I will paraphrase my father: “it doesn’t matter how much money you are making if you are spending most of it. If you want to build wealth, you need to look at how much you can set aside every month”.
what would you expect the percentage to be?
A lot less. When I was single and sharing an apartment, I’d pay 600€ on a ~4000€ netto salary. 10 years, a marriage and two kids later, our place is about 1400€ even when our combined income was 3.5x as much.
Not so much of a good measure of how you live but on how much (or little) people are left for other things, including saving/investing towards their own homes.
You missed the last paragraph, didn’t you?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think we should accept to be working for less or to accept a lower standard of living just because so many people have it worse.
As long as your work is:
Then “what is normal” should have no bearing in this.
Once upon a time, a “meaningful wage” was something that would allow you to raise a family of 4 while living a comfortable middle class standard of living.
57k€ gross salary in Berlin amounts to ~3360€ per month net income. Rent alone will eat 30-40% of that.
You can survive on that salary, which is more than most people are managing to do nowadays. But to think that someone with such specialized competency should expect a “not bad” salary shows a pretty sad state of affairs.
57k€ for someone with Rust experience?!
Maybe that “Rewriting things in Rust is just to get rid of old people that can command high salaries” LinkedIn Lunatic was right after all…
All the crypto stuff is opt-in.
I’m curious about what do you mean by “cheapest options”. Do you remember how much you were paying then?
IIRC, StackOverflow Careers kind of established the price per posting around $300. After they came up every other job posting site was charging around that.
For CareerCupid, I want to make a single flat rate of $89/month and let companies make as many job listings as they want. I think that the value for a company should not be in charging per posted job, but to give them access to the whole database in a way that can help them make hiring decisions directly.
I get why they resorted to buying all this AI fuckery to try to more aggressively filter resumes.
I get it as well, but I think that this “send us your resume” and we will judge you based on it is such an outdated concept we could get rid of it entirely.
Imagine if we got something like Wikidata applied to the “professional social network” graph of the whole world. If “let’s set out to build a map of all the ~2 billion people who are economically active” was somewhat impossible to think about 20 years ago, today it’s the kind of project that can be easily managed on modest infrastructure.
I completely agree.
(I want to try something different here. Instead of a fully fleshed out post, I’d like to just start with a draft of some ideas and I hope that it is enough to generate a conversation. I’ll take the relevant responses and use them to keep improving this article)
But if you were so eager to give feedback, perhaps you could’ve started with something more productive than yet-another smutty comment that serves only to make you feel better than the plebs who use and get any value out of ChatGPT?
And if your first instinct is to comment on a joke, in the first paragraph to pass judgement…?
I work with Python. Usage of formatting tools (black, ruff) are widely adopted. Part of its Zen is “there should be one way to do it”, most of its idioms are widely adopted and if you ask anyone about an example of a PEP, they will respond with “8”.
That is to say, “how python code should look” is somewhat of a solved problem. Any occasional differences that might show up in a codebase are likely to be minor that are simply not worth arguing for.
I think that the interviewer was mostly looking for an answer where I could talk about how I deal with conflict. But to be honest if that was the case I would be either more straightforward about the question, or I would try a different scenario with something that might happen more frequently.
I had to shorten the title, but some of the information you say is missing is actually covered on the question.
Anyway, I just thought of adding this question today because I actually was asked a variant of this in an interview (no mention about code style docs), and the interviewer was not happy with my answer which was something like “Whatever style decision is important should be covered in the style guide. If you don’t have a style guide, then I’d assume that this is not really important for the team, and I rather focus my review on things that really matter. Is the code testable? Is it maintainable? Is the code being introduced completely different from what we have before or are we consistent with our inconsistencies? All in all, I’d rather spend time working on new features and shipping than arguing over style preferences.”
Imagine if OSes in the 90s crashed as rarely as desktop OSes today. Imagine if desktop OSes today crashed as rarely as mobile OSes today. Imagine if mobile OSes crashed rarely enough that the average consumer never experienced it. Wouldn’t that be a better state of things overall?
Depends. What is the cost to get there? Will that sacrifice openness? Will that sacrifice portability? Will that require ossified structures that will make development of new applications more difficult?
Look, the article is talking from the perspective of someone who is developing web apps in Ruby. Performance is not a huge concern. Processes being crash-proof are not a concern. You know what is the concern? To be able to validate ideas and have something that bring customers willing to pay real money to solve their real problems.
For his scenario, forcing to define everything up front is a hindrance, not a benefit. And having GP screaming at it like this for having this opinion is beyond ridiculous.
I don’t really want to be talking past each other. The point I am refuting is that even if type-safety can help reduce the amount of bugs shipped, this is not the only metric that matters to measure the value of the software being developed.
bugs are really annoying
And being late or never delivering out of fear of shipping buggy code is even worse.
Some years ago, I worked on a crypto project that was financed via an ICO. This meant that whatever money the company was going to get was already in their hands, and their only job was to make sure they could prove they’ve done a best effort to deliver what was promised to investors.
Because of these incentives, the engineers were more concerned about covering their asses regarding bugs than to actually get the software out in the hands of users. The implementation was in python, and to the team it was easier to justify spending time on getting 100% mypy coverage than to get things in hands of users to see the value of what we promised to deliver.
In the end, by the time the team managed to deliver, the code was super well-tested, there were 0 mypy warnings and absolutely zero interest from other people in adopting our tool because other competitors have launched a whole year before them.
How many billion dollar companies were built on dynamically typed languages? Do you think that companies/bosses/investors care about the compiler warnings or whether you can deliver/iterate faster than the competition?
nobody likes plumbing, but we all know it’s necessary.
Is it, really? Are we all working on mission critical software? We are living in a world where people are launching usable applications with nothing but the prompt to an LLM, ffs, and you are there trying to convince yourself that pleasing the Hindley-Milner gods is fundamental requirement in order to deliver anything?
Good engineering is about understanding design constraints and knowing where to choose in a myriad of trade-offs. It’s frankly weird to think that such an absolute, reductionist view like yours got so much support here.
Open source or GTFO. :)
Seriously, Lemmy is AGPL. Any client you do and any functionality you build on top of it must be AGPL as well.
Now I am confused, are you able to make changes to the Lemmy codebase? A fork? If you want to find a way to fund development, why not just work with the current team?
As a concept, it could be a valid approach. But you need to put actual numbers to see if things make sense:
I think you’ll see that as soon as you start asking people to put money and to feel like they “own” it, the demands will increase and so will the costs.
For reference, the one coop I am somewhat familiar is from Mastodon: cosocial.ca. Each member pays CA$50/year for an account. I think this is particularly too expensive. There are other cheaper “commercial” alternatives that charge less:
Ok, which part of “multiple metrics” is not clear here?
Every risk analysis will have multiple factors. The idea is not to always have an absolute perfect ranking system, but to build a classifier that is accurate enough to filter most of the crap.
Email spam filters are not perfect, but no one inbox is drowning in useless crap like we used to have 20 years ago. Social media bots are presenting the same type of challenge, why can’t we solve it in the same way?
57k for a junior was “decent” in Berlin 10 years ago for anyone that could spell Javascript. Nowadays it falls squarely into “I’ll take this job because it’s better than nothing” territory.