I think any company with some motivated developers and a budget for h/w or cloud could rebuild a good enough JIRA in a month. I don't see how Atlassian survives long term
Because you see the IC side of the Atlassian toolkit. The management side is much more expansive and this starts mattering when you are coordinating larger projects.
That said, if you are a smaller company, you absolutely could kill Jira pretty quick.
Jira isn't the product, it's the development platform that builds the product (which is a codified version of all the bad business decisions your company has ever made).
I hate Jira just as much the next engineer, but this is not at all accurate lol. The reason all ticketing systems are kind of terrible is they have to deal with a lot of complexity. Jira has waaayyyyy more features than you think it does.
Ticketing systems are not dumb CRUD apps, they're systems that build workflow engines. If you've never built a workflow engine, they're annoying but fine. Building an engine that can implement any special snowflake flavor of business workflow in a way that's reasonable with a reasonable UI is difficult.
And yes, you could write it for your special use case, but use cases change a lot and different groups need different use cases and the time you spend dicking around on building ticketing software that already exists is time you're not spending on shipping, and at the end of the day Jira is like $15/seat at sticker price, why are you bothering?
And that's why Jira is both terrible and still popular.
This is a fascinating read but what do you do with this information? Is there a threshold at which you need to take the watch apart and fix something or is this just useful info to know about your watch?
Old mechanical watches and clocks had an adjustment with which you could change slightly the oscillation frequency of the balance wheel (usually by changing the tension of the balance spring).
You used a device like that described in the parent article to measure the deviation from the correct frequency and you adjusted the frequency with a fine screwdriver or a similar tool, until measuring the desired nominal frequency.
Watches are precise machinery that require maintenance and well known watch brands take great pride in the longevity of their pieces, meaning they provide support for the lifetime of the watch (you will pay for this though). Typically, every 5-10 years you send them in for a service. Overtime, the little pieces and minuscule drops of lubricant wear and age and need replaced. Visibility into these metrics can help you keep an eye out for problems.
Higher end watches also get external certifications that reflect different precision standards. Some examples: METAS, COSC, or Rolex Superlative Chronometer if you are Rolex and need to be special. They have different specs, Superlative Chronometer is +/-2 sec per day. If it's out of spec and you're under warranty, you may be entitled to a free adjustment by a service center. Otherwise, overtime, as the performance degrades, it's a signal you may need a service.
There's also the risk of magnetization. If the delicate machinery becomes magnetized, you'll see BIG swings, like +/- minutes per day. Demagnitization is something any watchmaker can do quickly. (There is inherently some risk posed by the phone itself having a lot of magnets, but modern watches are typically built to resist magnetization to varying degrees -- look at the Rolex Milgauss as an example of best-effort magnet resistance)
Watches will also perform variably depending on position. If you know your watch is -4sec/day on your wrist, but +6sec/day face down, you can effectively manage it's accuracy by placing it face down over night and never have to unscrew the crown but keep a true time. This is a very common use case.
Hope that covers the general cases. This app avoids a lot of even deeper complexity, like beat error and amplitude which are deeper metrics describing the movements performance and guide watchmakers to know which screws to adjust which way.
It tells you for how long the time displayed by the watch is valid. If a watch loses ten seconds per day, in a month it will be about five minutes off.
The objective is to minimize this number as much as possible. The open source sensor watch has a temperature sensor and software which turns it into a temperature compensated quartz watch. Mine loses time every year instead of every day or every month.
It is actually pretty useful if you own a few mechanical watches. Daily rate tells you how annoying the drift will be, beat error can hint that regulation or service is due, and measuring in different positions gives you a decent sanity check on movement health. Even if you never open the watch yourself, it is a much better baseline before taking it to a watchmaker.
You're willing to wash and re-use for one kid but not then to let the next one re-use? So does that mean the wash doesn't get the diaper clean? And if that's true, why re-use them at all for anyone?
It's more about the accumulation of fecal matter over time. I don't feel convinced that a washer removes it all, hence staining. And I don't feel great about making my kid sit in another kid's shit.
There are many decisions young parents make that from the remove of a keyboard in a happily single or child-free relationship seem irrational or (mon dieu!) _inefficient_, but there is a emotional depth to these choices that are _very_ meaningful to the people involved.
Do you really think people would have more sympathy for an org that gave the keys to the kingdom to an intern? I think it would be the same "How did you think this was going to go?" conversation.
There's a dozen different angles all coming out at once. I'll try to summarize some.
- really wants to hire H1B, but needs to pretend to interview first for compliance. These usually have absurd requirements to make it viable to reject anyone.
