Show HN: Let's end the Programmer Salary Taboo • Hacker News Board

Re: Show HN: Let's end the Programmer Salary Taboo

#161

Post by jtheory » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 4:34 PM UTC

Joakal wrote: post #147

rglullis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be okay with the cert provided by webfaction (where the site is hosted?), for now? https://salaryshare.me

Firefox throws an untrusted connection warning that this certificate belongs to another website.

It's a stopgap measure (because you have to click through the cert exception, because the domain name on the cert doesn't match the URL), but it will still encrypt the data just fine.

The warning will confuse some people (such as yourself); that's why the dev asked if it was okay.

Re: Show HN: Let's end the Programmer Salary Taboo

#162

Post by trusko » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 4:35 PM UTC

I don't agree with comparisons like that. I had two developers one making $10k more that the other, both about the same quality I would say. I didn't set their salaries, they had salaries negotiated when they joined the company. I thought it was unfair. It's not. Everybody has different skills, work ethics, productivity and on top of that expectations. The guy with $70k always complained about salary while $60k guy was completely happy.

It's up to everybody to negotiate salary that makes them happy, if you are not able to move on somewhere else where somebody will pay you what you are asking for.

However, putting all this aside, this application could be useful in environments where you have at least 5-10 people with the same skills, seniority, productivity, otherwise you are comparing apples and oranges.

Also, a lot of companies prohibit you from discussing your salary with other co-workers or not?

Re: Show HN: Let's end the Programmer Salary Taboo

#163

Post by Retric » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 6:56 PM UTC

btrask wrote: post #155

Retric wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must be missing something. That's a N^2 operation on an unsorted list. ~N Log N if you sort it first. And N to insert a new entry to a sorted list.

Yes, it requires a sorted list, but so does the naïve implementation. The performance is equivalent to binary search to find the entry, although you then have to scan backwards to make sure you have the first entry with the same value. Since performance is probably not an issue for most rankings, the biggest benefit is a clear, easy to remember definition, which should reduce the chances of making the same mistake la…

If you are inserting 3 into an indexed and sorted list (1,2,4,5) you can calculate the index of 3 in O(Log N). But you also need to update the index of 4, and 5 which is an O(N) operation.

Re: Show HN: Let's end the Programmer Salary Taboo

#164

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 8:58 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #163

btrask wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it requires a sorted list, but so does the naïve implementation. The performance is equivalent to binary search to find the entry, although you then have to scan backwards to make sure you have the first entry with the same value. Since performance is probably not an issue for most rankings, the biggest benefit is a clear, easy to remember definition, which should reduce the chances of making the same mistake la…

If you are inserting 3 into an indexed and sorted list (1,2,4,5) you can calculate the index of 3 in O(Log N). But you also need to update the index of 4, and 5 which is an O(N) operation.

[deleted]