lots of motion.
