What?!

Everybody is very slow to update their outage pages because of SLAs. It's in a company's financial interest to deny outages and when they are undeniable to make them appear as short as possible. Status pages updating slowly is definitely by design.

There's no large dev platform I've used that this wasn't true of their status pages.

Obviously this is "hey HR we need to layoff 900 people, what can we do to make it their fault?"

Maybe it's a reasonable cover your ass move but comes off very slimy.

Also if it works it works. I think people worry too much about a solution being a placebo.

Yes, it may be that your solution only worked because you believed it would work. But take the win!

Certainly solutions backed by double blind controlled studied are way better. But those often aren't an option, so use what is.

This is only true insofar as the "solution" doesn't cause other problems itself.

People bankrupting themselves on snake oil, or having other health issues due to weird diets, or avoiding actually proven medicine are all extremely harmful.

For a disease with highly temporally variable symptoms, you don’t even need a placebo effect. You could try some treatment and randomly get better. (Go read about almost any Crohn’s RCT for which the participants had active flares. The control group generally improves a decent amount over the course of the study.)

Unlikely but if they offered it on their own stuff it could create a trend.

And increasingly they are losing the quality content that they didn't produce themselves.

What would you blame/credit this problem too?

On the flip-side. Since I've had 3 or 4 years of experience on my resume, I've gotten interviews for about 1 in 10 applications I sent out. And been made offers for about 1 in 4 companies that I've started an interviewing process with. With me ending the interview process about half of the time with those due to the company being a bad cultural fit for me (excessive overtime, unorganized group, or low pay).

I have also specifically targeted companies that used the tech stack I had a lot of experience with. And I would say that I typically interview well

When I owned a consulting firm, I was also shocked at how low resume quality was. If you just spend a bit of time making your resume look good or stand out a little bit, it will go a really long way. There is a such thing as “too much information” or “too detailed.” I never had a problem of “too little information” because, as a human, I was able to fill in the blanks and if something didn’t make sense, I’d often interview them just to hear the story (and in a couple of cases, actually hire).

When I lived on a sailboat, it was often mentioned in my cover letter just to hopefully stand out. I’d get interviews just because I sounded like an interesting person (what these coworkers said later at company parties) and it would get my foot in the door.

On the flip side, when I was on the interview for a small startup a while back, I started learning to distrust resumes that were too good. I eventually figured out that it's because they used a resume preparation service. They weren't lying about anything, but it's amazing how different the same experience can sound. (Ok, quite a few were telling some white lies, but the strength of the resumes did not depend on lying.)

I'd say that the bottom 20% and the top 20% of resumes (that made it past the HR screen) were disappointing during the interview. The best people usually had decent but somewhat awkward or unclear resumes.

I think this is really down to the few companies that have "taken a chance" on a bootcamp grad in the past and are able to see past the lack of experience after one or more good experiences - which feels like something large companies can do more (and more often) than smaller ones.

It's also a product of my inability to really and truly master interview coding challenges and the pressure of whiteboarding. It's absolutely nerve-wracking and I've choked every single time regardless of how well-prepped I was. At a Google on-site, I was asked to traverse a binary search tree on a whiteboard and then, after doing it successfully, I was challenged to do it without recursion and I was unable to reason about how to do it and I choked completely and utterly. The rest of the interview went pretty well, so I would guess that my whiteboarding fail was the main thing that prevented me from getting hired there.

O'Reilly's interview process did not involve whiteboarding or things like trick questions, toy problems or algorithm stuff. It was a straightforward coding challenge and then a fairly low-pressure conversation about my code, the decisions I made and how I might modify what I implemented if I had more time, or was confronted with a specific challenge.

I think if I now were to enter the job market with the experience I have, I hope that I wouldn't be immediately confronted with things in an interview like traversing binary search trees, or implementing a Fisher Yates shuffle on a whiteboard.

I think I've been pretty lucky with the jobs that I've had so far in my career where none of them have required extensive whiteboarding for their interview processes. I completely empathize with you though, as I feel like every time I've encountered whiteboarding in an interview, I must've seemed so incompetent to the interviewer.

It's definitely possible to find jobs that don't require whiteboarding for their interview process - best of luck when you look again!

Haha yeah. What an asshole move.

Absolutely.

To be really certain you'd have to test your soil.

I don't think you could test seeds without destroying them. But if your soil was clean then you could grow a plant from potentially contaminated seeds and that plants seeds would be far less contaminated.

I thought the Colorado law was about base pay?

Personally I don't care about stocks on a job posting. I consider stocks to be worth 0 when considering offers unless it's a public company with all the information available for me to evaluate the company.

This is because statistically the startup will fail. And there's no way to make a fact based evaluation if it will fail or not until after you are working for them. If you are one of the initial hires it's basically blindly gambling on the founders. The exception being if the founders have previously founded successful startups, in which case you are betting on their experience.

> I thought the Colorado law was about base pay?

That’s not the way I read it:

Employers must include the following compensation and benefits information in each posting:

(A) the hourly rate or salary compensation (or a range thereof) that the employer is offering for the position;

(B) a general description of any bonuses, commissions, or other forms of compensation that are being offered for the job; and

(C) a general description of all employment benefits the employer is offering for the position, including health care benefits, retirement benefits, any benefits permitting paid days off (including sick leave, parental leave, and paid time off or vacation benefits), and any other benefits that must be reported for federal tax purposes, but not benefits in the form of minor perks.

RSUs are benefits that must be reported for federal tax purposes.

B and C say "general description", while A says "rate" or "compensation"; has the exact meaning of those been figured out yet, w.r.t. what goes in the number and what goes in the text?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

This seems to be aimed at investors more than anyone else.

It seems like hours watched for a subscription service seems useless, there are no ads to catch eyeballs why care how many hours watched if the person is still paying for it? It seems like the perfect netflix user would use the service infrequently but still pay for it.

But to what end?

Gathering more data on a problem you don't know how to solve won't give you a solution to solving it. We don't have any evidence to support that current AI is capable of the advanced problem solving the city driving requires.