I don't use tests, and I find that when I need to make a change to some code that has, say, four or five different paths through the logic, a lot of times one of the paths will break. Testing all of the paths manually each time there is a change is incredibly tedious and time-consuming. I feel like if I had unit tests I would be able to just see instantly if anything was broken. But, I never can seem to find the time to write them...
Sure, but then you have to live in St. Louis, Missouri.
I'm sure I could move to a third world country and have an even lower cost of living. As though it were otherwise equivalent to living in a top US city.
SF is a tech echo-chamber with terrible public transit and rental market that probably wouldn't be so expensive if anyone were allowed to build anything. On top of all that it has managed to attract more douchebags ("tech gold rush") per capita than Manhattan.
I'm not sure the density of craft cocktails bars and farm-to-table restaurants, or the fact that it never gets too hot makes up for the drawbacks.
I actually understand the attraction of the Bay area in terms of climate, access to mountains and oceans and redwood forests, and the overall vibe of the place. If I were interested in moving somewhere else (which I'm not), and someone wanted to give me a really big pile of money, I'd definitely consider moving there especially if I didn't have to commute.
That said, I definitely get your comments. Aspects of the Silicon Valley mindset can get to be a bit much after a while. Much of the actual valley is suburban sprawl with awful traffic and I find SF itself something of a mixed bag even if it has a lot of positives.
SF is def way more than just those things you cherry picked. Also, the "more douchebags per capita than Manhattan" -- you're going to need a citation for that.
Personally, I like the people here - both counter cultural, and also scientific. Very friendly to us aspy-leaning folks. A place where someone can say "I quit my job and am doing {teaching yoga, making the aforementioned craft cocktails, etc}" without judgement. A place where, quite literally, the core of our technological world is being invented. The weather is a bonus, and the accessibility to the great American west.
I've yet to meet someone who feels this way who's actually tried getting out of their house beyond going to the aforementioned cocktail bars. If you're an uninteresting person and uninterested in exploring, the city you're in isn't going to magically be interesting the second you step out the door. But hey no complaints here, that just means the fun parts of sf are all the less crowded.
Complaints about the rent and transit are obviously legitimate, though you may be overestimating the quality of transit in most other cities.
Complaints about the rent and transit are obviously legitimate, though you may be overestimating the quality of transit in most other cities.
Other cities either have similarly insane rent and much better transit (NYC), or similarly bad transit and much cheaper rent (basically everywhere else).
I've visited SF and the outlying areas. It's nice. But with all the car traffic to get anywhere outside the mass-transit grid (and the West Coast sprawl that's a side-effect of having enough land to sprawl onto), it's not nearly nice enough to justify the outsized cost of living.
Maybe in the future my attitude will change, but as of right now you literally could not pay me enough to move to the SF / MTV area.
Mountain View is a typical upper-middle class suburb that exist in every US city with >100k population. It's single family houses with strip malls and horrible commute from anywhere. Really nothing to boast about. Minority of employees live in SF and waste 2.5 hours of their life on commute.
Speaking as someone who lives in a developing world tax haven, I'd almost rather live here than in SF, even if they cost the same. But it's not even close. I told the Google recruiter that they can't afford me, so please stop emailing me. They can't pay me enough to make up for the difference in cost of living.
Sure, but then you have to live in St. Louis, Missouri.
Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Austin, Minneapolis, and Boston are more affordable than the Bay Area, and generally considered to be good places to live. (I won't say anything either way about St. Louis, because I don't know anything about it. I was there about 12 years ago and will probably be there this year for Strange Loop, but that's it.) There isn't a lack of affordable, good places to live in the U.S. There isn't even a lack of affordable, good places to live in cities: Chicago is still the Second City, culturally. L.A. is just a company town for the entertainment industry and way too spread out.
New York is expensive but actually worth it in terms of urban amenity (unlike SF). There really isn't anywhere in the U.S. that has that urban density, so if that's what you want, NYC provides it. San Francisco, on the other hand, wouldn't be on the map except for the VC industry. It has more of a one-dimensional economy than Los Angeles.
The complexity makes it look like we are going to great lengths to minimize the pain of the condemned, supporting the pretense of a "humane" execution and undermining the claims of opponents that the punishment is cruel and unusual.
This isn't my experience, at least for YouTube. If I'm not logged into Google I only see "recommended for you" video links when I'm not in private browsing mode.
Harder to tell for Google Search - unlike YouTube I never see any indication that search results are based on my history, so any manipulation that's happening is opaque (I never search while logged in, so I don't know if the behavior is different in that case)
How about some sort of agreement between the recruiter and the company that the company will forward resumes they receive to the recruiter?
If the whole arrangement is laid out such that there's a semi-adversarial relationship between the person who has the opening and the person who's trying to fill it, count me out. That situation will infect any interaction that comes out of it.
Because you're spamming jobs in the same way they're spamming applicants. Why do the extra work?
Seriously though, I think this is false logic by the recruiters. Most people will go through the channel that's open to them, where they have been contacted. They're not going to try and find the right contact at the company. There's a tradeoff between people going around you and people ignoring you. I think ignoring is a bigger problem. A job that consists of keywords for an unspecified company with an unspecified salary is just not noticeable.
Compensation - ultimately the company has a budget for hiring for a role, which would include any fees required to bring you on board. In many (not all) cases the recruiter's fee subtracts from your own salary negotiations.
Also, a lot of recruiters are not retained but work on contingency, so they're at best arms-length from the companies they "work" for - it's questionable how "inside" they are. Going with them may not confer as much of an advantage to getting the job as one might think.
In any case, I feel like tech recruiting is a poor solution that encompasses two problems: job discovery, and candidate discovery. Recruiting is effective at the latter, but oftentimes is used to fulfill the former.
> In many (not all) cases the recruiter's fee subtracts from your own salary negotiations.
Do you have evidence of that?
Anecdotally that has not been my experience. While recruitment fees are taken into consideration, between choosing a locally sourced vs 3rd party source candidate, it has had no bearing on salaries.
And in fact, it would work against the company to do this. Either you're going to pay me a salary I consider acceptable, or I'm going to move on. I don't care about your expenses from sourcing talent.
As an employer, the trifling cost of a referral that leads to a hire doesn't even enter into the conversation. Any candidate who would go around a recruiter (regardless of the fact that their reasoning is misguided) is demonstrating bad faith already, and I would not hire them.
> Any candidate who would go around a recruiter (regardless of the fact that their reasoning is misguided) is demonstrating bad faith already, and I would not hire them.
Perhaps, but not always. I've been in a situation previously where I felt that the recruiter was not working in my best interest and decided to contact the hiring manager directly.
My anecdata: a former colleague of mine, over 50, just left his enterprise IT development job to make a ton more money with a Salesforce consulting firm. He didn't go to Stanford, he never studied computer science, he didn't start coding until he was in his 30s, and he's only been developing Salesforce for maybe 2 years. He also doesn't have the benefit of a large network or a reputation that preceeds him, but he tells me that he's still getting offers even a week after he accepted his new job. So I'm not sure the picture is so bleak - as long as you're good and you put in a minimum amount of time learning a relevant technology.
"Forbid META redirections inside <noscript> elements"
but then I immediately wondered, what about META redirections outside <noscript> elements? I tested this with a fresh install of Firefox and latest NoScript, and those still work. Also: To forbid meta redirections inside noscript elements you have to toggle an option, it's not standard for non-trusted sites.
Did you test the META redirection with a background tab? I'm pretty sure NoScript added an unconditional block of background redirects within a week or so of this attack being publicized.
