41–50 of 70 posts
The plan is that you work until you have enough money to hold you for a year or two (so you can work on your projects). If they cut your pay then the quit date is pushed back, if they give you a raise then it's pushed up. I think that covers it.
So dead end means... no raise in sight?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know what you mean :) For the last nearly 2 years I make living from doing part-time gigs. At one gig I was lucky to have a rather experienced manager and he taught me about OOP design, a bit on Agile practices and testing. That was an eye opener and put me on the right track for other gigs. When my class mates talk 'oh man that agile thing is such shit, I just wanna write some code' I tried to convince them at fir…
To be fair to your mates, a lot of places that claim to do 'Agile' do a shit job at it. It turns into a cargo cult where they wrap their bad practices in Agile lingo to make them sound good. I've seen that happen a lot at various companies. If that's the only 'Agile' you've been exposed to, then it's perfectly reasonable to think 'oh man that agile thing is such shit'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair to your mates, a lot of places that claim to do 'Agile' do a shit job at it. It turns into a cargo cult where they wrap their bad practices in Agile lingo to make them sound good. I've seen that happen a lot at various companies. If that's the only 'Agile' you've been exposed to, then it's perfectly reasonable to think 'oh man that agile thing is such shit'.
How can I tell the difference between Agile and 'Agile' then?
The title says it is about Dead End Jobs, but it is not. It is about People That Cannot Stay Put In a Damned Place. Look at this quote: > "Yes, unfortunately, even good jobs can be dead-end jobs—or positions with little to no room for advancement." This is the massive obsession our culture has developed around growth and progress. The whole premise of this article is that if you are not eager to make it big and shoot…
The trouble is that I am one of those people who feels a drive to keep "moving forward," whatever that means. I have had a job that was by most measures great, but after 5 years, I was still doing exactly the same thing. I was very good at it, and could do it in my sleep, but that meant the challenge had gone out of it. I needed something new. Sadly, I expect that I will spend most of my life like that. As soon as I master one challenge, I will be seeking a new one.
The title says it is about Dead End Jobs, but it is not. It is about People That Cannot Stay Put In a Damned Place. Look at this quote: > "Yes, unfortunately, even good jobs can be dead-end jobs—or positions with little to no room for advancement." This is the massive obsession our culture has developed around growth and progress. The whole premise of this article is that if you are not eager to make it big and shoot…
It seems a reasonable premise, given the audience of that site.
Though they might want to have considered prioritization. E.g. If you're constantly networking, job-hunting, and proving yourself at new firms, that's necessarily less time for you to 'hack' other areas of your life.
A 'good' dead-end job is a pretty great place to be if your spare time is focused on writing a book, building a house, training for a triathlon, etc.
If you are programmer and your manager and his/her manager are PMPs , you are in a dead end job.
I'm in a job a bit like that, not much room for advancement. Not much of a challenge, but the pay is about double what most other places in my town are paying because it's a small location of a much bigger company. my family is here and we have no intention of leaving so for now it's a very comfy dead end job with good benefits etc.
if been in this position once, good pay, secure job, no risk of being fired even during crisis ( apoint proofen during 2009 and 2011). Yet, being under 30 back than I considered the risk of being unemployable hire than the benefits. Would I have been 50+ I would never have considered leaving.
What actually shocked me was how HARD it really was to work somewhere else. And I almost failed, so only one year more at this job would have been my career end. Yet another shock was how used I had been to that kind of security, it's right that freedom can be scarry. in retrospect, despite everything, I still consider that one my better decisions up to now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair to your mates, a lot of places that claim to do 'Agile' do a shit job at it. It turns into a cargo cult where they wrap their bad practices in Agile lingo to make them sound good. I've seen that happen a lot at various companies. If that's the only 'Agile' you've been exposed to, then it's perfectly reasonable to think 'oh man that agile thing is such shit'.
How can I tell the difference between Agile and 'Agile' then?
I believe that manifesto is the only important part of Agile. Everything else is just suggestions about how to accomplish that goal. If a particular practice does not make sense for you, in your particular situation, then it's garbage. So, look at your team's processes and ask yourself this:
If you were to reverse engineer a process that would accomplish the goals of the Agile Manifesto (e.g. the developers know what needs to be built, and there's short feedback loops between developers and stakeholders), would you end up with something that looks like what they're doing? Could you drop any part of your process and have things still work?
If you discover too many red flags -- things that serve no purpose except to "look Agile" -- then you may be in a cargo cult.
If you are a programmer in a company where IT is seen as a cost center, you are in a dead end job. If you are programmer and your manager and his/her manager are PMPs , you are in a dead end job.
The tendency of any cost center is to be replaced by cheaper consultancy or automated away. And in companies with entrenched managers, hackers never move up.