81–90 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And farmers still plough up mines in the Somme, because they still have to plant next years crops.
On that subject, unexploded ordnance (UXO) is a real danger for the Crossrail tunnels deep under London: http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/a-legacy-of-iron-cro...
A fine approach, as long as you don't have bills to pay and no realistic chance of securing another job in the time you have to pay them. Not everyone has that sort of freedom that this sort of risk makes sense.
Ally bank is currently paying 1.5% on their 5-year CD, with a 60-day interest penalty for early cash-out.
I wish more people would follow this philosophy. There's nothing more annoying than people that follow the letter of the law without thinking about why it was established in the first place. Most (good) companies will easily forgive breaking the rules if you're doing it for the right reasons with good results. The point of "the rules" is to protect the company in case someone does something really stupid on their own…
I've always found the "letter of the law" types to be the most dangerous sort around, and that's not at all limited to programming. They're the ones who make authoritarianism work, the ones who tattle at the first sign of "not following the rules", the ones with absolutely no imagination, no curiosity, and an unwillingness to think for themselves. If there are too many of these around or too many in your management c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/schizophrenic What can I say, the informal usage of the word irritates me. I'm sure if he said that companies are kind of gay, and then proceeded to list a bunch of qualities that had nothing to do with homosexuality but rather the informal usage of the term (as we all know all too well from high school), it would be a problem. Same thing.
Would it also be a problem if they listed qualities like happy and frivolous? Or is that a legitimate definition of gay in your eyes?
"Make the call to assume some technical debt..." More like: "Build shit I know will be expensive in the long term because I won't have to deal with the fallout."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the most likely reason for its existence is unreasonable paranoia Spoken like someone who's never walked across a minefield ;)
And farmers still plough up mines in the Somme, because they still have to plant next years crops.
If "they" do come after you, they may think more before attempting to lower the boom of "punishment" and "example". Particularly if your skills are still needed/valuable. You're that much closer to "fuck off", and it can be useful for them to know -- or intuit -- it.
TL;DR: Don't wait for "them" to "do something" vis à vis termination.
This also applies to some degree to waiting for them to address the original problem; however, there is a chance you are wrong, and the commonly cited problem that "people think they are smarter than they are".
Good outfits take the time to have open, involved discussions on such points. It's good to have your people proactively thinking about and attempting to mitigate bad scenarios.
If that's not what you're getting, do yourself a favor and move on (assuming you're lucky enough to have a career that allows this).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chesterton's Fence! "In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us…
Yes, but sometimes the road is nothing but gates. By crossing the fence and running across the field, we harm no-one on the road, and we get places.