This is what has landed me 3 of my 4 programming jobs.
1. Having a web portfolio which has system designs, images, or gif videos of my apps, and points to my github code which interviewers can view.
2. Then walking interviewers through a project during the interview.
Whereas 3 months ago, I had a call w/ a "Director" of Engineering for a small startup (5-10 engineers, about 10-20 other staff). He wanted me to do a take home project. "it's just a 2 hour project: a CLI tool to lookup data via REST API, based on arguments passed in. And expose a gRPC endpoint, writte in Go or your favorite language, but we want to see it ready for production with tests". Everything except the REST API part was new to me: a CLI framework, gRPC, protobuf typing stuff.
Three hours in, I realized I crossed my self-imposed timebox and that the project would really take about 8 hours (or perhaps 16 if I wanted to polish it and have a higher rate of getting hired). However, I was on my vacation and the purpose was to spend time away from technology.
This is a classic, textbook example of entryism. It's happening to tons of institutions, including science & medical institutions, in the USA.
"Entryism (also called entrism, enterism, or infiltration) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organization in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. "
"It was particularly unfortunate that this was happening to a sector that has historically rejected state interventions of any kind, railing against attempts at heavier regulation and insisting all its problems would be solved if only the government would just back off. "
What an utterly silly claim, demonstrating the author's ignorance. The IT industry, based in Silicon Valley, worked hand-in-hand with governments at all levels from municipal to federal-- taking subsidies and giving innovations in return.
Not only that, but technologists rejecting state intervention?! California is THE nanny state-- California & the Bay Area are hot beds for demands for government intervention-- particularly of the neomarxist variety.
She doesn't bother to state a premise, she just assumes the reader takes it at face value.
It would take me a huge mental effort to read "tech bros" as a discrimination based on gender - and I'm a man. They are talking about a few selected guys and decided to call them as tech bros - it's not calling for discrimination against men. No need to take it further, censor, ban.
(Note: I don't care if it's "tech bro" or "tech gal" - not everything is about indoctrination)
I don't think it should be censored here but it is a sexist term. It is never used in a positive way. The publishing industry is female dominated. Imagine that during the recent coverage of their attempts to censor old books, people referred the individuals responsible as "pub maids" or something like that. I don't think it would be quite as accepted.
And that's ok. I do not see what tangible effect this really has on anyone. They decided to use a negative term "bro", so what? Is it that bad? Is someone really taking a hit and feeling bad (besides for the sake of feeling bad under this "rigtheous" weather). I feel like there's more people being negatively affected by this word policing than really using such a word. I would be ok either way, tech bros, pub maids - I don't really look so much into words that it would really affect my thought - but that it wouldn't be accepted is not really indication of much. There are always loud voices that will feel upset by everything.
"Tech bro" isn't just a generic reference to tech founders. It refers to a particular negative stereotype of a person, usually male, who works in tech and subscribes to "bro culture." Bro culture itself usually comes from fraternity culture (as in "frat bro") and it's often associated with misogynist beliefs.
This is literally like saying "If refers to a particular negative stereotype of a person, usually from a poor neighbour hood, usually black, usually without a father" and ascribing any kind of prejudice to it. Is this seriously the kind of discussion you want to be having?
Right but “tech bro” is literally used to describe stereotype of a type of man in tech rather than all men in tech. Presumably female founders aren’t included in the same way non-bro male founders aren’t. In particular a tech bro doesn’t even have to be a founder.
But that removes the meaning of "bro". It should be "tech sibling". Of course, "bro" is short for "brother" so maybe the best solution would be "tech sib".
Lately, my response to calls to censor 'this one thing' is 'ban everything' and skip all the baby steps. At least then people will immediately realize what is actually bad about word prohibition.
It's in the title of the article. HN guidelines for comments presumably don't apply to articles. (It wouldn't be good for me to call another HNer a 'tech bro', but we can discuss an article that uses the phrase, no?)
In her lefthand (main thread article): Denigrates men interested in technology jobs which pay well and are intellectually arduous to even learn let alone practice.
In her righthand (article I link to above): Complains that women need more money for childcare.
Gee, it's almost as though left-leaning journalists are trying to drive men and women apart.
"Men, as a woman, I tell you: You're terrible! Now go fund women's lifestyles, we need your money!"
I don't want to weigh in on this debate in general, but just to clarify terminology: "Gay" is orthogonal to "cis". "Cis" is short for "cisgendered", meaning "not transgendered".
"Cishet" (cisgendered + heterosexual) is used to combine the two axes, which may be what led to the confusion.
