I think there is a fundamental issue with the flow.
The first step should be to choose the fundamental benefit the person is looking to achieve
Upper / Back / Lower / Cardio or similar high level categories that even novices can understand. I hesitate to say push pull or as this is industry specific
Upper - I want a bigger chest or more defined shoulders
Back - I want a wider back or a more defined back
Lower - I want bigger glutes, defined abs, clearer separation between butt and legs, bigger legs
Cardio - I want better overall stamina
Next how much time I have
Next equipment that I have
Next a visual representation on the skeleton of what this looks like in terms of targeting
I have tried it here is my experience:
I am new user, I login and begin to search for content:
Whatever I search for does not match the content on any tweet equivalent either the text or meta information - like hashtags. Only the content of the users name and words in their Bio.
This I can understand for instagram where the concept is based on a stream of pictures that will be released over time. But how do I find within content ? - like breaking news items?
Beyond duplicating the accounts you follow in instagram.
This only serves to find and follow accounts built around a single concept.
Or a named celebrity.
But it does not work at the moment as a tool to find anything based on the content within a thread (happening now, or around me, or an upcoming event or a specific programming code example) - isn't this the main value of these kind of tools?
Find content that is important or interesting to you and then follow them to hear more.
I am British and worked in central London for years. The idea of owning an 800,000 apartment in central London was a ridiculous luxury. Most people that I worked with had to commute like me for 1-1.5 hours a day from outside London commuter towns into work (some way more than this). This was the nature of the beast. Is it "right" no. I just do not see how 800K GBP apartments are a) affordable and b) practical - it would be much better to focus on decent commuter links, subsidies for travel and affordable housing around London - than creating token affordable housing in the centre for the sake of it. If you do not like the commute then move to another city. I did for this exact reason.
My pet peeve is that I want a total moratorium on infrastructure improvements inside zone 1-2 at least, maybe further out.
Instead, what would be far better for London, would be a 20 year commitment to running commuter level trains services between a ring of zone 4-5 stations and nearby commuter towns even further out. The reason for such a long commitment would be to allow businesses to trust they can move further out and still have access to a decent talen pool in commutable distance, and for people to be able to trust they can move there. [Ideally I'd like to see a focus on investing in clusters outside of London entirely, like Birmingham, and Leeds-Sheffield-Manchester]
The more that gets invested into the centre, the more traffic it encourages, and it's far more expensive to add capacity in the centre than it would be to encourage businesses and people to move further out.
E.g. I live in Croydon. There's relatively direct train tracks between Croydon and Woking and Guildford and further afield, so in many cases you could create far larger commutable areas without even new track, just a commitment to running services at frequent enough intervals. Instead most times it's faster to go in towards the centre of London first.
Then change planning rules to allow dense housing by default surrounding the immediate station areas but tax underutilised plots heavily coupled with guarantees of pouring money into construction until house prices start sloping downwards.
Currently we're in a situation where the prices are exacerbated by developers just sitting on plots knowing prices will go up, and treating actual construction "just" as a final exit. We need to get to a point where developers lose money unless they build quickly, and where people stop seeing their home as a financial investment.
I'm currently living the dream that after the (somewhat) exodus of folks to cheaper, spacier suburbs, the fact that people want to work from home and (as per the article on the front page yesterday) would rather quit than commute again - we might actually get some affordable housing in London. Be that converted offices, new builds, or just availability. Annecdata, but looking at Zoopla the lower priced (ha) places are dropping or not selling as they did... But who knows.
Still blows my mind what the half a million quid you can easily spend on a flat in town will get you pretty much anywhere else.
When I first moved to the UK I rented a room literally across the road from Marble Arch and Hyde Park, I've since moved progressively further out. Despite 20 years of price increases, my mortgage on a 3 bedroom house with a garden in Croydon costs me about the same as that first room did... It'd take a seismic house price crash to consider moving back in even with a commute.
It's expensive here too, but the differential is staggering given East Croydon is a 15 minute train ride from both London Victoria and London Bridge.
