111–120 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah this is a pain point for me as well, especially when developing the pipelines themselves. There's no good way to run it on my own machine, so I'm stuck pushing new commits to Gitlab over and over again and waiting for it to complete, or rather fail so I can troubleshoot the new error.
This thread makes me wonder if the root of the problem is actually the lack of a local runner. I hypothesize that it's the length of the feedback loop that's the real issue. Even if we had a local runner, if it takes a ton of time to start and complete every step, it'd be almost as painful to debug as a remote runner taking the same time. On the other hand, if the cloud runner is ridiculously fast, and completes step…
When running remotely: edit file > commit > push > switch to browser > browse to pipeline > repeat
Vs locally: edit file > run pipeline > repeat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO it's better for our long-term interest if companies can pay what the market will bear. For now splitting the surplus is win-win; as remote work takes off then there wil be more competition and salaries will rise. Growing the pie is better than asking SV employers to overpay on some point of principle.
What? I should not negotiate a better salary with a company on the belief that, in the long term, it will be better for… who? Overpay? How can I be overpaid if the company agrees to pay? Should I be more humble? Should I give up some part of my salary so the company can have more money in their budget? Which pie am I growing by not taking my part? Whose pie? That’s just silly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's much easier to catch up if you can compete on price to start with. Why would a company take a chance on a developer in a new location if they've got to pay just as much? Once there's a critical mass of employers hiring in my location, competition will raise salaries up to parity, but sharing the surplus is what incentivises that competition in the first place.
I am not competing on price. I compete o quality. In your analogy, I am someone who the company needs to “take a chance”, the company is risking hiring a worse employee because I don’t live in SF or the US. That’s not how I see it. The pandemic made a lot of people realize they can hire remotely and be fine. Why should I share the surplus with the company? I am a good developer and I will negotiate to get a better pa…
The whole premise of being employed is that you make more money for the company than they're paying you.
> I am a good developer and I will negotiate to get a better pay. Why wouldn’t I?
So why would you rule out companies that pay location-adjusted salaries? If they're the best offer on the table then you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not competing on price. I compete o quality. In your analogy, I am someone who the company needs to “take a chance”, the company is risking hiring a worse employee because I don’t live in SF or the US. That’s not how I see it. The pandemic made a lot of people realize they can hire remotely and be fine. Why should I share the surplus with the company? I am a good developer and I will negotiate to get a better pa…
> Why should I share the surplus with the company? The whole premise of being employed is that you make more money for the company than they're paying you. > I am a good developer and I will negotiate to get a better pay. Why wouldn’t I? So why would you rule out companies that pay location-adjusted salaries? If they're the best offer on the table then you're shooting yourself in the foot.
I rule out precisely because they never were the best offer in the table for me. There are companies that do not pay location-adjusted salaries that pay better. I was able to get a job in those the last two times I switched jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are going to min-max whatever system you offer. If you don't pay equally and you adjust for cost of living, people are likely going to go for high CoL locations and make you pay the most. If you don't adjust for CoL, you'll likely see your devs leave high CoL areas for lower ones. While you might be "overpaying" them according to their chosen CoL, you're likely underpaying what the high CoL would have demanded…
> It seems counter-intuitive but I imagine that not doing CoL adjustments actually lowers total payroll. That's not the problem that forty was talking about. The issue is that when you drop a ton of employees in an area whose wages are well beyond the norm you create larger societal problems.
In fact, concentrating developers in one place like SF is pretty clearly the far greater social evil than ~evenly dispersing them around the country and letting them live in states/cities that perhaps desperately need the benefits of highly trained skilled workers who will pay a ton of taxes.
I would say that packing most developers into SF and California is far worse for America than letting educated and productive workers find communities around the country, potentially growing tech industries all over. Likely far better for equity, diversity, tax outcomes, and social good. I really can't see any argument for packing them all in California and letting all the other states rot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're "great"? Really? Imo the only sane thing is to write CI/CD pipelines in a scripting language like sh. That way it is portable and doesn't depend on one platform. Gitlab CI supports "include" but not for scripts, just for templates. It's hard to have a centralised repository of scripts and include ones to use in a pipeline. I just don't understand why CI/CD couldn't just be in sh...
It's funny I started my career building exactly what you suggest. Even in shell. Before adopting Hudson (now Jenkins) and the like. Bespoke CI/CD solutions are great, especially if you're the author and tailor it to the business, for a certain size and class of use case. As a business though, it's hardly ever worth the investment/maintenance and ongoing operational cost vs. just externalizing it and dealing with the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should I share the surplus with the company? The whole premise of being employed is that you make more money for the company than they're paying you. > I am a good developer and I will negotiate to get a better pay. Why wouldn’t I? So why would you rule out companies that pay location-adjusted salaries? If they're the best offer on the table then you're shooting yourself in the foot.
I don’t understand your last comment. I rule out precisely because they never were the best offer in the table for me. There are companies that do not pay location-adjusted salaries that pay better. I was able to get a job in those the last two times I switched jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems counter-intuitive but I imagine that not doing CoL adjustments actually lowers total payroll. That's not the problem that forty was talking about. The issue is that when you drop a ton of employees in an area whose wages are well beyond the norm you create larger societal problems.
I don't really think you do. Even poor rural communities have working rich like doctors and lawyers. There are rich rural folk 5 hours from every city. Adding a developer here and there is just a new face of the same working rich, the top 1-2%. In fact, concentrating developers in one place like SF is pretty clearly the far greater social evil than ~evenly dispersing them around the country and letting them live in s…
Those doctors and lawyers aren't getting paid big city salaries.