We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments and using HN primarily for ideological battle. Those things aren't what this site is for, and destroy what it is for. We ban accounts that do this (yes, regardless of which ideology you are battling for or against).
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
I don't know the current usage, but historically this seems off. When these terms arose, they referred to programmers who relied on cliques, marketing and hype as opposed to great software engineering.
The "move fast and break things" types who shout down opposition because they always outnumber the diligent quiet types. Who have their memes, foosball, beanbags, etc. Who were successful in SV because they didn't give a damn. Who then used DEI as a shield to progress politically.
Who then set up crypto schemes under the "effective altruism" flag.
So no, gender or masculinity is not central to the term. Complete lack of morals and deception is.
Isn't "whore" more demonstrative of lack of morals, compared to "brother"?
It's a silly conversation-- Clearly "tech bro" is misandrist.
It enviously discounts men for success in technology, often while simultaneously expecting something from said men (such as emotional or financial support, again, while simultaneously insulting them... yeah, not productive).
Because the vast majority of programmers are men, hence we use men related adjectives/words. These things describe stereotypes, there is no "tech hoe" stereotype as far as I can tell
Same reason why in France we say "infirmieres" (feminine) to say nurse although the neutral should be "infirmiers" (masculine): because 85%+ nurses are women
> Clearly "tech bro" is misandrist.
Yet no one ever complained about it ever
American reading way to much into these gender stuff should be an Olympic sport
It is indeed a silly conversation, because you apply nitpicking and tangents to a term that refers to a culturally comprehensive concept that the reader is supposed to understand in context.
The term "bro" refers to the clique aspect, same as "fraternity" or "sorority". It could have been "tech sis", but the majority of tech bros were male, certainly at the time the term was coined.
Simpler answer that doesn’t require weird psychoanalysis: bro is used because of the perception (possibly reality?) of the ratio of men to women in tech.
I’ve notice an uptick in people getting into programming because it’s “a good job”.
As opposed to a few decades ago when my experience was more “I like computer and want to know how they work. Being payed for it is nice”
Not a judgement values. I just advise people who want a tech job that programming is tedious and frustrating. If you’r ok with that, everything is on the table really.
And I don’t mind working with new folks type
Hm. That's pretty optimistic. It's like folks on the space station, "Let the oxygen filters fail! It'll teach Gary to clean them like he was supposed to."
Sounds like a fantastic idea. You could create categories for various industries, contact companies at those industries to have them post their pain points/needs for products. And potentially partner with freelancer sites (and consultancies based in those particular industries).
It disenfranchises environment/energy/natural resource conservation efforts to associate them with woke topics such as "social equity" and related "governance" efforts.
I am personally a conservative environmentalist. Virtually 100% of "woke" related concepts to me, represent inculcation by foreign governments seeking to destabilize western societies.
The environment must not be politicized. It is the foundation of all biota including humans of course-- it is the matrix we live within.
It's not hyperbole, IMO, and this format of rationale is faulty. There are many reasons why technologies and platforms become ubiquitous. Asserting that being ubiquitous means it can't also be miserable for the user is demonstrably false, with almost unlimited examples throughout software history.
However almost certainly ubuitity is one measure or factor in an item's usefulness. I'd also claim Usefulness inversely correlates with miserableness in the mind, but perhaps not in practice :P depending on how boring or miserable useful things are.
In general, I think usefulness overrides miserableness simply because the willingness to do useful things, despite miserableness, is clearly tolerated and performed all across human economies and societies through time. all just depends on definitions
The gulf between "showing up in person and waiting in line at the bank" and "performant web app" covers a lot of ground, most of it shitty and frustrating, and that easily can be many times better than it currently is.
But yeah, I guess you're not waiting in line at the bank anymore.
1. Having a web portfolio which has system designs, images, or gif videos of my apps, and points to my github code which interviewers can view.
2. Then walking interviewers through a project during the interview.
Whereas 3 months ago, I had a call w/ a "Director" of Engineering for a small startup (5-10 engineers, about 10-20 other staff). He wanted me to do a take home project. "it's just a 2 hour project: a CLI tool to lookup data via REST API, based on arguments passed in. And expose a gRPC endpoint, writte in Go or your favorite language, but we want to see it ready for production with tests". Everything except the REST API part was new to me: a CLI framework, gRPC, protobuf typing stuff.
Three hours in, I realized I crossed my self-imposed timebox and that the project would really take about 8 hours (or perhaps 16 if I wanted to polish it and have a higher rate of getting hired). However, I was on my vacation and the purpose was to spend time away from technology.
The whole thing felt a bit silly. Learned a new framework though so that was cool (yargs -- https://www.npmjs.com/package/yargs ).