The actual bundle numbers will be less than that of course, but without knowing how many people subscribe exclusively to ESPN+ (i.e. not as part of the bundle) we don't know by how much.
Same, you have to not only tell gmail it looks safe but also mark it as not phishing (from the three dot dropdown), then it will be in your inbox AND have a link to click.
> I don't think you're allowed to use company time to organize
True, but they can't be discriminatory in how they restrict communications. If they prohibit all non-work discussions on this app that appears to be fine - but not if they only restrict topics that are likely related to organizing. From https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
"Also, restrictions on your efforts to communicate with co-workers cannot be discriminatory. For example, your employer cannot prohibit you from talking about the union during working time if it permits you to talk about other non-work-related matters during working time."
> don’t recruit anybody without having considered multiple genders and/or ethnicity before making the offer.
There are downsides to this approach as well.
My previous company had such a policy (no offer could be extended until at least one female or under-represented minority had been interviewed) - and we had someone who interned with us twice while in school and he was amazing, everybody on the team thought he was great and wanted to bring him on full-time once he graduated. So as he neared graduation our manager got us an open req and we extended him a (verbal) offer without interviewing him but HR blocked us from extending a formal offer because this exceptional engineer had the misfortune of being born male and Indian. HR told us we could extend an offer to him only after interviewing (on-site) a female or under-represented minority. And so we brought in and interviewed a female applicant wasting five hours of her time and ours as she had virtually zero chance of getting the job.
Generally it also meant female candidates were almost guaranteed to make it to the onsite, regardless of how they performed during the phonescreen because if you tried to pass on a female candidate you'd get pushback from the recruiter and/or manager, because with this policy we needed to interview at least one on-site before extending an offer to anyone.
I do genuinely applaud efforts at increasing diversity in tech, but I don't think policies like this are the right approach. We should probably be looking at other historically male dominated professions that now have gender-parity like medicine and law and emulate what they did to increase diversity (I have no idea what that is/was, but I'm guessing it's not what we're spinning our wheels on, since as far as I can tell we've barely moved the needle despite a very concerted effort).
> each of those questions is about a problem our team actually had to solve before
On my last job search I had one interviewer state (very proudly) the systems design question I was being asked was an actual problem his team had to solve. I don't doubt the veracity of his claim at all, but it probably wasn't solved by a single person under the time constraints and pressure of an interview.
Most likely someone on that team spent hours or days researching and designing potential solutions before drafting a design document that was shared and discussed with others, perhaps informally or perhaps in a meeting (or over the course of multiple meetings) where tradeoffs were considered among people with deep knowledge of the existing system and problem space. Expecting a candidate with only superficial (at best) knowledge of your current system to come up with the same or similar solution on their own in 30 or 40 minutes seems a bit unrealistic to me.
> Most jobseekers would be looking at jobs all over the country, correct?
Inside the HN tech bubble possibly. But outside of that the overwhelming majority of jobs are not in white-collar/remote-friendly work (and people change jobs far more often than they're willing to relocate so moving to a new state, or even city, for each new non-remote job isn't common either).
So no the majority of jobseekers are not looking for work "all over the country" - most are looking for jobs within a reasonable commuting distance of where they live.
More than sufficient, it would be ideal. I have no desire to become a tech lead or architect or manager - I love being a software engineer and that's what I want to spend my time doing, not sitting in meetings all day.
I certainly don't expect to spend 100% of my time writing code, I've been doing this long enough I fully understand and am okay with the various other aspects of being a developer, especially a senior one - I'm just not interested in getting any "promotion" that results in me spending even less, or no, time coding. A big part of the problem is I spent a decade working on shipped product (i.e. not a service) and now work on a service and (like many service-focused jobs) in addition to being developers our team is also responsible for the ops/infra running the service and for me personally I don't find much interest in working with that area.
> you have nothing to lose by sharing your thoughts at this point
My concern is she may be unhappy to hear someone that she just hired a little over a month ago isn't working out and then if the company has layoffs in the near-future I'm the first she's going to pick to let go.
Granted it might seem odd to worry about losing a job I want to leave anyway, but I'd prefer searching for a job while I still have one instead of while being unemployed.
> why is there still vmware around since virtualization became a feature of chips and operating systems?
If you take a look at https://www.vmware.com/products.html you'll note the majority of VMware's products are NOT related to compute virtualization (and a very significant entry from that category, vSphere Hypervisor, is given away for free).
Sure, but everyone shouldn't be expected to have the charisma and salesmanship of Walt Disney.