Disagree, respectfully. As long as you are declaring information about yourself that is true (via photo, summary, links to social media, blogs, etc), then you are talking about yourself as a 'culture', the way companies talk about their 'culture'.
If a company likes (or doesn't care) that you have a child in your photo (as in this instance), that is one step closer to a culture match. If they dislike it (legally or not), why even bother interviewing? Lots of companies out there -- and from there perspective, lots of employees.
In other words, assuming that what you share is important to you (your children, family status, opinions, blue hair color), and they like or see no conflict with it, steps are being made to form a long-lasting mutually-beneficial relationship.
Why go through the stress of pretending you're some clone of the way 'professional' imagery was touted in the 1950s-1980s (suit, shaved face, short hair, child-less, family-less, career accomplishments only) when you are clearly going to have to get to know your colleagues, spend 40+ hours a week with them (or on Zoom, sigh...), only to discover later that you are really the odd one out.
If we want to give lip service to 'diversity', it will only get us so far. Granted, every company is different, and every person is different. Putting a pic of one's children on LinkedIn may not be for everyone, but it's a solid move in my opinion.
In many of my workplaces, I've had to deal with dogs, hear about endless dog stories, see pictures of dogs on desks, and be 'forced' to pretend that dog memes are 'so cute' on Slack. Overtime, I've learned to just accept it. At first, it seemed weird and out of place at work (to me), but after ten years of it, I've become more tolerant about it. To dog people (you know who you are), their dogs are incredibly important to them. I may not ever want to own a small yapping dog, but I can appreciate more now that to those that do, it's a big part of their life. Near as I can tell, it enhances their life and doesn't detract from the quality and commitment of their work anymore than children do for dads and moms, or ultimate frisbee does for college students.
Let it go.
He didn't put a picture of himself wearing a Star Wars Resistance Pilot helmet on his head. Let's keep it in perspective. (Although if he had, I'd hire him on the spot).
At least change it to a real penguin photo. It's the least you could do. With a cartoon, recruiters will know it's fake, but with a photo, there's a chance that an actual penguin will answer the phone.
Help me. I’m confused. Is the author saying that 1% of the people who are diagnosed with it will die? (That’s how I read it at first).
Or is he saying that 1% of everyone will die? Maybe that sounds like a dumb question, but I honestly don’t know if everyone is using the term “mortality rate” the way I think of it (which for me, until recently, was the first option above).
I guess I don’t even know if it makes a difference. Won’t we all be exposed to it anyway, if we haven’t already? Some of us may never know if we were, and others (sadly) will know straightaway.
If we can assume that nearly all of the USA (for instance) will be exposed and “catch” it, whether tested positive or not, then is the second version of “mortality rate”, in effect, the same as the first?
I’m only asking because I honestly don’t know and there is so much speculation and confusion out there. Hoping that someone on HN who is much experienced (and maybe in the world of medical stats) can clarify this for me.
That number is wrong. It's greater than 13%. He installed another javascript tracker. So, he didn't catch any of the users that block javascript.
Didn't read his whole lengthy post, but not sure why he just didn't use a standard 20-year old log analyzer (like AWStats or similar) to just compare _any_ visit by a single IP address over a set 24-hour period.
Forget about page views, A/B tests, metrics, customer journeys, etc... that's what G.A. is designed to be used for (along with its competitors like P.A.).
The question is very, very simple - especially for standard websites. How many different IPs requested what volume (in bytes) of resources from your server?
We've been measuring that number on the web for nearly 30 years and it requires ZERO installs, scripts, 3rd-party services, etc.
None of this would be so bad except that all the alarmists decrying abuse or overuse of G.A. and looking at alternatives are (generally speaking) not anyone that Google cares about. Google's attitude "Uh, go ahead and use a different spyware/tracker/script tool. We don't care about your crummy blog. We are still installed on 499 of the Fortune 500 websites. That's what we care about."
So many times I want to VC a directory but don’t care about commit messages, branching, or other jazz more suited to collaborative work.
With init-lite, all the power of Git is still there - and you can use any commit or command you want, but it’s default would be to simply VC for every file save. In other words, a file save IS a message-less commit.
I tried Pinboard earlier this year. I found it too slow and was having issues with just general timeouts trying to categorize my bookmarks.
I requested a refund and got it straightaway. Along with a kind reply from the owner. No issues. (I think I had paid via PayPal so I was hardly worried). Also... $22.
Must everything be a free trial? There’s a lot of issues and costs associated with that for businesses (and increasingly regulation).
Now that I see this post from the owner, I’m inclined to sign back up again. I could have been one of those actually attempting to do a mass import when he was fixing it. And him being on 10-year old tech probably greatly contributed to my personal experience.
As the product itself goes, I think it’s worthy and useful. Having it be mobile-friendly will be helpful not so much for me but when I want to share a list of links to some other people I know who haven’t used a full-size keyboard in five years.
If a company likes (or doesn't care) that you have a child in your photo (as in this instance), that is one step closer to a culture match. If they dislike it (legally or not), why even bother interviewing? Lots of companies out there -- and from there perspective, lots of employees.
In other words, assuming that what you share is important to you (your children, family status, opinions, blue hair color), and they like or see no conflict with it, steps are being made to form a long-lasting mutually-beneficial relationship.
Why go through the stress of pretending you're some clone of the way 'professional' imagery was touted in the 1950s-1980s (suit, shaved face, short hair, child-less, family-less, career accomplishments only) when you are clearly going to have to get to know your colleagues, spend 40+ hours a week with them (or on Zoom, sigh...), only to discover later that you are really the odd one out.
If we want to give lip service to 'diversity', it will only get us so far. Granted, every company is different, and every person is different. Putting a pic of one's children on LinkedIn may not be for everyone, but it's a solid move in my opinion.
In many of my workplaces, I've had to deal with dogs, hear about endless dog stories, see pictures of dogs on desks, and be 'forced' to pretend that dog memes are 'so cute' on Slack. Overtime, I've learned to just accept it. At first, it seemed weird and out of place at work (to me), but after ten years of it, I've become more tolerant about it. To dog people (you know who you are), their dogs are incredibly important to them. I may not ever want to own a small yapping dog, but I can appreciate more now that to those that do, it's a big part of their life. Near as I can tell, it enhances their life and doesn't detract from the quality and commitment of their work anymore than children do for dads and moms, or ultimate frisbee does for college students.
Let it go.
He didn't put a picture of himself wearing a Star Wars Resistance Pilot helmet on his head. Let's keep it in perspective. (Although if he had, I'd hire him on the spot).