Hold down the option key. Hover your mouse pointer over the green zoom button in the top-left corner of the window. A "move window to the left/right side of the screen" option appears.
It sort of does, but it's not as obvious as it should be. Mouse over the green zoom button in the top-left corner of a window, hold the option key on your keyboard, and then "move window left" and "move window right" options appear.
Yeah, accuracy definitely varies by ISP, and region. If you'd be willing to share your IP or ISP with me (ben@ipinfo.io) I'd love to look into it and see what we might have been able to do / be able to do in the future to get a more precise location for you.
Read an article where people were coming to people's houses demanding their phone etc. because the location for that "region" was mapped to their backyard.
My employer tried and failed using a similar system with Salesforce Work.com. It all seemed a bit pointless and forced to me. In the early days of using it while it was still a novelty, managers were giving feedback to people so that they could demonstrate to HR that they were being good little soldiers by using the tool, rather than because they wanted to praise good performance. This insincere praise was worse than no feedback at all.
In the end, it never really went anywhere because it became another inbox to check, and we already have too many of those. A chicken-and-egg problem also presented itself, where people only checked the site when they got a notification saying they'd received feedback, which led to no-one visiting the site to give feedback.
It's a terrible idea. Please don't even think about building it.
As another poster mentioned real time feedback between team members and leaders happens organically (if the people are any good). The HR annual or bi-annual review is a formalization and documentation step but I can't imagine usually leads to better performance.
They already can only ask once, but apps use a trick to get around that. When they ask you if you want notifications turned on they'll first show you a fake pop up that asks if you want them on - you need to click yes to this one in order to get the real Apple one which you can then deny.
If you do that the only way to turn them back on is to go into system settings.
10 years as a Software Developer here. Based in Wellington, New Zealand.
1. Change jobs more often. The only way to be paid market rates is to change jobs when your market value increases. Your employer has a strong financial incentive to keep you working as long as possible at your current rate.
2. Move into management quickly. I've heard it's different in other parts of the world, but where I am being a developer limits your career. In every software company the people who are the most influential, and the best paid, are in management or sales.
3. Be more aggressive about getting side projects finished and getting them out into the world. Like many developers, I've got a bunch of half baked ideas on my hard drive that could make decent open source contributions, side businesses, and there might even be a worthwhile startup buried in there somewhere. When all your publicly visible code is your employer's intellectual property, it makes it harder to sell yourself.
What's the market like for a software engineer in Wellington? Was in town a few weeks ago and loved every minute. Raglan Roast has got to be one of my top 5 coffee joints of all time!
It exists, and demand for talented people outstrips supply. I find recruiting new people for my team to be tough. Literally had a candidate fail at FizzBuzz yesterday.
If you're on the Microsoft stack then Xero and Trade Me are the most obvious choices. Mobile development and Ruby on Rails are somewhat popular. Wellington is a government town, so there's a fair amount of work maintaining legacy platforms if that's your thing.
Quality of life is decent. Good weather most of the time, better traffic management and city planning than Auckland, good food and coffee. The place feels like it has a personality.
You will not be paid well compared to Australians and Americans. The cost of living is lower than in those places, but still high relative to salaries. Food is expensive, housing is expensive, broadband is expensive and somewhat slow, anything you want to import will have to travel a long way which raises the price, and all purchases have 15% GST.
> In every software company the people who are the most influential, and the best paid, are in management or sales.
I don't think that's necessarily true in Silicon Valley, where companies like Google, Facebook, Airbnb, Uber, etc. have parallel career tracks for individual contributor vs manager, with equal salary bands. I'm earning way more as a high-level IC than mid-leveled managers.
"Individual contributor", as opposed to management. i.e. for a software engineer, someone who ships code for a living rather than shipping Gantt charts/emails.
Logos aren't mindless fluff or artsy wallpaper that you slap on a project before sending it out the door. They're often the first impression someone gets of your work, and using a thoughtless design says nothing good about what you value.
