> So I'll happily work 50 hour weeks instead of 40 hours
But why? If your contract says 40/wk is expected, then just work that and set targets based on that. Why give your employer 500+ hours per year of your life that you don't owe them?
Mostly because I view the relationship with my company and CTO as a partnership rather than an adversarial one and I like what I do. (I do things a lot like it for free at home anyway...)
If there’s a crunch time or a production issue, I don’t mind going above some contractually obligated minimum that helps the company disproportionately compared to the drag on my time.
At the end of it all, I’ve also gotten promotions that I’m 100% sure I’d have not gotten if I timed each of my workdays with a stopwatch and clipboard.
Do you have reason to believe the company will see it the same way when things get tough? A lot of people think a relationship is strong, then they get The Talk one day and find out they were the only one who thought that.
I do, because I’ve seen behind the curtain how these decisions get made, at least here. (Given that a sizable part of business went to zero when tradeshows went away, we’ve been tested as a company in the last 12 months.)
Now, if I became no longer useful to them for whatever reason, I’m sure I’d get The Talk, but I don’t know why that shouldn’t be expected, normal, and OK.
If an employer pays Y for X, but gets X+1 for the price of Y, why would he then bump you up to Y+1 if they don't have to? You're communicating through your actions that this is an okay state of affairs. You might do a bit of that X+1 work for some time to give you leverage during EOY reviews, but that's because you want that salary bump. Whether it will actually result in one is a different matter.
Jobs aren't charity and business is business. There's nothing inherently noble about doing a disproportionate amount of free work for a profit making company, especially when you have other obligations outside of work. Believing it is noble is a kind of Stockholm syndrome. The very essence of companies is to provide a service or product for a price as a just exchange of goods. The very nature of your employment is that they need someone to help make the service or product to get the money they want in exchange for a just fraction of the profits. When employees stop caring about adequate compensation, this results in a creeping exploitation.
I don't do work beyond the bare minimum to not get fired out of a sense of nobility or self-sacrifice. I do it in part because I enjoy it and I do it in large part because it pays quite well for me and my family.
By all means, if you're being inadequately compensated or exploited, quit and find a new employer (assuming you're in software).
I just checked my most recent offer letter, and there is no reference to amount of hours worked. I'd probably be surprised if that was referred to in any of my past offer letters as well.
At least in tech, hours seems to be determined moreso by the societal norms (culture) of the company, which is then an extension of the "type" of company and what is normally expected of such. You might choose to perform above or below what those norms are, and might or might not see rewards/consequences for doing so. So these are things you might gauge by, say, the size of the company, asking various people before or during the interview process about the work culture, and so on. There are of course also variations across teams and departments within the company, so you'd probably get the best information from your future boss on what they expect.
For example, one tech company I worked at was very 9 to 5. People start shuffling out around 4 and the place would be a ghost town at 6. People are also not particularly prompt about showing up in the morning, maybe rolling in at 10 or 11. So there were certainly many people there working closer to 30 hour work weeks. Some definitely had an attitude of trying to have little responsibility as possible and do as little work as possible.
I personally like working hard on interesting problems, which I guess is what the article is referring to. So having problems that I can choose to spend as many hours I like working on sounds great to me. And when I've had enough enjoyment for the day, I pack it up, some days earlier, some days later. And if there's a pressing issue or deadline, then I'll gladly put in extra hours to match, because such accomplishment under pressure is enjoyable to me as well. So, this is the type of company culture I enjoy, where no one is asking you to put in hard work and hours, but everyone who works there is intrinsically gladly doing so anyways.
Tied in with that, then, is the type of company that would most get value out of such individuals, so they would presumably be ones where the individual impact is much more amplified. Which also means that you have a much more powerful enjoyment feedback loop, in that you more directly see the impact of your effort on the company itself.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but the work will still be there the next day. I just dont see the reason to give more than agreed on, with the exception of emergencies of course.
So what is "agreed on"? There's no contract or anything in place, so is "agreed on" to always do the minimum amount of work required to not get fired? I'm sure many people enjoy going through life like that, it's just not for me.
No RBAC doesn't automatically do this. And many publicly available Helm charts are missing these basic security configurations. You should use Gatekeeper or similar to enforce these settings throughout your cluster.
To expand, I think the big issue was any time you searched your launch menu for your own machine's applications and files, the query was also sent to Amazon.
Right - cities have been “revitalized” which has driven demand. Values have stagnated in other places like many suburbs.
I think the main issue with housing prices is some people can’t afford to live where they want to live. And there’s some legitimacy there as people don’t want a long commute for various good reasons. But it boils down to people not being able to finance the lifestyle they want. Hence gentrification where those with limited means move into areas currently populated by people with even less means. And of course that has its own opponents who also generally oppose new development oddly enough.
Maybe remote work will loosen the demand to live in a handful of expensive cities?
Weird, I had no issues with the built in display on Ubuntu 20.04, but I had to update the kernel to 5.8 to get display out over USB-C to work. Now that Ubuntu 20.10 is out and uses 5.8, I'm just using that so I don't have to mess with custom, unsigned kernels.
This was the key sentence, I think. This type of problem actually shows up in other domains as well, queueing theory comes immediately to mind. Even the halting problem is only a problem with infinite tape, and becomes easier with (known?) limited resources.
When you have some parameter that is unbounded you need to add extra checks to bound them yourself to some sane value. You are right, in that the parent failed to monitor some infrastructure, but if they were in their own datacenter, once they filled their NAS, I’m positive someone would have noticed, if only because other checks, like diskspace are less likely to be forgotten.
Also, getting a huge surprise bill is a downside of any option, and the risk needs to be factored into the cost. I’m constantly paranoid when working in a cloud environment, even doing something as trivial as a directory listing from the command line on S3 costs money. I had a back and forths with AWS support just to be clear what the order of magnitude of the bill would be for a simple cleanup action since there were 2 documented ways to do what I needed, and one appeared to be easier, yet significantly more expensive.
AWS monitoring (and billing) is garbage because they make an extraordinary amount of money on unintentional spend.
"But look at how many monitoring solutions they have in the dashboard! Why, just last re:invent they announced 20 new monitoring features!"
They make a big fuss and show about improving monitoring but it's always crippled in some way that makes it easy to get wrong and time-consuming or expensive to get right.
Organizations that are serious about security should not allow random OAuth apps. Both G Suite and O365 admins can restrict what OAuth apps are allowed.
Agreed. However some service providers (like GitHub) allow a user with admin access to approve any OAuth app the first time it’s “launched” if they are the ones initiating the request, rather than using a pre-defined allowlist approach which I believe is what Office 365 does.
My wish would be for some sort of multi-person approval process rather than allowing anyone who is an admin to authorize an app. Even admins can be susceptible to a targeted and advanced attack.
Also, many people (like myself before my own “failure”) simply aren’t aware of OAuth apps as a serious attack vector. Most remedial training around phishing campaigns covers things like fake login pages but not “An attacker has spoofed an internal domain and an OAuth app with your company’s name in it”.
Seattle doesn't have competition, unfortunately. It's only in the very core of the city that has access to Centurylink fiber, mostly everywhere else is stuck with Comcast cable or laughably slow DSL.
