Handy? That sounds like a security nightmare. Your instances are accessible by simply being able to gain access to the Google account? Even with 2-factor authentication, this is a serious no-no to basic security requirements. A remote server should be only accessible from specific IPs using ssh keys. No passwords, no world-accessible browser interface.
> A remote server should be only accessible from specific IPs using ssh keys. No passwords, no world-accessible browser interface.
Maybe if you own the servers.
Since they're Google's or Amazon's servers you have to be able to administer them with some set of Google or Amazon credentials. Otherwise what would you do if sshd crashed?
I understand your point. I host on linode which has Lish (an out-of-bound terminal that gives you command-line access without ssh). I have it turned off normally, but again can be turned on by anyone who gains access to my account with credentials and 2-factor auth. It should take a lot more from an attacker to be able to access your servers.
How does that add any security? Anyone with access to your root AWS credentials still has your IP addresses and your EBS volumes/snapshots and can do whatever they want.
This is the trade off I've wrestled with. I've kicked around setting up a Clound9 IDE with access to our environments, so that I can access and repair any of our production environments remotely without needing my laptop.
Queue the pundits who will claim that the reason advertising is supposedly effective is that you cannot physically ignore the brain washing. They always pop up to claim that no matter how strongly you believe that advertising's manipulation does not affect you, it does. That your subconscious sucks it all in, regardless of the effort your conscious mind makes to filter it out.
I go out of my way to stop purchasing products whose advertisements I see too often, or who use emotional advertising that has nothing to do with their product. One example: I stopped buying Dove products the very first time I saw one of their "real beauty" campaign ads. Bloody hell, you're only selling soap. What on Earth makes advertising people think that stroking the egos of people with body image issues would work? Perhaps it works on a lot of people, but I sure as hell am not one of them.
I think that may actually be more advertising for the advertising industry. Let's see the results of the comparison between the control group and the experimental group.
I don't think any such data exists, particularly among those who have consciously decided to ignore the ads.
Company: Why should we pay you if people are ignoring the ads?
Admen: Because they work *better* if you aren't paying attention.
Company: Really?
Admen: Absolutely!
Company: We're not sure about that...
Admen: Ladies and gentlemen, mister Kevin Nealon.
Mr. Subliminal: I get that you have concerns
(keep paying us)
about the effectiveness of subliminal advertising,
(it really works)
but you should take a look at this chart
(totally legit)
showing what appears to be ad budget on the x axis
(sex axis)
and product sales on the y axis
(why not buy more ads?).
As you can see,
(really just a model's ass)
more ads mean more sales. So in conclusion,
(buy more ads)
your company should definitely buy more ads from us.
Company: We'd like to increase our advertising budget.
While it sounds excessive that a company has so many worldwide offices to even have 3 to close, good luck having them focus on important problems with their software if any of those 47 layoffs included developers. This kind of fatal flaw that can result in data loss makes it sound like they prioritize new features and marketing above the product itself.
Shortages don't seem like they should a valid reason. Choosing to no longer produce a needed drug shouldn't even be a legal option - free market shouldn't be allowed to trump health. I don't know how you write laws to require a corporation to produce a drug they own, and perhaps that isn't the right approach; but it doesn't seem morally acceptable to let this happen. Capitalism should be taking a back seat here compared to the common good. "Manufacturing problems" just seems ripe for abuse. "Oh, we fired 90% of our production line, and now we just can't seem to pump it out anymore". Manufacture should have safeties and redundancies in place to prevent the sudden inability to produce whatsoever. It's unfortunate that money trumps all, even for the health industry.
The OP's question is one that an interviewee would love to hear if they've saved up money and are actually searching for their dream job, while living comfortably on those savings. This is the real annoyance with the employer-employee relationship: the lack of any genuine relationship. Most of the time, the employer wants the best talent without having to pay for it or compromising on anything, and the employee just wants the highest salary/package possible.
The real win would be this: I find a company whose product I truthfully want to invest my interest in. You realize my potential and pay me the $150k I am worth compared to the $80k I make now, considering I routinely provide the quantity of work you get from 3-4 juniors at $50k each, at a superior quality where every line of code written isn't adding to the technical debt.
Oh, and I'll take my 4-5 weeks of yearly vacation instead of the 2-3 bullshit weeks you expect me to be satisfied with. If only more than 1% of the companies out there actually owned a product worth being excited about. :(
Huh? They disable "emissions mode" during all driving either because a) it was bad for sales - perhaps one is unable to reach race car speeds in < 10 seconds; or b) they purposely chose not to build a compliant emissions reduction system and covered it up by specifically making the cars pass only during examination.
There is no apology to be made for them. Manufacturers are required to build sustainable systems, it's not optional. Unless the initial facts turn out to be wrong, this is clearly inexcusable.