It doesn't have to be this way. There are free software projects out there that have beautiful, thoughtful, iconic logos. Firefox is the first that comes to mind. The Linux penguin (while a bit odd) has grown on me too.
This might not be the hardest bug I've tackled, but it certainly took the longest to solve.
It was the early days of SOAP, and I had been assigned the task of integrating my employer's software with a third party's, so that the applications could share data. This third party org was a wealthy, powerful mega-corporation; and my employer was, well, not. The third party produced a spec for the interface, expected us to follow it, and offered no help from there.
I built a solution. It worked on my machine. Solved the problem. All was right in the world.
I moved it to the test environment. It worked again. Demoed it for one of our customers, and everyone was pleased.
Deployed it to our first beta tester. One lonely employee working accounts receivable, tucked away in the corner of our customer's office.
It crashed.
I checked everything. I mean everything. There are still particulars of that little Windows 2000 workstation that I can describe vividly. Which programs were installed, which patches were installed, how Windows had been configured, how the firewall worked, I even got permission to install a packet analyzer. My employer only had a handful of customers, and the beta test machine was near our offices, so I was over there personally a lot over the following weeks.
We brought in the customer's network support people. They found nothing. They could see the packets leaving, and an error coming back, but couldn't offer more than that.
We brought in the best networking engineer in my company. He was stumped.
What really shook my confidence was knowing that competitors mine had gotten this interface working. This wasn't some half baked project that I could blame on someone else. Others had succeeded where I'd failed.
I practically had to walk across broken glass to get on the phone with the third party's development team, but with enough pestering I pulled it off.
The phone call involved me sitting at the beta test workstation and firing off a request so that they could view it hitting their servers live. The developer who I spoke with immediately spotted the problem.
You see, when you send a SOAP request, you send the date and time that you're making the request along with it. The clocks on the client and the server were too far out of sync, my requests appeared to be coming from the future, and so the server disregarded them with a blunt error. Interestingly, the workstation clocks at my company's office weren't too far out of sync, which is why it worked in one place and not another.
Stuff I learnt:
1. Third party interfaces require a point of contact at both organisations who can talk with one another. This is non-negotiable.
2. If you send an error message that reads "Error", you're a bad developer and should return your computer science degree to your university and demand a refund.
3. No matter how well written the spec is, something always gets left out.
Not really a start up, but I thought Wikipedia was an extraordinarily dumb idea at first. An encyclopedia that anyone can edit - what could possibly go wrong?
I completely missed the value of having decent moderator tools (which no site had back in the early 2000's), and a passionate group of moderators who cared very deeply about the integrity of the site.
There have been a lot of startups over the past decade centred around the sharing economy that have helped to prove that humans can be civil in these situations where one might think that we would default to nefarious activity - Airbnb, Local Motion, etc. to name a few.
Humanity is continuing to prove itself as capable of dealing with each other harmoniously and we are seeing great businesses emerge that are benefitting the masses as a result.
If you think Wikipedia is civil, I recommend looking at the talk pages for contentious articles. It's overwhelmingly full of pedantic bickering and passive aggressiveness. It also suffers from a lot of bias in articles where there's a vocal minority on the internet willing to spend hundreds of hours militantly editing and moderating. It's essentially a shouting match on the internet with the loudest group winning.
Even worse are the articles on subjects which few people other than a couple of authors actually care about at all (notably English language articles on political issues in non-English speaking countries and fringe issues which aren't quite fringe enough to get their pages deleted) There's no argument taking place, but that's why the content is so bad. A couple of UK politicians editing their articles hit the headlines in the election buildup, but I found an article on a more obscure MP which was almost entirely, and very openly and honestly, written by the politicians' partner.
Wikipedia is more successful than most people could have imagined in generating quantity, and better than most would have thought in suppressing outright vandalism, but quality is far behind what people are lead to believe from rather superficial studies comparing heavily-trafficked pages against only slightly better-written and more outdated conventional encyclopedias. But there was a time when encyclopedias were expected to be authoritative, as opposed to where Wikipedia has excelled, which is regularly being the first remotely useful result in Google.
