On May 21 2015 06:05 Frolossus wrote: i was under the impression that software engineers were slightly higher up on the chain than average programmers. like the kind of people that mostly have to go to meetings discussing the software that needs to be developed then telling the lower level employees what to work on .
I don't work in the field but from the discussion I had with my brother it seems that people just throw "software engineer" on their CV if they did any kind of programming. He recently moved to Amazon and there supposedly they moving away from using that term instead using something else that for the life of me I can't recall. I'd ask him but he's sleep now :<.
On May 21 2015 05:33 thejuju wrote: I'm taking a year off from one of the most prestigious schools in the America, if not the world, and being back home really seemed to tell of how stupidly much a degree from a good school gives you advantages.
It took me literally months to find some sort of minimum wage paying part-time job, because I'd show employers my resume and they're like wtf, so I wouldn't get fired. I had to stop saying where I went to school because they seemed to be intimidated? idk really. I landed my current job without ever saying where I went to school.
Although it was pretty funny when everyone found out the dishwasher was a Princeton student
There are some areas that won't hire cops who have an IQ higher than 110 because apparently the average cop's IQ is ~102 or some shit. Such metrics like higher education, IQ, etc as a deciding factor against hiring always made me laugh. A person is willing to work cheaper than they're actually worth, and you're saying "no" to that because of some arbitrary bs you made up in your tiny head? It doesn't surprise me after being in the same class as a ton of management majors who went "huh, I never thought about that" when my one class essentially went over the idea that "old people are people too and have the similar wants/desires as other people." But at the same time it still makes me shake my head. ~.~
They don't want to hire someone who is overqualified because they don't want to waste time, money, and effort to train someone who could very easily get another position elsewhere at the drop of a hat.
As for cops, well, we could certainly use a smarter and better trained police force.
On May 21 2015 05:33 thejuju wrote: I'm taking a year off from one of the most prestigious schools in the America, if not the world, and being back home really seemed to tell of how stupidly much a degree from a good school gives you advantages.
It took me literally months to find some sort of minimum wage paying part-time job, because I'd show employers my resume and they're like wtf, so I wouldn't get fired. I had to stop saying where I went to school because they seemed to be intimidated? idk really. I landed my current job without ever saying where I went to school.
Although it was pretty funny when everyone found out the dishwasher was a Princeton student
There are some areas that won't hire cops who have an IQ higher than 110 because apparently the average cop's IQ is ~102 or some shit. Such metrics like higher education, IQ, etc as a deciding factor against hiring always made me laugh. A person is willing to work cheaper than they're actually worth, and you're saying "no" to that because of some arbitrary bs you made up in your tiny head? It doesn't surprise me after being in the same class as a ton of management majors who went "huh, I never thought about that" when my one class essentially went over the idea that "old people are people too and have the similar wants/desires as other people." But at the same time it still makes me shake my head. ~.~
They don't want to hire someone who is overqualified because they don't want to waste time, money, and effort to train someone who could very easily get another position elsewhere at the drop of a hat.
As for cops, well, we could certainly use a smarter and better trained police force.
we could use a police force. sincerely, detroit area.
On May 21 2015 06:05 Frolossus wrote: i was under the impression that software engineers were slightly higher up on the chain than average programmers. like the kind of people that mostly have to go to meetings discussing the software that needs to be developed then telling the lower level employees what to work on .
id say kinda, in my (limited) experience engineers just tackle larger problems / answer broader questions. there are still project leads/managers/architects that make the higher level decisions, whom are also generally engineers, but we could be assigned questions like "are we going to use hardware or software raid and why?" or "should we start using the new version of this OS for this product?" or "make this go faster". But like yango said there is a lot of overlap between software developers and software engineers due to the nature of the beast and probably very different from place to place. I spend very little time in meetings at my place because we use skype and tickets for lots of communication. Most of the work I do i would classify under what I call software developer even tho that's not my position title/"education.level" or w.e. I classify the difference based on if someone actually graduated with engineering or not tho which isn't wholly accurate/used by the employers
On May 21 2015 05:51 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Well, there's also the idea that people with higher degrees expect/will ask for higher salaries, so it's not worth going through the whole hiring process and waste time/effort only to have it break down at the salary negotiation stage. I know it's quite common for PhDs say they only have a Master's when looking for industry jobs.