I see what part of what I said made you confused. The "unsustainable" part of what I meant was that it caused some sort of undesired effect be it affecting performance or causing accelerated wear on components that could be costly to replace under warranty or some other condition.
Either way, I agree, VW did this intentionally and there is no question as to their motives behind it. I'm sure they'll be severely punished for it.
You have a home to stash the pennies in to save them up. Someone who lives on the street can't carry around pounds of pennies around until they have thousands of them to exchange for larger currency. Pennies might have value long-term, but they are worthless if you can't stash them in bulk.
Disclaimer: Canadian, we abolished pennies because they are worthless and a pain in the ass. ;)
Defensive move? Quite the opposite. Apple has the gall to go on the offensive with an app to assist people in abandoning the competition. It would take a tiny percentage of a single percent of android users to switch to have made this stunt profitable.
Even if nobody ever uses the app to switch, it got some chuckles during the keynote, and gives us iDevice users a cheap laugh. Of course, I don't give a damn what phone you use. Both operating systems are good, and both offerings have good hardware. The only "defensive move" seen here is people on both sides trying to protect their choice of device against criticism from other people. Stop caring what people think about your phone. And stop caring about other people's phones. Everyone wins!
> Apple has the gall to go on the offensive with an app to assist people in abandoning the competition
You are missing something so obvious you'll facepalm when you realize it: why didn't they do this sooner?
If it was such an offensive, obvious, right move, they've had six years to do it. Why didn't they?
Because they felt they didn't need to. Even acknowledging the existence of Android was a sign of weakness. So they just purposely didn't make that move.
But things are getting heated, now. Android is in the 60-70% market share depending on the country you are looking at, iOS is at most 20% and shrinking every year. They are growing very, very nervous in Cupertino, so they are beginning to reach for measure that probably make Jobs turn in his grave.
But it's the right thing to do, and I give Tim Cook credit for approving such a bold move. But make no mistake, it's a very, very bad message they are sending to their share holders and investore by having created such an app.
Especially since it's being decimated in reviews in the Play Store, but that's a separate topic.
I'm in the same boat. I've had management at a handful of companies discuss me taking on more than my Senior Developer role, for an extra $10-20k. That much stress does not warrant only a few years' worth of raises. Double my salary well above $150k+ (I'm not in the US) and I'd consider it. They'll have to pry my precious code from my cold, dead hands. I'm in my early 30s now; perhaps my preference will change as I approach my 40s, but for now I'd rather be a rock star in my field than be just another manager whose team hates him because he has no real control to change the company's politics.
IMO manager = make more money but put in way more time. Meaning, deal with the questions from higher management, prepare all the various performance meetings, etc. Especially sudden highly important tasks are fun. Or announcements that happen on e.g. Monday and you get your information Friday late. This leading to having to review everything during the weekend.
It seems some people care more about the total salary than what they earn vs time invested.
PS: Regarding your team hating you: Decide for yourself how you manage. I prefer the honest types who just say "company decided and we just have to deal with it". If you start pretending you totally agree with things you'll not be able to give good answers to the various questions and people will think that you have no clue.
Choosing to take on management roles doesn't mean someone cares more about total salary than time earned. They probably just care more about team culture and mentorship.
I suspect common reasons for taking on a low-level management role include a) developer burn-out, time to move up and not have to code all the time; b) desire for more power (whether for egotistical reasons or in the hope of effecting positive change in a position of power); and c) a stepping stone to further levels of management where the salary upgrade actually becomes tangible.
I don't disdain competent developers who move up, I just personally don't understand it - yet. I imagine the time will come where I've had my fill of programming. Even if I don't burn out, I expect I will reach that age where I begin to feel that younger developers and management are dismissive of my abilities, and it will be the only escape into a role where I can earn back some respect. :)
OP sounds like he works for a startup, where he's given the title of a Lead Developer, but is expected to perform the role of an Engineering Manager and even some CTO duties. In addition to hiring/salaries, also worrying about software licenses? This is not the description of a lead developer.
I totally agree. Lead developers write code, also remove real, tangible and hard roadblocks in the code for the team... this sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. I think he was turned into a manager without him realizing it.
In my experience in small companies "Lead Developer" usually means "the person who wrote all of our initial software and still does some programming while keeping track of our code base in general". I.e. something between a retired programmer, a software architect and a CTO.
I did have to hire people and in the current market that was a very hard task. Especially so when the company in question is not a sexy startup, nor is the stuff they’re working on amazeballs, nor is the market that they’re in one that attracts a lot of people. It took me a lot of time interviewing people and even offering them a job (with a pretty good offer, mind you) only for them to choose another company.
I totally agree that the role seems like way more of a manager than a developer, so "lead developer" is a strange title. Of course titles are pretty strange and generally not very "portable" to begin with.