Croydon is extremely diverse. Parts of it are worse. Parts of it I'd much prefer over Hyde Park any day (e.g. parts of Shirley and Purley, which have areas with huge villas set off private roads). Of course it depends on priorities too - if e.g. shopping at Oxford streets or being near Soho or living in a dense city centre is what you want, Croydon can't compete with that. That got old really fast when I lived in the centre, though - even in my mid 20's when I lived there I very quickly preferred more space and actually having money left over.
M commute was almost an hour each way zone 2 from zone 2. It almost doesn't make sense to live in London, if spending the same time means I get to live in a nice house with my own garden instead of a cramped flat.
The key part of this is whole thing is the mechanism of enforcement - at the ISP. To do this UK ISPs will need increased government controlled infrastructure operating within their ISP core networks. This to me sounds like post Brexit GCHQ wants to significantly increase the amount of access and control it has to all UK web browsing traffic...
Have a google for: "can i lie to a employer about past salary" - it really really messes with people - people feel super uncertain about how to approach this situation. Throwing any confidence they have during the negotiation out the window.
Even now I hesitate to write this as a million people will come out and say never lie - what if they found out.
More than banning. There needs to be acceptance that if someone asks you. You are totally free to make any damn number up that you like. Seriously. Its a sales situation. It should not be like your under oath on the stand. Which is how most people view it.
If these are honestly your answers to these questions and you in fact give lies as answers, you sound like exactly the type of person I absolutely hate working with and actively try to weed out during interviewing.
To anyone reading this new to the industry, there are absolutely legitimate ways to answer these questions without lying.
> Why do you want to work here? (money, and the desire to pay the bills and feed my children)
That is a given for nearly any job. If it's your only reason you want to take this particular job, it tells me you have zero passion for your work. The people I know who are like this are what I'd describe as "9-5" employees, don't learn anything outside of work, and basically do the bare minimum at everything.
I want to work with someone that's at least somewhat excited about the job they're going to be doing, and bring some energy, new ideas and actually care about doing a good job. It's the difference between a day labourer and a craftsman.
> Where do you see yourself in 5 years? (probably not at this company)
So? That's fine. Is anyone hiring with the expectation or even desire their employees stay for 5 years?
There are many good ways to answer this, but it's definitely not "doing the same thing as today, with the same technology stack, tools and level of knowledge".
> What is your biggest weakness? (not like I would actually tell a stranger a real answer)
This is kind of a crappy interview question, but there are decent ways to answer it [1]. They are not asking for your deep, personal failings, but for your weaknesses as they apply to the job at hand.
> The people I know who are like this are what I'd describe as "9-5" employees, don't learn anything outside of work, and basically do the bare minimum at everything.
If you're a creative person, like a developer, it's inefficient.
Context switching is expensive, and going home for the day is a big context switch.
If it's 5:00 and you have 30 minutes left on something, most likely it'll take something like two hours tomorrow to get back into and finish it.
If you always go home exactly at 5, it means you are either constantly being inefficient and doing the context switch, you are not doing anything late in the afternoon to avoid the context switch, or you are extremely good at both estimating and optimizing your time so all your tasks are quantized within working hours. While things may work out to look like the third case sometimes, I find it hard to believe anyone is that good that it can happen literally every day, which leads me to believe they're often doing one of the other two things.
And just to take this further: there's a massive context switch for the dev team when a burned out developer leaves after 1-2 years, compared to the 9-5 dev who's still there and happy.
From your perspective or the company's perspective?
From the company's perspective an unmotivated 9-5 employee not as good of a hire as one who deeply enjoys the work subject and actively learns about it on their own.
From your perspective reduced job security because you probably don't perform at the level of someone internally motivated.
Even if that is not true there are enough of these sentiments floating around to affect decisions.
EDIT - If you disagree, a well worded comment carries more weight than a downvote and avoiding the discussion.
>The people I know who are like this are what I'd describe as "9-5" employees, don't learn anything outside of work
So, you just don't hire people with kids, medical problems or other responsibilities outside of work? If you want people to bone up give them time during the work day, have sr. devs run workshops on new tech you're adopting. Don't create the expectation people should work in their time off. If you want effective employees you should invest in that and not shove the cost onto the individual.
Even if it produces the results you'd (which is pretty questionable) like these kind of criteria have obvious and well-known biases.
> Don't create the expectation people should work in their time off.
