I also suspect those who have decided to leave their employer will be more likely to create, maintain, and even keyword stuff the skills listed on their LinkedIn profile. This would be a poor proxy for real world skill level and their impact on the departed organisation.
Edit: Ah wait, I think I get what you mean. By "global news" you mean it's been deemed worthy of sharing to an international audience by media outlets, as opposed to a crowdsourcing news source like HN. Is that right?
Argument from authority is a pernicious fallacy, and typically effective too. You were right to call it out. I must admit I overlooked the sarcasm, however.
> In a practical world this is an outrageously useless platitude.
As an industry we went from treating engagement as an art form, to treating it as an optimisation problem. Along the way we got very, very good at it, at scale. While profitable, we now know that the methods used to drive this engagement are harmful. Many countries recognise this harm and have introduced legislation to limit or ban methods used on vulnerable groups, such as children.
It is interesting that we, as an industry, do not talk more about the harm we are complicit in causing. Somewhere along the way we normalised and accepted the idea that addicting features are desirable, and that we are not responsible for the consequences.
With all said, an industry is not an individual. You and I may care about this problem, but it is not clear how to fix it. At the very least, as individuals it would be good to avoid contributing to addicting features as a matter of principle wherever the opportunity arises, lest we become the equivalent of digital drug dealers.
While the analogy they offered may not be a good fit, I agree with the sentiment. My takeaway was not that addicts have zero agency or ability to help themselves, but that it's unethical to rely on this as the sole mechanism for minimising harm.
Not the original commenter, but I have often been asked by non-technical colleagues to answer questions about a spreadsheet they've sourced from someone/somewhere else. "So-and-so shared this spreadsheet with me. Can you please take a look at let me know if ...". Sometimes this is delegation, but frequently comes down to a lack of skill.
I don't understand why there's so much negativity here. From my cursory perusal of the docs this looks like a simplified, vendor agnostic re-imaging of something like CDK, with cool tooling including visualisations and out-of-the-box support for local dev. Where's the beef?
You think cloud is too expensive or unnecessary? Fair enough, this tool is not for you.
You think cloud infra is necessarily complex because you need to support <insert use case here>. You're right! This tool is not for you (yet?).
You don't need this because you already know <CDK / Terraform / whatever abstraction is already in your repertoire>? I agree, the juice is probably not worth the squeeze to learn yet another tool.
Are you approaching cloud for the first time or have been managing existing simple infra (buckets, queues, lambdas) via ClickOps and want to explore a feature constrained (hence easy to grok) Infrastructure as Code solution? Maybe give this a look.
While it's still early days, I suspect there will be many who will find this useful, and congratulate the authors for their efforts!
We don’t do LeetCode—our interviews are like regular dev work. Candidates get access to an existing codebase on Github complete with a DB, server, and client. Environments are Dockerized, and every interview's setup is boiled down to a single "make" command (DB init, migration, seed, server, client, tunnelling, etc)
This is what all employers should be doing and the part that Litebulb should really focus their marketing on. Skills based assessments that mimic real-world responsibilities are far more predictive of a successful hiring outcome. If you want to pass LeetCode style interviews, you practice LeetCode style problems. Have you then proved that you can do the job? Sure, if the job is to solve LeetCode challenges; however, it's far more likely your role will involve adding a feature to an existing codebase while keeping all the tests passing, including appropriate test coverage, ensuring your solution is clean and maintainable, etc. Designing a problem set like this is hard, and there is overhead in setting the project up and maintaining it over time. I wish I had the time to design an interview like this.
Without knowing all the details or having gone through the experience myself, I can imagine it being positive for both employers and candidates. I assume a lot of the backlash I'm seeing is an allergic response from previous exposure to other tools that focus more on the automation part to the detriment of candidate experience, such as those selfish, impersonal and awkward as hell asynchronous video interviews.
> Private college prep secondary schools (at the very least—often it's private schools all the way) on the other hand are overwhelmingly the norm in that set.
To which data set are you referring? Data from 2019 found that 80% of Fortune 100 CEOs hold undergraduate degrees from public institutions[0].
This is frequently still beneficial for the organisation, even when you're doing it for the wrong reasons, and is almost a necessary stepping stone towards achieving true understanding. It's hard to identify nuance until you discover some strongly held belief doesn't apply as well you once thought.
But I suppose if you could go back and do it differently, you would, so I can appreciate why you consider this to be a mistake.
Why do you consider this to be a mistake? I've thought about this in the past, but can't really articulate my motivations, and in the end I haven't followed through. Some of my previous colleagues have fit into the gap between co-worker and friend. I would never spend time with them outside of work and since we no longer work together I'm not sure what I'm really missing, so I'm curious to hear your thoughts.