I’m going from macOS to linux currently. It was the hardware obsolesence that kicked things off but I definitely wont miss the constant nagging about my iCloud being full
Just turn off iCloud sync for the things you don't use and you won't fill it up. I sync passwords, notes, find my, calendar, contacts, and safari. Currently using 800MB of the free 5GB.
Also, when I'm.. ehm.. accidentally reading blogspam in my spare time, who's reimbursing me?
And if I'm actually reading instead of working, isn't the time I spend more of a debt than a declaration that I want to donate as much money as I wasted by not working for X minutes?
Employers haven't paid me for spending a lot of time with them so far.
But let's stick with the argument and claim that our time is worth the hourly rate of whoever creates what we consume. That also doesn't make sense, no matter how charitably I view it, for media.
Even if I want to live in a radically equal society where everyone's time is worth the same amount of money, it would only make sense when trading 1:1 - for example, I can compare my hourly rate to that of my barber, if I pretend there are no corporations, no taxes etc.
But yeah, to be brief, no, it doesn't make sense to give all of your time a monterary value. And when it comes to non-working time, I even find it to be a deeply gross way of thinking. Not regarding the willingness to pay, it's fair to think about your own income and how other workers have to make ends meet and to put it into perspective.
If you invert it, though, money is really compensation for time (directly or indirectly). Most of the things you pay money for are compensating someone for time spent (whether that time was spent in the past, present or future). Why is it so hard to go in the other direction? It doesn't mean that you think money is more important than time or anything. It's just that people trade one for the other. Even if you remove the money element altogether, you have a finite amount of time and should value it as such.
I also never said anything about equality or that an engineer or a scientists time is necessarily worth the same as other occupations. I was pointing to a very large disparity (paying a very small amount for content that one clearly values, if they value their time). You can put whatever numbers you want in my original comment and my point would stand.
1200 applications over a period of 18 months is over 2 applications a day for 18 months solid. If thats the case there's no way you're putting in the time needed to A) find jobs that actually excite you; B) reflect on where you can improve after each rejection; C) write really effective cover letters.
Most jobs are giving no feedback on B, and you can only stare at a wall and meditate on your own failings for so many hours before you run out of insights. Maybe one in 20 jobs you find something you can spend several hours on. You could always do showoff projects as a completely separate activity, but I don't file that under improving your application skills.
For C, I figure by the time you've written 50 proper and sincere cover letters you can do them in under an hour. What could you be doing that takes a very long time and still counts as a cover letter?
>projects as a completely separate activity, but I don't file that under improving your application skills.
<
Absolutely NOT my experience!!! In my case, being able to put "sideprojects" on the tabe, which were somehow adjacent to the role, it always made huge plus.
Currently I'm interviewing for a role for which they rejected a second interview after the first one, when i showed them something i've developed during my recent sabbatical - instead they asked just for completing a 2-slide-ppt and will hire me without having ever met (the corp office is 3 miles away from me)
It's something that can help you get a job, but it's not "how do I get better at writing a resume?"
There's unlimited time you can put into side projects. But that's very different from figuring out what you did wrong when applying and trying to fix it.
And the time you put into side projects isn't based on how many job applications you're filling out.
I defo agree that unless you get to interview you're unlikely to get any feedback, but showing your application to others in the industry (or university tutors as in this girls case) and getting their feedback can be super helpful.
With C, I think it always helps to demonstrate some knowledge of what the company gets up to so if your application does get a second glance then it seems like you actually care about the company, and that does take time.
I prefer to go for companies that win me over rather than ones where I start out excited about them.
That’s how it was with my current company. The description from the recruiter had me questioning if I even wanted to talk to this company because they wanted me 2 to 3 days-per-week in an office 3 hours away.
I spoke to the SVP of engineering and it was immediately clear that we got along really well and had similar values and priorities. He told me that they would knock the in-office requirement down to once per week because I seemed like such a good fit. They moved from a definite-no to a maybe.
I spoke to a lead engineer and he was one of the smartest, most thoughtful people I’ve ever met. He really impressed me with his answers to my questions. I spoke to the senior director of engineering and once again, really good connection. Impressive guy who cared about the same things that I do. They moved from a maybe to kinda-exciting.
I spoke to the CEO, and I have to be honest; I’ve had some bad run-ins with executives. I find a lot of them to be terrifyingly clueless. This guy really got it, though. I think he understands exactly how to make this company successful. They had officially become exciting.
They made a great offer that was an upgrade on both title and pay, thus becaming the most exciting out of the bunch.
After visiting the office twice they told me that my commute was insane, and I should only come in once per month. With that, my only real concern with the company basically became moot.
I’m building some really exciting stuff and the entire company is constantly freaking out about my work. I love what I’m doing. I can’t imagine any of the other companies would have been this much fun.
And to think, when the recruiter told me about them, I wasn’t even sure if I wanted to talk to them!
Keep an open mind and get to know the company before you decide who is or isn’t exciting.
If you're not hyper-specialized to the point of being the best in an important niche, you won't get this behavior c. 2023 or so. Even direct referrals these days don't guarantee leading to an interview.
A) a job is a job sometimes. Few people get to mix passion with vocation.
B) Most jobs don't even respond back. Most that respond back just give a generic rejection.There nothing to reflect on. I have a pretty good resume in my industry but had a much harder time then as a new grad in 2017. The only reflection is that the market right now is rough.
