If your expected response time is of the order of 5 minutes, then you are not "on-call", you are working 12 hour days and your compensation and time off arrangements should reflect that.
I suspect that if the company is currently getting that amount of extra work (over and above a normal length working day) for free, then you're unlikely to be able to get them to change that. If it was me, I'd be looking for a role in another team or company that has a more realistic approach to on-call.
Any potential extra impact on your current colleagues that you leaving might cause is the responsibility of your management and up to them to mitigate. How your current colleagues decide to react to the on-call situation should be up to them.
Good luck resolving this, I've been in work situations that had unreasonable expectations myself and I appreciate how stressful it can be.
>If your expected response time is of the order of 5 minutes, then you are not "on-call", you are working 12 hour days
I'm a new dev at a fairly young startup. We have recently started an oncall process and we have similar response times for oncall though our workload isn't nearly as heavy since our scale is low. What's the standard in oncall response times/expectations?
I don't think there's any real standard, since it very much depends on application SLAs, industry sector, size of the on-call team, geographic location, length of on-call rotation, frequency of call-out, how realistic the management are, how much inconvenience the team members are willing to put up with, etc.
For example, I work in London and it would be unreasonable to expect that someone could travel between home and work on public transport and still meet a response SLA less than one hour. That would likely be a different length of time in another location, or if people worked 100% remotely, for example.
My opinion is that if you have a response time less than say 30 minutes, then you actually need to be compensating people for sitting in front of their computers ready to respond immediately, whether that be in the office or remotely.
Unless call-outs are very frequent (in which case there are underlying reliability, capacity management, and/or alerting issues which need to be resolved), then on-call isn't really about the extra time spent working, but the restrictions on what one can do whilst on-call.
To use a fairly simple metric: if an on-call SLA means that I have to be concerned about whether I can pop out to a local shop or how long I can spend in the shower, then I don't think that I would be on-call, I would be working.
Of course start up environments (especially early stage) are always different from more corporate environments and there are generally greater resource constraints in general. For a start up I am usually looking more at what valuable experience I can gain, rather than maximising remuneration (subject to a certain base-level of course).
However ultimately the question remains the same: do I think that what I am getting out of this role is worth what I have to put into it? There are probably roles in which I'd be willing to put up with the inconvenience of very short on-call SLAs, because either they paid very well, or I was gaining very valuable experience.
Whether a role fulfils ones own expectations for the reward/expenditure ratio is a question that everyone has to decide for themselves.
My impression was that during the early stages there was more concern about touch based transmission, so there was a feeling that the benefits of masks (trapping respiratory droplets) might be outweighed by causing people to touch their faces more frequently.
My family does an email thread where everyone posts gifts ideas... I'd actually really want the donation, but I don't want to say that publicly for fear of seeming "holier than thou" and ruining other people's fun.
If you can gain the same enjoyment vicariously, you might enjoy SouthernASMR's channel - she often tidies up the shelves of the stores that she visits. Here's a playlist of her Nail Polish organisation videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TsxWuFsy3I&list=PL7SQKahkOA...
Betfair takes its commission as a percentage of the profit that one has made in a given market rather as a percentage of a bet size, so it's always worth making a bet on a certain event. Usually by the end of an in-play sporting event, one will find that there is no liquidity available to bet for the likely winner or against the likely loser (and draw if applicable) at any price (their lowest price is 1.01 BTW).
In this case, there are clearly people who are still willing to bet against (lay) a Biden Presidency, at very long odds. This is presumably either because they believe that the price adequately compensates for the low probability of it not happening, or to hedge risk that they have accumulated taking other positions while trading in this market (more likely IMHO).
One other factor is the cost of carry - while money is tied up in a bet it can't be used for anything else, including other betting strategies that might have a higher expected profit. In this case, if one has already made a profit betting for a Biden Presidency at longer odds than 1.07, it might now be worthwhile to pay someone else the slight risk premium to take up ones position until settlement, so that one can lock in the profit and move onto other things.
Have you tried Reaper? I haven’t personally used the experimental Linux builds, because I depend on a lot of third party VSTs, but if it's anywhere near as good as it is on Windows/Mac it may work for you.
I haven't come across any missing functions so far, should be on par with MacOS/Windows on that. Only the Interface looks a bit old-style and seems to be the only issue right now. All the "expermiental" builds have been very stable for me on Ubuntu Studio :)
Reaper was completely solid on Linux the last time I used it. The only instability came with trying to use a wrapper to use Windows VSTs, but everything struggles with VSTs, wrapped or not.
The similar quote I've heard is, "Form is liberating." I feel like I heard this in the context of poetry in high school, but Google turns up a bunch of references to The Mythical Man Month.
One reason is that any System Administrator can be expected to be able to understand and maintain Bash scripts.
I recently built a fairly complex system entirely in Bash, not because it was the "best" language for the job (it would have been much easier to do in Ruby or Python), but because the client didn't have any permanent staff that could maintain Ruby or Python scripts.
As a contractor, one of the major factors in the technical decisions I make is: how supportable is this technology for the client, once I have left? Of course the answer to that question will vary on a case by case basis, but Bash is usually a good lowest common denominator in a Linux environment.
I suspect that if the company is currently getting that amount of extra work (over and above a normal length working day) for free, then you're unlikely to be able to get them to change that. If it was me, I'd be looking for a role in another team or company that has a more realistic approach to on-call.
Any potential extra impact on your current colleagues that you leaving might cause is the responsibility of your management and up to them to mitigate. How your current colleagues decide to react to the on-call situation should be up to them.
Good luck resolving this, I've been in work situations that had unreasonable expectations myself and I appreciate how stressful it can be.