benaston

In the video, why does Lath Carlson, Executive Director of the Seattle Living Computers Museum euphemize history by saying Steve Jobs "quit" in 1985?

The EU is a supra-national political union with the aim of turning nation states into regions and centralising power and wealth in an unelected/indirectly elected elite.

You might make free software more reliable and secure. The EU won't.

This is not journalism. It is a (likely paid for) ad for Tesla.

I'd double check the emissions readings before and after this "bug fix".

By advocating childlessness?

Who says gender inequality doesn't have consequences?

You're using big words, but you're citing the Telegraph and Guardian?

Those working on other standards should take heed.

Semicolons have always been optional. Brackets are only used for array literals (oh and destructuring assignment) as far as I know (and are required).

If Edge is not on approximate feature parity with Chrome (it isn't), then the benchmark is meaningless.

No, feminists are annoying because the most vocal ones take a simplistic rather literal view of equality, which is a distortion of the more nuanced truth behind the ideology.

Men and women have clear differences which should be celebrated. This means men and women can never be literally equal.

It so happens that women are significantly over represented in nursing. It is not obvious that fighting this imbalance is worth the effort.

HR don't want to hold out for a unicorn. They couldn't give two hoots about your skill. Even if they did they wouldn't be able to evaluate it. HR are simply brokers.

It is a board-level decision on salary ranges that prevents you from hiring "at market".

Clearly there will always be some excellent developers at any given moment, available to work sub-market for their own, irrelevant reasons - and these will be the "unicorns", and typically your dev team will be full of them (somewhat by definition because they have already been hired by the unicorn-finding process).

The question as to why many (most?) highly profitable companies refuse to "pay market" is very interesting and I do not have a good answer to.

The best I can come up with is that actually the company (i.e. the important people in the company: the board) explicitly doesn't want to pay for the best (or even above average) candidates, through some recognition/perception that they "do not need the best". But the development team does want to hire good guys, and so you have a kind of stand-off by proxy between the technical team and the board via HR.

The board may be focussed on a buy-out, or this year's figures or making some kind of an exit. I very much doubt the board for most companies sees developers as anything other than a fungible commodity.

Add in the fact that developers are seen as subordinates to management, and that many developers are already approaching or at their managers' (often low-ish) salaries(1), and I think advertised developer salaries will continue to be massively under-market (there are of course exceptions).

(1)Of course managers often get 100% bonuses while developers do not, so this is an untruth, but humans are emotion-driven and so this barrier remains. Realise that companies will happily pay way more than 2,000 USD per day for the very same resources they will not recruit for more than 75,000 per year, and the picture is complete.

The situation is exacerbated by our inability as a field to successfully discriminate between good and bad hires and our resultant desperate, near religious avoidance of false positives in the hiring process.

I think the jury is still out on `class`. I can say that `class` is somewhat "dishonest" both the sense that it makes the language more complicated, under a guise of simplification; and in the sense that it lures developers from classical languages into thinking that JavaScript has classes in the same manner, when `class` in JS is just sugar.