C) cover letters came up in 3 of m roles I got hired for. They all said they never read them. Granted, one was a referral but I'm not very confident cover letters are being read, let alone is the factor determining job prospects.
That's so strange about C. When I was a hiring manager, resumes told me nothing because they're so generic and samey and often padded with bs. A cover letter was a place for differentiation. Also, I had so many applicants that having a cover letter was my first screen... no letter and I was done.
Oddly, once, I had a series of applications from different people with the exact same cover letter. I had to triple take to realize that I wasn't looking at the same person multiple times.
If I had to guess, it was a mix of culture and process. For job #1, I'm not surprised, since it was clear they were mostly looking for bodies.
The other two werre 5-6 stages of interviews, so the resume was the screen while the cultural parts of the interview werre built into all the people I had to talk to. I even distinctly remember the last part of one interview was the a director who came in, and as a twist, he asked no questions. It was all about me asking about him, the project the company, etc.
I'm sure by the end they had a good feel of who I was and if I'd mesh, so there wasn't a need to read what I wrote. It's interesting, but exhausting. I would much prefer a 2-3 stage process and crafting a proper cover letter if I had the choice.
If a resume can't convince them to hire you, what made you think a cover letter can? Also, no recruiter spends over a few seconds glancing at your resume? So, throw another doc at them?
I think every job I've ever applied to has asked for both a resume/CV and a cover letter. A recruiter may glance at first but if they like what they see or they can only put through 10 applicants to interview then they're likely to properly read through.
The job market labor supply for IT right now is supersaturated to the point that extremely competent people with the experience have been looking for several years and are now cutting bait and leaving the field for retraining.
Quite a lot of professional networks died in the great layoffs due to AI.
Right now about 70% of my professional network is still out of work, and many of them start at a decade of experience in principal engineer/SRE/SA roles. There's a 1200:1 ratio for applications to cold call interviews, and ghost jobs have made finding legitimate roles to apply to impossible (above the shannon limit for noisy channels).
When there is no work in a specialized area, you go where the work is to put food on the table whatever work that may be. There isn't a lot of work elsewhere either, and many places discriminate against those who are overqualified to the point where they aren't really hiring those people despite them being more productive than some of the younger people they hire instead.
On the bright side, you have some fast food positions making more than some of the IT jobs available in this area (MSP) right now. CCNA cert with experience seem to be running about 42-50k now depending on the area you are working in.There's also been ~25% inflation in aggregate over the last 5 years so your effectively making 31.5-37k gross in purchasing power today at those rates. Computer Science degrees have one of the highest unemployment, and underemployment of most degrees except aerospace engineering.
This is just a preview of what is happening to all white-collar work. AI makes the environment outdated before you can do anything, and thinking its just the same environment as 10-20 years ago is a mistake.
Yeah the glasses will be dictating the text.
For identifying objects the cameras in the glasses will be substitutes for her failing eyesight, no GPS or prescription needed.
A phone you have to hold in your hand whereas glasses you don't. Therefore glasses are superior for these use cases.
Yeah same thought here. When I got the glasses and was ready to be disappointed by the AI feature, I ask it to tell me the sweetener from the ingredient list on a can of coke zero. It hallucinated a whole bunch, so I took a photo to see for myself what the LLM saw. The resolution was very low.
I'm guessing from your reply that you don't think its important to emphasise kindness as part of supporting your childrens' growth. If that is the case, what do you emphasise if anything?
Kindness has a merit on it's own and ultimately it's a good idea for a person to decide what they want to be and take responsibility for their choices.
Being kind "because there are too many unkind people out there" sounds wrong. I have no idea how they measured the "too many unkind people out there" but lets assume for a moment this balance shifts - then what? They should be unkind because there are too many kind people out there? Is this is a simple act of balancing the two sides?
I think the sentiment is that it feels like theres a lot of unkindness in the world and that makes it a worse place and you can either be part of that or you can make the world a better place by striving to be kind. Thats my interpretation anyway.
It sounds bad because the root comment is priming a negative perspective of the world.
They could have said:
"Most people are kind. Be kind and most people will be kind back." Or something with positive intent. Instead they seem to be priming a superiority trip.
I agree. The fact that we go to such enormous lengths to prevent potentially nefarious items getting aboard an aircraft, yet we freely allow potentially explosive li-ion batteries is quite bizarre.
It is an idea that's for sure. I think we can all think of lots of reasons why having burning phones on an aircraft is something worth preventing though.
True. OTOH - if the incident rate is ~8/year, out of ~4e7 commercial airline flights per year, and designing seats capable of 0/year is proving difficult - maybe mere improvement would be a reasonable strategy? Available resources are kinda finite, and burning phones on aircraft are obviously not on the "World's Top 100 Human Safety Threats" list.
I'm based in the US, where it's spelled without the "u". Quite a few examples of this spelling difference - humo(u)r, behavio(u)r etc. Oh and "spelt" is "spelled". Isn't English fun! :)
Even weirder, as a Native American English speaker, I would have spelt that word this way in only this context, but in other contexts it’s spelled this way.
Maybe this is my own idiosyncrasy though and not what others would do. I’ve never even thought about it until just now.
Im not sure that's true. If something makes the news it's likely to be of interest to a large amount of people, that doesn't immediately qualify it as something rare.