I have no such expectation, nor did I say people should work in their time off.
I think people need to keep up their education. Learning doesn't stop when you graduate. Your company should be willing to pay for training/courses/conferences, but I also think people that are passionate about things will naturally grow on their own.
At the least, this might mean staying current with news and/or community, especially within your current toolset/ecosystem. As an example, if you don't usually know within at least a week or so that your main language/framework/database/etc has a new release, you're in this category if people I'm talking about.
And to clarify when I say "9-5" I mean the type of person that always has their stuff packed up and is walking out the door by 5:01pm. This tells me either you've stopped in the middle of something, which means instead of staying for 10 or 30 minutes to finish it you will take two hours tomorrow to regain context, or that when you're done something and it's after say, 4 o'clock, you just don't start anything new.
I don't believe in working crazy (or even just 'extra' hours beyond what you're paid for): that leads to burnout and that is bad for literally everybody. I do think it's better to stay longer to finish and not waste time on the context switch of going home, or other days just leave "early" if you are done and can't finish anything further.
Why isn't it acceptable to leave in the middle of a project? If I have a very regular after-work schedule (like picking kids up from daycare), I don't understand why I shouldn't leave at exactly the same time every day. Even if that means leaving something unfinished, that I'll get back to when I get back in the morning. And I might not have anything I can "do" by leaving 30 minutes early, because I can't go home and I can't get to (regular obligation) early.
"I want to work with someone that's at least somewhat excited about the job they're going to be doing, and bring some energy, new ideas and actually care about doing a good job. It's the difference between a day labourer and a craftsman."
If you're paying craftsman wages, then there really should never be a problem here, even if people just want to bring their A game for the money.
> If you're paying craftsman wages, then there really should never be a problem here, even if people just want to bring their A game for the money.
Agreed. The biggest problem I find is that day labourers act/talk like they are craftsman and ask for corresponding wages. In other words: wage is not a good filter to separate people out. Craftsman won't work for day labourer wages but day labourers will not only work for craftsman wages -- they'll ask for them.
> That is a given for nearly any job. If it's your only reason you want to take this particular job, it tells me you have zero passion for your work.
Your reasoning seems flimsy. I'm extremely passionate about programming and technology. You definitely wouldn't describe me as a "9-5" employee (I'm constantly working on new projects and learning new things), but I'm also very broad in my programming interests. It's extremely rare for me to find a development project which doesn't interest me.
Hence, the reason I'm in technology (in general) is about passion but the reason I'll work for you specifically is because of how much you'll pay me. I take pride in my work, which means I also expect to be paid well for it.
>>What is your biggest weakness? (not like I would actually tell a stranger a real answer)
>This is kind of a crappy interview question, but there are decent ways to answer it [1]. They are not asking for your deep, personal failings, but for your weaknesses as they apply to the job at hand.
As best I understand the literature on it, what they're (effectively) asking is:
"Are you one of the cool kids who knows we want to hear a pre-packaged, nice-sounding answer about a time you overcame some weakness?"
I don't think I lie to interviewers. Sure, I don't interpret "why do you want to work here?" as a broad inquiry into my decision to sell my labor, but I think the salary requirement is generally well understood by both parties.
I've always answered "where do you see yourself in x years" and "what is your biggest weakness" as honestly as possible.
100% this. It's all a game, except prospective employees are guilted into thinking they're the only ones lying (or that doing it is wrong). It works the other way too:
Candidate: "What do you dislike the most about working here?"
Interviewer: (My asshole boss...) "The office is a little noisy sometimes."
I totally lie any time a recruiter asks for my current/past salary. How much I lie depends on what I think I should be getting for the role, and how likely it is that they can and will confirm the numbers I gave.
At my most recent past job, I was working for some guys at a small startup for next to nothing in salary (~$40k). I had a 10% stake in equity, but it was worth nothing, since the company was in debt. When I left I told the CEO and CTO "Can you say I made $160k salary?" Response - "Sure!" Next job was a $120k salary raise, + bonus, and I was able to work in RSUs.
At my current company, if I plan to leave, I'll fib by adding in my bonus % into base salary. I can't get away with much since I'm at a large corporation now. If they check and find a discrepancy I can blame it on a simple error.
