111–120 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common pattern that companies follow; make a good product now, make money later. Many products become crappy and companies go sour when they turn this corner.
If a profit seeking company makes a product that isn’t profitable, how can it be considered “good”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a profit seeking company makes a product that isn’t profitable, how can it be considered “good”?
I'm speaking from a user/customer's perspective.
I like simple business models. I give the company money and they give me stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A workplace that offers free snacks, drinks, ping-pong tables and relaxation pods is set up to maximize your time spent in the office and encourages a culture that excludes people who value their time off work, for example because they have a family.
I work at Google. I get in at 8, leave at 4, because I value my family time more than my work time and it has not held me back whatsoever. Not even an eyebrow raised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fellas Not just men! Men, Women, and everything in between.
> > fellas > Not just men! Men, Women, and everything in between. fella (fel·la) - nonstandard spelling of fellow, used in representing speech in various dialects. So we follow 'fellow': fellow (fel·low) - a person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another. And so we can conclude that this is completely fine . It can easily be reasoned that the GP was using it to refer…
That said, clearly our experiences and interpretations differ.
There is no right or wrong here. As such I dont think we can easily reason that they were using it to refer to generic group at all as clearly there is confusion and different interpretations of the word. Using "fellas" to address colleagues in an email (for example) that includes non-males may lead you to inadvertently offending people who share my interpretation of the word.
I think it would be better for everyone to just use non-gendered terms in the first place to avoid this sort of confusion and potential to give offense (e.g. "guys" is another loaded term: some people think it is non-gendered, whilst others think it is strongly-gendered - as such probably best avoided in a lot of situations).
Some alternative options that are non-gendered could have been "people", "applicants", or "potential employees" (and for the "hi guys"/"hi fellas" email opening you can just do "hi all" or "hi everyone")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How true is this today?
Not really true at all. Having no degree at all may present an obstacle in entering the interview process if you don't have strong experience to make up for it. But once you've entered the process as a candidate, the type or lack of degree will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're given an offer. It may be used past the decision phase when the hiring committee is deciding how to level you, but if so th…
During one interview I had at Google, I stumbled when performing addition on base 64 numbers.
Since I don't have a degree, it seems likely that interviewer will write that I have a conceptual deficiency with numeric bases and mathematics.
If I had a degree from CMU and gave an identical performance, they might instead write that I was rusty with numeric bases.
There's also the fact that most of the interviewers have a degree, many from a top 10 university. Hiring people that match their own profile validates their own background which benefits their career, so a self-interested and rational interviewer should rightly tend to give more positive ratings to people with degrees, ideally from institutions similar to theirs.
I think this is relevant at every stage of the interview process. If you sound nervous and don't have a degree, they might think you have a mental disorder, whereas if you have a degree from CMU they might just think that you don't want to disappoint your family.
I feel disadvantaged at every stage of the interview process for not having a degree. I'm sure there's no moment where someone is consciously docking me points or arguing against me with specific reference to the lack of degree. But I do think it's heavily influencing how academic types perceive me, and what they write about me in their report.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really true at all. Having no degree at all may present an obstacle in entering the interview process if you don't have strong experience to make up for it. But once you've entered the process as a candidate, the type or lack of degree will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're given an offer. It may be used past the decision phase when the hiring committee is deciding how to level you, but if so th…
Maybe things are changing these days. How necessary is a Masters in Computer Science degree?
And from experience I can say there is a shockingly high number of people with Masters in Comp Sci churning through the hiring pool who can't write a single line of code or even valid HTML.
I don't know why this is, but I think a Masters is getting a negative reputation to the point that you might consider not listing it on your resume at all in certain cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe things are changing these days. How necessary is a Masters in Computer Science degree?
Everyone I've talked to in the industry views people with a Masters much less favorably than people with a Bachelors or PhD. And from experience I can say there is a shockingly high number of people with Masters in Comp Sci churning through the hiring pool who can't write a single line of code or even valid HTML. I don't know why this is, but I think a Masters is getting a negative reputation to the point that you mi…
However, since its one of my life's dream to get a MS in CS from US, I will do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be Charlie Ayers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Ayers
He was super nice too. Would be serving food with a smile, greeting everyone. That was after he was a millionaire too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's informative. Thanks! I had read an article where they elaborated how getting into Google is a lot more difficult than getting into Harvard.
Its not. There rejection rate is higher, though. Still, a person who gets into Harvard is more likely to also get into Google than vice versa. Google gets more applications per open position, so they also have to reject more. Lots of people think "Why not give it a shot and apply at Google." Very few think the same about Harvard. Also, I would say it takes more effort to apply to a university. They will require essay…