Eh in a way PhD's are not as attractive for industry. They're fall less malleable than graduates
Only a certain level of crazy get PhD's anyway.
this explains why my japanese biochem professor was pretty eclectic, 2 phd's and an md.
On May 21 2015 05:05 Ketara wrote: Anyway, just saying that in my personal experience I know several people with good tech jobs and little to no formal schooling.
This is something of a unique feature to programming. The people who manage to do this in other STEM fields are typically genius-level.
It's partly cultural (SEE: Bill Gate's iconic origins), partly the volatility of the industry, and partly its accessibility. All in all it's an anomaly and not a template for how other fields can effectively function or a solid plan for your average professional hopeful.
I would say that it is the inaccessibility of programming that makes it easier to hire with less qualifications. We've gotten to a point where you have so many abstracted layers of code that eventually flip bits at an electronics level that you don't actually have to understand much in order to do things, yet at the same time the logical thinking required to "think like a computer" is a big enough turnoff that not many people enter the field.
A lot of development is the equivalent difficulty level of operating an espresso machine, or assembling IKEA furniture, but everything is just written in a different language so most people don't try.
The term is a little muddled because technically the field "Software Engineering" is essentially the engineering analogue of "Computer Science" the same way other pure science fields have corresponding engineering fields--but the actual meaning of the term "Software Engineer" got mixed up due to employers using the term liberally to try and entice applicants.
The end result is that there's a confusing disconnect between the field of software engineering, and someone saying their role/position is a software engineer.
Does anybody know how battery banks for cellphones work?
I'm completely convinced that if I unplug my phone when its charged, wait for it to get low, then plug it back in etc, I will get more out of this portable battery doohickey than if I just leave the phone plugged in to it.
On May 21 2015 05:38 Ketara wrote: I have a friend who had that problem recently and it would have been really funny if it wasn't so sad. In order to get a job he had to straight up lie about his credentials and say they were much worse than they are.
The Otter is going through that now. She doesn't really want to do law anymore but lots of related fields consider anyone with a JD to be too over qualified.
On May 21 2015 06:33 Ketara wrote: Does anybody know how battery banks for cellphones work?
I'm completely convinced that if I unplug my phone when its charged, wait for it to get low, then plug it back in etc, I will get more out of this portable battery doohickey than if I just leave the phone plugged in to it.
Could very much be true. Phones have different use rates when charging/not charging for one, and the power bank will leak some current when you try to overcharge your phone.
It shouldn't matter that much though. Most phones these days don't have much charging leak anymore.
On May 21 2015 06:33 Ketara wrote: Does anybody know how battery banks for cellphones work?
I'm completely convinced that if I unplug my phone when its charged, wait for it to get low, then plug it back in etc, I will get more out of this portable battery doohickey than if I just leave the phone plugged in to it.
well yeah, if your phone is already charged, why do you have it plugged into the battery bank?
On May 21 2015 05:38 Ketara wrote: I have a friend who had that problem recently and it would have been really funny if it wasn't so sad. In order to get a job he had to straight up lie about his credentials and say they were much worse than they are.
The Otter is going through that now. She doesn't really want to do law anymore but lots of related fields consider anyone with a JD to be too over qualified.
Means she should apply higher up in the field she wants to do. IMO if your background is "overqualified" even in a different field, then it means you're not applying for a high enough position. Also it's pretty normal to prune your resume and CV to fit the job that you want. So if you think having a JD is completely non-relevant to your field you can always omit it.
On May 21 2015 06:41 jcarlsoniv wrote: yo LT, I know you're rockin' out to this Rand Paul filibuster
Patriot Act should die but I really wouldn't want Rand Paul as president of the US.
Sanders/Warren would be a good ticket for a eurogommie like me.
I don't think Paul would be a good president, but I absolutely respect him for this filibuster.
I enjoyed Bernie's AMA yesterday. I'm not a big fan of his "Robin Hood" proposal, but I believe he is the most trustworthy person in the Senate and in the race. I hope he starts to get more media coverage and given more general respect. I look forward to seeing him in a debate.
Warren ain't gonna run, and I'm kinda ok with it. She's a good voice in the Senate.
American politics is terrible I stopped caring about it a long time ago. Plus I live in democratic california so not like my opinion would make a difference
EPT
