[deleted]
Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
231–240 of 370 posts
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
IQ just means potential not capability. Given enought time I believe most people can be trained to do almost any job. I don't think our brain suddenly evolved in 200 years from illiterate peasants to software engineers. We just have more school time these days.
Since it is empirically obvious that 200 years ago the world was not entirely populated by illiterate peasants ...perhaps your population model of the distribution of IQ and causes thereof is inaccurate.
Not entirely but the vast majority. It's empirically obvious writting existed 200 years ago therefore someone somewhere knew how to write.
What do you think people did before the industrial revolution?
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#233Google is often criticized for not hiring developers who "still need more work", and instead hires experienced people. Hiring less capable people and training them internally would make some sense to me.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know, I work there. Most I know don't even bother applying since it is hard to get an interview, they don't see getting into Google as an alternative. All Google would need to Gobble up all talent in Europe is basically to start pestering every developer like they do in Silicon valley, they already pay twice of what 99% of developers are earning so taking everything would be easy for them.
Does Google pay more than decents contracts in European big cities (i.e. 120k+ €)?
Depending on your skill level: yes.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#235Hey, I'm looking for that career change, I got some diversity points. How do we get in on this?
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
i partially agree. e.g. public sector labor unions in Los Angeles have succeeded at maintaining high wages and great benefits for themselves. but when you say the solution "isn't to clamp down on the supply" i lose the thread of your argument. clamping down on the supply is exactly what a public sector union does. union work rules and other union-favorable city regulations exclude or limit non-union workers who might…
"but when you say the solution "isn't to clamp down on the supply" i lose the thread of your argument." I've not seen an example of this. And I do not consider being a member of the union to be clamping down.
here's an example: in LA a large number of electrical power poles are at end of life and need replacement. but the city is slowed by union rules in efforts to contract this work out to take advantage of the labor force at large:
One key obstacle, officials say, is the contract with DWP’s largest union, IBEW Local 18. The agreement requires that managers negotiate with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers before hiring contractors. Initially, the department is supposed to attempt to fill any internal vacant positions, Howard said. The contract also obligates managers to offer IBEW workers overtime to fill some of the need.
IBEW business manager Brian D’Arcy declined to be interviewed for this story.
from: http://www.dailynews.com/2014/05/06/dwp-lagging-behind-on-re...
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've clearly never met a person who is unable to place a hanger inside of a shirt and hang it on a rack, or a person who can't sort 5 single-digit numbers mentally. What you are describing are 120+ IQ problems.
You make this sound like someone with an IQ less than 120 is mentally impaired. An IQ of 100 is defined as the median IQ level for a population. The range between 90 and 130 covers the whole gamut of human intelligence that's commonly considered normal. Much of the day-to-day work in IT often doesn't need original thinking but merely skillful application of known methods and patterns, which in turn doesn't require a…
Find one successful programmer at Google/Apple/Facebook/Cisco/etc. with an IQ of 90. Remembering basic equations, keeping long sequences of functions sorted in your head, even understanding FTP/Git/CL instructions require this level cognitive ability. When you deal with people who can't hang shirts you'll start to understand this. There are just under 200 million Americans with IQs between "can't hang shirts" and "productive programmer."
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true. It's a common complaint among engineers that developing line-of-business or CRUD applications is tedious and not challenging enough as it doesn't require a lot of creative thinking. Truth of the matter is that most tech work doesn't involve AI, machine learning, self-driving cars or augmented reality but down-to-earth business applications. Developing those requires abstract thinking, empathy and pro…
>doesn't require a lot of creative thinking It doesn't, but you still need "higher level" developers to cover security and concurrent/parallel/distributed problems and maybe architecture. It's not that someone can't also learn that stuff, but exposing a product publicly without some experience in those areas is asking for trouble. IMO, Software is resisting division of labor and work by collapsing roles into "Full st…
I agree there have to be different skill levels but I think that distinction has to occur within denominations like 'full stack' and 'DevOps'. These labels simply determine what you do not how skilled you're at it.
In my opinion, full stack and DevOps is the normal, sane way of approaching software development. Artificially dividing up roles into labels such as 'front-end', 'back-end', 'database programmer', 'system administrator' only leads to more silos, less collaboration and sometimes even downright hostility between these roles.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#239It's never been easier to get training in all sorts of things, for free. For example, I'm currently taking MIT's 6.002 electronics course because I never learned circuit analysis properly. It's on youtube, it's free, I watch it anytime. There's the Khan Academy, too.
Training often requires other resources besides one-way communication. A professor who only lectured and didn't otherwise interact with students would be a bad, ineffective teacher.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Far and away most people are healthy 20-60 and are not sidelined by disastrous health problems. The point is invest early in your working life, and you'll have the needed results when you're ready to retire. $1,000 is not what people would consider "having money" is. $200,000 is. If you have a car, it surely cost far more than $1,000.
A car is a necessity in most of America for getting around. Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around. And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself. And depending on who you're talking to, having a spare $1,000 risk on investment is "having money".
> Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around.
True enough. Because they spend it, like the person who bought a new car. How much do they spend on beer/cigarettes/weed in a year?
> And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself.
That's true. Apparently investing is more than "doing nothing", and one is taking a risk. But it is within the means of the vast majority of adults.