It's because defining requirements is someone else's job, so if you get involved, you will be doing part of their job while you might already be working at your capacity.
The Agile style user stories that often lack technical details because the author doesn't know enough about the technical details means the developer is the one actually writing the requirements (usually as they are doing the work).
It would be nice if only the people with real conviction were doing things by choice, but that isn't realistic. Most people are compelled to have a job, and the system has no guarantee of placing you in the job where you best fit.
It's possible he is right, but it is also possible that these traits aren't trainable, and without that, you may not have a population sufficient enough to sustain his ideal.
>Comparison to the rest of the market (on both sides) is the crux here, not being 'honest' or whatever (what does this even mean). Isn't it?
That market comparison is fraught with conditions and often only follows ill-defined job titles.
If you take a look at one of these postings - https://jobs.netflix.com/jobs/292552236 - you'll note that the way it's written, there aren't any exceptional job requirements here. It's hard to see why the salary range has such a high ceiling.
Obviously in the interview, they could have much higher requirements, but we don't know that unless someone from Netflix chimes in.
For example,
>You have knowledge of various regulations and controls (SOX, PCI, CCPA, GDPR, etc)
how much is knowledge of each of those worth towards the final salary? Pricing each of those would add more fidelity to the market's signals, but companies often don't do that. Same with technical skills or knowledge of individual products: how much is AWS knowledge worth at the beginner, intermediate, and expert levels to a job that needs AWS knowledge?
This is like buying a publicly traded stock (not yolo'ing) with roughly 80% of the company information not available to you. That information is there for a reason because it promotes market efficiency. It allows you to more easily compare two companies that do similar work.
This is what is meant by honesty, but the job market hides this information. And the job market is often dishonest because it does not price these things, because it is hiding information from applicants, because that gives an advantage to employers. An extremely wide salary range here only serves that goal.
And on the employee side, it would mean that I can go learn AWS to a certain level, and I know that skill would contribute $X amount to the final salary that I can ask for. I don't have to play games trying to sell my skills for more than they're worth.
How far are they going to go to validate it’s legit if you make one up?
But say you don’t want to forge one for just any company because that might not be legal. You could make your own company with a site and make offer letters that way.
Most people don't know what a $400k Security Engineer actually does to warrant that pay because you can probably find a similar job at another company that pays much less and probably makes you work more. I sure as fuck don't and I at least have one pentesting cert FWIW.
This pricing scheme punishes people trying to be honest about their skill set. Otherwise why stop at the average? Just max it out and ask for $700k. Another $300k/yr won't break Netflix's bank and everyone else is getting rich that they won't care to call you out either.
>The GPTs/GPT Agents and Assistants demos in particular showed that they are a black box within a black box within a black box that you can't port anywhere else.
This just rings hollow to me. We lost the fights for database portability, cloud portability, payments/billing portability, and other individual SaaS lock-in. I don't see why it'll be different this time around.
Better than companies doing their own thing and not having any restrictions or oversight at all. Remember that those companies will get rid of some portion of their workers as soon as they think an AI can do most of that work. Heck, they did layoffs and started hiring again without any advancements.
>Your commit message should have a short title explaining the change and the body should go into as much detail as necessary into why the change took place, I can see the what from looking at the diff.
That sounds tedious like commenting every line of code. You might have to do this if the code is hard to read and maintain though. Most of the time the why is "because feature X demands that it change".
Maybe it's just me, but I prefer squashed merges because lots of small commits are also annoying to switch between and if I'm diving into git history, I'm investigating and have some extra time to understand everything instead of relying on commit messages.
If you do it for yourself, that's great, but you should withhold the benefits of that from the company if they aren't going to reward you for being better.
But why should any of us bother picking up new skills and adjusting mindsets if the author has to fight for a raise after saving the company $500k?
Secondarily, why should the author continue to fix things like this when they don't benefit, but others responsible are also not facing any consequences?
My guess is they aren't seeing how much they're going to need for retirement (maybe it's much cheaper in Finland than the US), or have not thought about it, or have accepted/decided that they will work for more of their lives.