With fibs, you can get a decent bump. But if you have complicit conspirators, then the sky's the limit.
Something I would not suggest is giving the number of a friend who will pose as HR/a past employer. This is pretty risky if you aren't attentive to detail.
That depends. Larger corporations tend to avoid asking things other than "Did John Doe work here as title Z from date X to date Y?" However, many smaller companies aren't legally savvy and will divulge too much information, if the other side asks questions they probably shouldn't be.
I've mainly worked for small companies, and have had two situations where way more than was appropriate (or, you know, legal) divulged.
Neither caused me problems, but I made a point of getting back to @last_employers to point out that the next person they do that to might actually sue them.
Not true. This is often included the questions asked by background check companies when they confirm previous employers. Its up to the previous employers whether they provide that information. I have seen both (ie company refuses, company provides) in my own background checks.
... so you probably want to think twice about outright lying. There are many ways to avoid lying but still getting your point across. In most cases, employers will be scared off more by someone blatantly lying (which would also be cause for termination in most cases) than someone delivering a compelling case for why they are worth more than what they were previously paid.
As a contract recruiter I can't imagine asking this during a reference check or employment verification. I'd have gotten fired so fast I'd still have the phone in my hand on the way out.
I hope I never hire someone like you by accident. I have a feeling it wouldn't take long until this outlook would lead to other problems in the workplace that would have you on to your next con.
Yes, because deceit runs through my soul and my heart is as black as damask cloth. The fact that I want to be paid what I feel I should and can be paid has no bearing on my performance and attitude at work. If you were to speak to any of my past employers, they would probably use the same sideways compliment my high school calc teacher wrote on a college recommendation: "brilliant, but like lightning in a bottle."
Honesty and integrity are pretty high on the list of qualities I like in people I associate and work with. The fact that you would conspire with your previous employer to artificially prop your value up and then tell a bold faced lie in an interview, does make it seem like you are not above doing whatever it takes to get what YOU want and feel you deserve.
I don't see anyone arguing that your past salary should have any effect on your future comp. On the other hand, the position that a candidate seems to be with X, but is actually worth Y << X if they've down themselves to be dishonest in the interview process seems pretty reasonable. In places with good labor protection, lying during the hiring process is a great way to waive all protections from being fired.
> make it seem like you are not above doing whatever it takes to get what YOU want and feel you deserve.
Absolutely true. I'm also not an idiot and I apply this technique selectively. If I have to prevaricate to get something I want in a business setting, I have no problem with that. It's business, not a church confessional. However, when I'm at a company I align my desires with theirs and we BOTH get what we want.
Honesty and integrity in a corporate environment is a myth. To succeed you just have to project an illusion of those qualities. This is especially true higher up in the ranks.
Do you think your manager would tell you you're being laid off after having asked him? Hell no! He'll lie by omission or commission to save his skin. Is that honesty? Is there integrity in it? No! It's business. Get off your high horse.
My life goal is to retire early so no one fucking tells me what to do with my time. It's working out so far, so I see no need to change my means.
>I hope I never hire someone like you by accident.
It's likely employers like you that force employees to lie. It's amazing when employers are handed resumes that are anonymized, such as names, race, and sex information are removed they choose resumes with less bias. Yet you refuse to see that pricing information will cause additional bias on your part.
> Yet you refuse to see that pricing information will cause additional bias on your part.
This is why I chose to have my former employers give a different salary figure. If I had told my prospective, new employer I had been making $40k/year, I doubt they would have taken me seriously, and even possibly ended recruitment. "He only makes $40k! He must be bad or stupid!" I don't consider myself bad or stupid, I'm just not afraid of taking calculated risks.
Or you could simply say, "I prefer not to disclose that information". If a potential employer continues to push you to make the first offer, you can dodge the bullet and walk away with your integrity intact.
Personally, I never ask a candidate what they previously made. I do occasionally ask what their salary expectations are, but only when someone has applied that I perceive as far overqualified for the position they are applying for. e.g. Someone with a PHD and 20 years of experience applying for a Jr - Mid level position.
I find it so weird to see a lone person here defending integrity. Capitalism, the kind that enables startup culture, is built on trust. Starting an employment relationship with a lie is not good way to build trust.