- really wants to do an internal or referral hire or promotion, but needs to interview for HR compliance. These usually have such specific requirements that only the person they want qualifies.
- posts jobs because a company wants to look like its growing, even when it's not.
- posts jobs to either signal to an employee that they are replaceable, or to try and relieve a stressed employee that more help is coming. Either way, it's a bluff
- yes, sometimes you want to hold out for the perfect unicorn and are not in any way in a rush to find them. There's no distinction for this, but job posts are cheap so why not?
- outdated posts that still stay up because There's no rush to take it down.
- a technique used to lower compensation. They post a job, see how many applications it gets. If it's more than enough, they take it down (with no interviews) then put it up once more at a lower rate. Repeat until not enough people apply. This may or may not lead to interviews because the actual goal is market probing.
-purely to advertise the company instead of actually hire. Usually done at career fairs where you talk and realize there's no actual open positions.
It's probably not the most efficient means, no. Probably one of the cheapest methods, though. It's definitely not something you can get away with in a good job market.
As a hiring manager, I have to write the job description. HR is responsible for posting the damn thing where people can see it, then into the ATS you go. We also know recruiting posts can be a source of competitive intelligence and signal for investors. We don't want it used that way, but we're aware of it. Bit of a dirty secret. That means, alas, the only people hurt are the applicants looking for work. I'll work through the queue when I have a billet to fill, but otherwise... You're shouting into the void. Not sure who is responsible for reporting headcount increases to BLS, but I've actively looked and never found the person. So... I honestly have no idea how they get their numbers unless there is a pipeline from the major payroll processors; which feels kinda ick if you think about it.
https://www.bls.gov/k12/teachers/posters/pdf/how-bls-collect...
This says statistics, i've seen unsourced articles saying that they pull Unemployment Insurance numbers as part of it which are part of the payroll process, but BLS seems to say sampling and surveys.
I know, I've just... never found someone who says, "Oh! The BLS survey? That's meeeee! I fill it out!" Ever. Admittedly I haven't necessarily hit up any other platforms, so maybe those people don't visit HN. Totally viable explanation. But... Still pretty weird when I've been periodically poking for years now but never seem to locate anyone who even claims to know of or have been annoyed by having to implement the process of responding. Might bump this search up my todo list for hahas.
I had an AI-agenerates answer for you, but then I realized something deeper: moral hazard.
> Moral hazard is when one party takes actions that impose costs on others because they don’t fully bear those costs themselves. With ghost jobs, employers get benefits (brand signaling, resume mining, internal optics) while job seekers eat the time, emotional, and sometimes financial cost of chasing something that never really existed.
There's a IT careers site that was sold, I believe, went through a re-branding. And now they also offer AI and "personal" resume reviews _and_ writing, cover letters, and they even have members do a 10-15 minute AI virtual interview that ostensibly could be shown to a hiring manager.
I was unemployed as a PM for about three month. I applied to in the order of 100 roles at this site, as well as applications on the other sites you'd expect, from LI to more niche.
I felt that this site was "underperforming". Jobs I'd applied to that I'd only really seen on there I'd never heard from. I saw jobs that were advertised in other places on there too.
What sealed it for me was that towards the end of the three months, I got an email from the site. "Your profile has been viewed". I open it, "An employer is looking at your profile". I'd never seen this type of email from them before, and sure enough: "Your profile has been viewed 1 time in the last 90 days". That was it. No contacts, and only one employer has even looked at my profile on the site (and this is the kind of site where that'd be the only place they could look at your application). And that employer didn't even have positions open.
But the site does ask you questions to "submit to the employer" about "why you want to work here" "why you'd make a good fit", etc.
And I'm entirely convinced that the jobs they're advertising are only (a very small) fractionally "real" and ever reviewed by anyone at all (maybe the "promoted" jobs?), and they're harvesting positions and jobs from other sites or employers (there's no positions that don't actually seem to exist, or at least not ads)...
... and that their chief motivation for this is getting all your answers to train their models for their actual revenue generator - AI resume writing, cover letter writing, etc. All pre-seeded with other people's real answers to such questions.
Two reasons. One, they have already filled it internally but legally have to post the job. Two, they are gathering data on market trends and what salaries people will take, which is useful if they are considering firing people and rehiring with lower salaries.
I've applied for many jobs where I was perfectly qualified and got rejection notices immediately. I applied on a Sunday and got rejected on Sunday an hour later. No human reviewed that application I made, it was auto rejected, and if that's the case, what other explanation is there than "ghost jobs."
