thirdstation
Joined 17 years ago
Joined 17 years ago
"Our compensation philosophy helped a lot. Most of its principles stem from ideals described earlier: Be honest, and treat people like adults. For instance, during my tenure Netflix didn’t pay performance bonuses, because we believed that they’re unnecessary if you hire the right people. If your employees are fully formed adults who put the company first, an annual bonus won’t make them work harder or smarter. We also believed in market-based pay and would tell employees that it was smart to interview with competitors when they had the chance, in order to get a good sense of the market rate for their talent. Many HR people dislike it when employees talk to recruiters, but I always told employees to take the call, ask how much, and send me the number—it’s valuable information."
She says they paid market rate and no bonuses. She emphasizes here and elsewhere in the article the importance of hiring people who put Netflix first.
She was also devastatingly "moved on" herself: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/03/437291792/how-the-architect-of...
That might be a good test of demand for junior Ruby/Rails/Javascript developers, in addition to how good Flatiron is at preparing them.
I like option 1 because it forces everyone to move.
If no one feels like they are in the free lane, they'll be forced to cooperate.
So, on a two-lane highway, make one center lane and have both lanes funnel into it. then you can move that free-flowing lane wherever you need.
One bug, the summaries are missing apostrophes.
1) "[Scrum] provides a framework that prioritizes delivering real, working, business-quality software sprint after sprint."
2) "Scrum is engineering centric. Great companies are customer and product centric."
So, with the second quote the author sets up this dichotomy between Scrum and being customer-focused. But to me, the first quote (which is accurate) positions Scrum as supremely customer-focused. Meaning, to deliver value as soon as possible, as much as possible.
I think the author fails to make any persuasive arguments about Scrum. His arguments about what Scrum is not are inaccurate. I was hoping for some useful counter-perspective.
One: As an MS in CS holder I certainly worry that my degree is perceived as worth less, if not outright worthless. I worked very hard for it and am proud of my accomplishment. It represents a great deal of sacrifice. It also represents the 30 credits of undergraduate coursework and six credits of graduate coursework I completed before entering a graduate program. Of course, Ms. Lerner would see the MS on my résumé and throw it in the rubbish pile.
Two: According to Prof. Regehr's second point, training in public speaking and writing is an important aspect of a research-oriented master's program. I already had a B.A. in Journalism so I was pretty well covered on both of those points. And, since I was working full-time, with a child on the way, I was plenty mature. A coursework-oriented degree is what I wanted.
Three: I violently object to the denigration of MSCS holders based on the limited experience of a recruiter. Maybe Ms. Lerner is unable to attract more qualified candidates, and so she's extrapolated too liberally. Her arrogance is what I find most offensive.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/05/09/how-different-i...
If this option is available to you then I'd heartily recommend it.
Is there a way to prevent this sort of scenario while letting the service remain anonymous?
I think the wording of "continue a secret" is a little confusing. I appreciate the brevity but maybe "participate in a secret" would be more accurate. "Share a secret" sounds nice -- because that's what we do with secrets :-) But, it might get confused with the sharing of that particular secret code instead.
On a UI note, having to click on the help icon to dismiss the pop-up was a little annoying.
It allows an author to state the reason for the citation (supports, refutes, etc.).
Having to state a reason could reduce spurious citations while providing a more accurate view of the nature of a paper's impact.
[1] http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/cito