I don't think employers should ask this, and they do employees should hold it against them. Employees shouldn't disclose it unless they want too. Anyone lying about this or anything else in the all too brief hiring process should be enough of a red flag to make the other party consider leaving.
> Capitalism, the kind that enables startup culture, is built on trust.
I see you've never run a business, because that kind of textbook ideation of capitalism is not practiced in the real world. If you'd been paying attention to labor conditions under capitalism in the US, you'd know that trust is the exception. Child labor, sweatshops, discrimination, wage theft, monopolies, companies colluding to fix wages - these happen in most economic systems. As a worker you can level the playing field by engaging in behaviors in the same vein. Do it, or you'll lose.
Fiat monetary systems are built on trust. Economic philosophies are not.
I see you have already been downvoted heavily. But I feel that despite being completely wrong you were attempting a real rebuttal, with real thought and content.
Companies colluding to fix wages - This couldn't exist without the companies trusting each other.
monopolies - These don't need trust between customers and business. But they also represent a failure mode were capitalism breaks down... perhaps because customers don't trust vendors.
Wage theft - This can't go on long before the people earning those wages leave for a more trustworthy environment. There are plenty of examples of people switching jobs (or even countries) to get a more trustworthy employer to prevent this. It is far from perfect, but people generally don't like to be stolen from. Those that tolerate make life harder for those victims that don't.
Discrimination - I am not sure what this has to do with anything here. But even groups like the KKK have trust between member to not out each other. It is fucked up but trust does exist and enables them to operate.
Sweatshops - People wouldn't work in sweatshops if they didn't get paid, otherwise its called slavery. In slavery the slaves aren't economic participants, they are products. Even in slave trades there must be trust. The slavers trust they can sell and the consumers trust they they can buy. This sadly comes with all the assurances of quality that any other transaction comes with.
Child labor - Is very sad, but still requires trust. The kids were either bought/sold so again the slave transaction or the kids are employees and have the employer/employee relationship.
All capitalism requires trust. I never said blind trust, and never trust in the product beyond its ability to function. You cannot buy things from or sell things to someone you do not trust to not attempt to kill you as the most base level. The more valuable or nuanced the transaction the greater the trust required.
Or you could have integrity and refuse to answer the question. I've never had a recruiter push back when I said "I can't disclose my current salary, but I'm looking for around $x."
That's nonsense. Just like innocent people with integrity who plead the Fifth. The recruiter will think you're hiding something and you'll be bumped down the list. The analogy of the Fifth is quite appropriate, as the US court system has had bias against defendants who might/do invoke that right. It was only in the previous decade that the Supreme Court made a definitive ruling (in a liberal interpretation of the Fifth) about the subject.
The only integrity involved is the integrity I have toward myself and my goals. The goals of the company are ancillary.
I can't prove that it's never caused me to be bumped down the list, but I don't think it's every hurt. For anyone where I've gotten to that stage I almost always get the offer. Plus, I feel a lot more confident when I'm being honest and straightforward. Confidence is much more useful in a negotiation than any marginal gain you get by lying.
Employers should not be asking previous salary anyways. Its the same tactics aggressive car salesmen use. People should be paid what they are worth and this is a tactic to maximize corporate profit at the COST of individual suffering.
Unfortunately there are employers in NYC who do call previous employers to verify salary. Remember that most white-collar employees are in much less demand than developers and have to deal with far more employer bullshit.
Before you're hired? If I found out that a prospective employer was calling my current employer, I would decline to continue interviewing and tell them exactly why.
This has me thinking, if that is legal, what is to stop any old random person who wants to know what you make from calling your employer posing as a recruiter/hiring manager looking for current salary?
I've had prospective employers call for reference/jobs description check and ask this question. It's really easy to not answer, or to answer "market rates".
The immediate information I found when doing that was that background checks, which almost always happen at least in Georgia, disclose the exact amount. I would rather just be honest and say I've been making below market rate and I'm looking for that to change. I feel asking my current salary is a tell whereas asking my expected compensation treats it more as it should be, a negotiation. Being asked both my current rate and expected doesn't sting as much because I feel they understand the realities of the situation but at the same time I still feel like I don't have as much bargaining power. I know I don't have much on my own merits coming in but even having the illusion helps tremendously for someone like me.