> and if that's the case, what other explanation is there than "ghost jobs."
You didn't pass some arbitrary ruleset given to an AI or machine learning algorithm.
Companies can be very selective now, and usually implement this selectivity fairly stupidly. There also is the problem of being genuinely swamped with bullshit applicants for positions, so the false positive rate is likely quite high at the moment.
I've found it extremely difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff right now. Finding competent people is more difficult than ever, but the sheer number of applicants is at least an order of magnitude higher. Botting has made applying to jobs exceedingly low friction, so there is very little downside to someone entirely not qualified to apply to 600 jobs a day and hope they get lucky.
We have positions that have been open for months that go unfilled simply due to lack of time to sort through applicants, and the few we do have time to interview usually are obviously unqualified within the first 5 minutes of talking to them.
I can't imagine applying to a job where I didn't already have some sort of personal connection. That was already true, and that's even more true now. Likewise, these days as a hiring manager I'd be unlikely to hire someone that came in via random application for the same reason
This is undeniably happening as well. Totally agree.
I just have had lots rejections, and some where I did have a good fit, that I don't think "AI auto rejection" is the only story. I have good credentials, several F500 experiences, no big career gaps.
The only real success I have had in the last few years is targeted emails (from who is hiring on HN) or through my network.
It's very different than at any other time and I believe it is a combination of a terrible market, AI rejections, and ghost jobs. And I'm sure there are more than a few ghost jobs.
Oh definitely. And our hiring practices are not exactly state of the art. I'll be the first to admit they need a giant amount of improvement.
Most of the good folks have come in via word of mouth and networks, as they typically do.
For those outstanding positions they are "very nice to haves" but obviously not critical. When the right candidate gets matched we'll jump on the opportunity, but it's not an existential problem for the moment.
Over the past 5 or so years, I've seen population projections missed over and over. Growth is slowing and it's slowing faster than projected. Almost every projection is too high. Does that have any impact on climate change rates? Or is it a wash because societies with shrinking populations are using more resources? I've not been able to find much research here.
I don't know much about UL but I can say that FCC certification (also technically required) for electronics can range from about $3k to something like $30k depending on what you're doing.
($3k would be for "unintentional radiator" device, i.e., not supposed to be a radio, $30k would be for "intentional radiator" device, i.e., supposed to be a radio)
FCC ensures a product doesn't cause radio interference, while UL ensures the product is safe to use and won't cause fires or electric shocks. For DIY, your primary concern is UL certification.
Because of customs product import rules, that FCC stamp is often not optional. Now if it was a dodgy seller, the stamp will not match the physical devices on rare occasion. =3
That roughly lines up with what we paid* to get CE and safety stuff done for a small battery-powered product with a radio on the EU market (primarily in the UK).
*Testing and tweaking and then sign-off in grown-up labs.
In general, almost all insurance companies will demand UL stamped hardware, and most mortgage/lease/commercial property requires insurance.
A hobby BMS is usually a bad idea, as most kits from unknown origins prioritized cost over safety. Depending where you live, prior to roof installation there may be additional zoning and signed engineering drawing requirements.
It is not hard to find UL equipment, but expect to pay about another $600 for the BMS. Yet, it is better than a house burning down, and the insurance provider denying coverage.
Have a look at local certified installer companies, and make sure to get some real references in your town. Just like most HVAC companies... some installers are just over priced scams. Some folks claim https://www.pegasussolar.com/ was inexpensive, and might be worth a call. Best regards =3
It doesn't have to be a certified install company in many places, it just needs to be inspected which most states will do for homeowners. (if your area is different contact your representative)
UL or other certification is a very good idea. They can't automatically deny coverage for lack of certification, but it becomes a much harder fight for you to prove the non-certified equipment wasn't at fault.
But in the rich-poor left-right quad, only one square is strongly against importing workers, and it's on the right side. Even just looking at the right side though - it really feels like the non-rich right's opinion on this is louder than the rich right's opinion (though, of course, it is money, not volume, that directs both parties in most cases).
Many big tech CEOs financed Trump's inauguration. Many donated to his ball room. Those MAGA hat wearers paying millions for access/behind the scenes policy creation are.
Adding to OPs point, Trump did a major immigration push, yet a major push to punish companies/employees who create the demand that immigrants were filling was not part of that. Imagine launching a 50+ billion dollar drug war, but only going after drug users.
It sure reduced salaries for tech workers where most H1Bs went to work, didn’t it? Are you arguing we didn’t bring enough H1Bs? Are we holding it wrong?
reply