Apparently if you spend all your time either working or interviewing, even at places you don't want to wind up, it'll all just come together perfectly because that's all your schedule is.
Fellow NJ programmer here - have you had much luck finding stuff in Central Jersey? Red Bank to Toms River sorta area.
I'm currently working in Red Bank and have been having a hell of a time finding places that don't seem miserable or just short contract work that I'm not interested in lol
Sorry I've been off the market for 2 years now. Holding onto my job and super easygoing boss for dear life. I found by it pure luck and its at a boring company that does nothing innovative but the pay is good and there is no stress. I wish you luck in your search.
> Is the Secret Service really confident that it can protect its charges from this kind of attack?
Yes. Our military is pretty confident that it can handle any form of missile/flying object trying to reach US soil before its an issue, which is part of why we feel pretty much zero repercussions for being terrible.
Hey, I know it's just a small comment on HN so I don't know the whole picture and you very well may already know/do this, but people who tend to have free time to just pump out side projects without worrying about work tend to be already-privileged people.
I get what you mean about not even really needing the project to work, just show that you have an idea and wanna work on it, yadda yadda, but I think you'll eliminate some good candidates and hard workers if you see a lack of side projects as a lack of devotion or work ethic.
No I get it, you're right. It's not that I'm counting them out, it's more of an advantage that people with side projects tend to have, but it's super individual and my opinion is just one of many.
No, they are not right, they are very very wrong and probably just using this an excuse to be lazy; don't let people shame you for actually doing something.
Taking a few delivery jobs while being relatively well off isn't the same as people picking this up as a 2nd or 3rd job and depending on it.
I can't believe I have to point out that most of the people being affected negatively by this aren't by-and-large "wealthy" or "secure" people to begin with.
You'd be surprised how prevalent that attitude is, the people with good paying jobs doing it for "extra cash on the side" say they don't care about the pay rate or unionizing or anything and so the going rate for these little delivery contracts is super low.
They advertise that you'll make well over minimum wage when in reality you'll hardly ever even meet min wage. They could easily guarantee a min wage, which should be no problem if the drivers are all really making so much money, but they obviously don't.
People say "well the drivers shouldn't do it then, they should get different jobs. if it doesn't pay and they keep doing it they're stupid", and then go on to order food from the app and tip $0.50 bc "hey, I only spent $5, that's 10%!"
Drivers are essentially depending on tips to live just like a waiter. They might take home $4/hr from the app. So every time you order you have the chance to make it right for the driver and pay them for doing their job by giving a decent cash tip. IMO $3 is the absolute minimum, $5 is normal. If your reaction to that is "whoa that's way too much what did they do to deserve that?" you're a cheap bastard.
Sorry for the rant, I just did this job for a while and got treated like dog shit by the customers and the companies for efficiently and politely indulging their every whim on demand at any hour, and it makes me sick to hear people who aren't starving living in their cars depending on work like this to survive talking about it in abstract terms like they have any idea. We really should have a period of compulsory food service work for every teenager in this country, seriously.
Those are references to Microsoft PAC which is funded by small donations from thousands of employees. Folks sometimes donate small amounts because they can go to events where interesting speakers are invited like Michael Lewis, Phil Knight, Will Smith, Chelsea Clinton, Arianna Huffington etc. As an employee, you do not have a say in capital allocation. In fact the PAC donates to both sides. The only agenda historically is what is in Microsoft’s corporate interests from taxation policies to h1bs etc. Representatives didn’t always fall cleanly into either camp. For example, while McConnell might be a climate denier he might have supported a favorable taxation policy, rural broadband policy or h1b policy. Perhaps Schumer supported favorable h1b policies but not corporate tax policies so he would be allocated capital proportionally.
Such corporate-managed PACs should be made illegal.
I may not be able to come up with the perfect solution myself, but I'm sure there is a way to maintain regular people's ability to organize and even donate politically without having greedy corporate interests take over such entities. Politicians should work to find that solution and ban everything else.
There is just so much wrong with the U.S. electoral system, it's hard to even know where to start. Money in politics, the FPTP system (which also helped the pro-Brexit party in UK win the most seats again, despite the majority of votes going to anti-Brexit parties), electoral college, antiquated caucus system in primaries, all the technical obstacles that two parties have set against independents and third-parties to ensure they never have a real shot and that the real status-quo is maintained (permanent war, helping their wealthy friends, spying on everyone, keeping citizens in the dark about the real issues, etc).
The quoted article says they donated a total of $22K dollars to misc representatives. If I'm not mistaken, that wasn't even the company, but the PAC making those small donations. I'd even go as far as to say those donations seems insignificant relative to this $1B investment.
Feels a bit like you might be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Does this surprise you? What should they do when a politician is an aligned with them 90%? Do you only support or vote for local and federal politicians that share your values on every single issue?
Does not surprise me. Just wanted to clarify that the Microsoft donates to X line is a lot more nuanced than the monolithic portrayal by OP
So employees donate money to a fund that they then don’t have a say in and for reasons that might be as unrelated as wanting to get good seats for a talk by Phil Knight.
This independent org then donates across party lines to issues that the manager believes are aligned with corporate interests that may also conflict with other corporate interests such as green initiatives and LGBTQ issues since a republican senator might be for rural broadband access but not gay marriage.
There was also an internal movement to try and starve the PAC by not donating to it.
And TBC, throwing a wrench in this even more, from a pure money perspective we’re talking about tens - hundreds of thousands vs. 1 billion.
Really, my point is that, like any large organization, a manichean view of things is not sufficiently nuanced and does a disservice to the complexity intrinsic with large groups of people.
The company also exists of employees and shareholders. The PAC is administered by the corporation, has meetings on corporate grounds, is contributed to by the corporation, and has its contribution list published by the corporation. In anything other than a legal sense, the corporation runs the PAC.
The also just secured a $10 Billion contract with the US military, which is one of the largest emitters of carbon on the planet.
Americans have been reticent to downsize the military for the benefit of everyone else on the planet, but we might just get around to it for our own benefit in reducing emissions.