Most of us on here are trained and work in disciplines that allow us the luxury of saying to every potential employer "nah, I don't give my number, sorry," and simply moving on to the next one out of a thousand potential opportunities.
This, I think, is going to be very good for the classes of people that don't have that luxury.
You don't need to be a shit person to get a good deal (and yes, lying to someone in hopes of getting money generally makes you a shit person, even if that person happens to be a recruiter). If someone asks what your salary is, just say you don't disclose it. Tell them what you want your salary at this job to be. That's all they're trying to figure out, anyway.
That question (usually) isn't asked because they actually want to know what you used to make. It's asked because they want to know what number they can offer you that will make it likely you take the job. If you make $80k and are applying for a job where their range is $120-140, saying "I don't disclose previous salary but for this position I won't take anything less than $135" you will very likely get it provided you merit being in the top portion of their range.
Except in countries where it's required to hand over past salary information (pay slips and tax receipts) to HR at your new employer. Then it's clear you've been telling a lie.
Not sure what the big deal with this is! Whatever the recruiter wants to think, you are offering what it would take to make the move over. It's not like if they offered less that you would just as likely make the move. You are saving both parties times which is positive overall.
Sales people doing relationship/long-term sales can build trust with customers. If you are purely transactional about it (and willing to say anything to get maximum salary) then it may work, but it also may backfire.
If your hiring manager is the one you are lying to, they will also be responsible for your raises, promotions and bonuses. It's a long term relationship, one which can last beyond the current company you are at.
It's a small world in technology, and beyond hard skills, your reputation is all you've really got.
haha. yeah ok. My company has sales guys closing 6 to 8 figure deals every quarter and they "stretch the truth" all the time. Its part of sales. Thats why I only did sales for 2 years... the pay is the best but its an emotional roller coaster.
> My company has sales guys closing 6 to 8 figure deals every quarter and they "stretch the truth" all the time.
Best term I heard for that was 'overhang the market'. Sales people promising features that are only sort of on the roadmap at some point in the future :)
Given the job descriptions which Blizzard had out for a while before this release, I think it's Diablo 1 & 2 which are more likely to find themselves remastered next.
Love the site especially the speed. But disappointed that the search indexes the name of the container of the torrent only and not the name of the files within the torrent.
To date the only site I know that does this is "filelisting dot com" but their website is very slow.
Do you have any plans to extend your product to add this feature. Maybe as a premium option?
Super useful to find single documents contained within archived bundles of files.
Archived bundles of files having significant names are important! Torrents of opaque disk images and archives (e.g. pirated software) or video files (e.g. pirated movies and TV series episodes) might be popular, but the strong suit of BitTorrent are carefully crafted and often very large collections of books, music, emulator ROM files etc.
Reading the page, it sounds like they're talking about the "torrentfs" mounted filesystem component, where read requests will download just that part of the file.
So theoretically, you could open the archive in a GUI, extract the file you want, and the only part it would download would be the archive header/file listing and the part of the archive corresponding to the file you wanted.
Of course, this wouldn't work for tarballs or solid RARs, but for regular archives it could conceivably work.
Search result priority is largely irrelevant for rare or specific files, since there are going to be few results (at least, few clearly different torrents) and each result is going to be inspected by looking at the file list.
Indexing file names is the search quality improvement you need most. For example, I tried searching for "Pretty Polly", by the Poison Girls; moderately popular niche music.
There are 0 results for "pretty polly" and 2 results for "poison girls", one of which is a complete discography collection containing that song. Imagine the results for more popular and prolific authors.
> disappointed that the search indexes the name of the container of the torrent only and not the name of the files within the torrent. To date the only site I know that does this is "filelisting dot com" but their website is very slow.
I think there is a fundamental issue with the flow. The first step should be to choose the fundamental benefit the person is looking to achieve
Upper / Back / Lower / Cardio or similar high level categories that even novices can understand. I hesitate to say push pull or as this is industry specific
Next how much time I haveNext equipment that I have
Next a visual representation on the skeleton of what this looks like in terms of targeting
Next excersizes