(It's difficult to find an excellent authoritative link clearly explaining that the change was in the 1966 edition - there is 'The History of The Hobbit' by John D. Rateliff, but I can't find it online)
I love this idea, and agree the bugs are important and embarrassing, but find the “it should only take Apple 320 hours to fix Mail search” to be so insulting that it ruins it for me.
Fair source sounds like a really bad idea. The problem is if you let someone else define what reasonable limits to competition are, you end up in court and learn that it can be anything. Say a company sells me fair source, but I don’t like the company so I fire them and take over for myself? Well, now I get to try to convince a court that I’m not competing, despite clearly having cost them one customer. Just study the history of the constitutions commerce clause, where everything can and has been construed to affect interstate commerce.
These articles scare my mom and she gets convinced she will be hacked. I wish there was a way to write stories like this to make it clear it's a real, important issue, but not directly to you. Mom banking on an iPhone is the safest way to bank yet invented, but she sees articles like this and ends up thinking exactly the opposite.
So basically: law intended to encourage domestic industry via economic pressure has intended effect.
It's just a one sided argument that any form of trade protectionism is bad.
Going to college is still the most successful route towards landing an interview. My managers generally won’t let me schedule an interview with somebody with no degree, even with personal recommendations. And all of my coworkers have college degrees.
I hope people don’t read stories like this and draw general conclusions based on rare outliers.
I've had it take 80 applications to actually get one on-site interview before (and I have a pretty good resume). I would not be suggesting people consider major life changes based on a few dozen attempts not progressing, it can definitely take more than that without reflecting on you.
it’s weird. The WARN law requires notice, but, the penalty for violating the law is you have to pay people 60 days of pay. So paying instead of providing notice is technically illegal, but enforcement is pointless if you pay people with no additional conditions. That being said, if you make the pay conditional such as requiring a non disparagement clause, that can be a problem, and is likely going to be a problem here. (Can’t be sure yet, I don’t believe anyone has the details from Twitter yet)
I have given over 100 on site interviews for a large well regarded company, and I’d say about 20 percent can’t seem to program at all. I have only actually asked FizzBuzz once because it feels terrible to go with that simple a question, but they were failing another easy question and I wanted to calibrate if the easy question was too hard or they really couldn’t program. They completely failed fizz buzz - they started a for loop but couldn’t decide what to do in it, and the idea of directly translating each instruction in fizz buzz into a line of code in the for loop didn’t seem to gel with them. I know there is no way to know for sure, but it didn’t feel like just nerves - it really felt like they had no idea how to do word problems in math class, they couldn’t turn a description with a few bullet points into code implementing them.
So, for what it’s worth, I’ve definitely seen it. I don’t even think it’s particularly uncommon.
What an awful article. Expensive conclusions are drawn with no apparent consideration for their cost. The experience of a company which appears to have successfully balanced complicated tradeoffs in choosing features is discounted because there were bugs. And almost no examples or useful stories about any detail, or suggestions on how to do it better other than to go (much) slower and to spend (much) more or to not take rich customers money.
I suspect good arguments could be made for these things, but they need to acknowledge and justify their cost.
Grubhub charges restaurants for phone orders based on some claimed artificial intelligence determining that an order was placed on the phone call + the average price of the last 6 internet orders. A reporter easily found examples where reviewing calls where they decided to charge came up with false positives.
"I reviewed some of the recordings for Ghost Truck Kitchen and found multiple false positives, where Grubhub charged the restaurant between $7.80 and $7.92 per call for informational phone calls that did not result in an order."
This actually isn't the "all your base are belong to us" situation. This is "we will stop employing you if you do [x]", not "we will own [x]". That's a much, much, much lower bar. They are legally not required to have cause to fire me, so being right doesn't help.
So, sure, I would own the videogame mod if I did it on my own time with my own resources. But I could also be out of a job. Being right but unemployed doesn't sound comforting - I like the job, and they've been up front about the terms, and I'd rather quit if I find them sufficiently unacceptable than risk being fired.
Edit:
It actually looks like moonlighting is officially protected here, but conflicts are still disallowed, so I guess it's possible it could end up in court debating whether programming is a conflict. I already have the opinion of one side in writing (yes, it is a conflict, they claim), but at least it might be debatable.
Still, not particularly anxious to end up in court arguing that somebody should be forced to continue employing me after I did something they told me not to do on the grounds that they shouldn't have told me not to do it... complicated mess.
Monetized: Management must approve. Doubt they do, haven't asked.
Hobby: Not allowed to do anything similar to what employer does. Got an official opinion from legal that employer programs, working on a videogame mod is programming (although employer does not program videogames), so therefore I'm not allowed to work on a videogame mod. I'm not certain the employee manual agrees with the official opinion from legal, but I'm not really in a position to be able to disagree.
So, well, no side gigs. It's just something you have to agree to for this job, and it's a good job, so such is life. Maybe you could do it and hope they don't find out, but they have clear documented grounds to fire you if they do, so why risk a good job?
At least there isn't any non-compete. If I don't like the rules, I can always quit and go work somewhere else. Before this west coast job, every prior programming job I had was on the east coast and involved some sort of non-compete agreement (they tended to be slightly limited, like you can't work at these 5 competitors or you can't leave to work for a client, but 'slightly limited' can actually be highly limiting when those 5 competitors are the best employers for your specific expertise).
Other languages adaptions had larger gollum's also - see some at e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/vy7vij/before_the_196...
(It's difficult to find an excellent authoritative link clearly explaining that the change was in the 1966 edition - there is 'The History of The Hobbit' by John D. Rateliff, but I can't find it online)