I would have to disagree that, this sort of crap is exactly what happens at small companies.
When the person who manages a small company and is also a sole owner of it; its pretty common that they look at employees successfully blogging as at least partly, as a result of the business's (i e their) efforts. Conflicts also have a tendency to be arbitrated by the owner, not resoled ad hoc by humans.
I don't agree with this mindset, but I have seen this sort of behavior personally from small employers. I don't think my experiences are rare by any means.
As far as the article goes, I do think its rather over the top.
"If there's one thing I wish I could do to improve HN, it would be to detect this sort of middlebrow dismissal algorithmically."
3 years ago, HN was great. Amazing in fact. What's changed in 3 years? Certainly not the system. The user base has changed, grown, degenerated into stereotypes and punch lines. There is an old saying that I believe succinctly explains what has happened: Garbage in, garbage out.
I keep seeing people writing about wanting to "improve HN." Every time I see this I think, are these people mad? It's dead Jim. He's been dead. We can all sit here and prod his body and make recommendations for how best to make his arm into a grappling hook or some such nonsense, but at the end of the day, the patient is STILL dead.
If there is one thing I would do to improve HN, it would be to write the death certificate and move on to finding or creating the next HN.
Also, I thought the article was excellent, albeit long.
"Contestant further represents, warrants, and agrees that any use of the Submission by the Sponsor, Administrator, and/or Judges (or any of their respective partners, subsidiaries, and affiliates) as authorized by these Official Rules, shall not:
a. infringe upon, misappropriate or otherwise violate any intellectual property right or proprietary right including, without limitation, any statutory or common law trademark, copyright or patent, nor any privacy rights, nor any other rights of any person or entity;
b. constitute or result in any misappropriation or other violation of any person’s publicity rights or right of privacy."
I find this clause rather disturbing, I think I know what they meant to say, but they instead wrote something so overly general, that if enforced, effective makes this competition un-winnable. Maybe someone else can weigh in on this.
Some of the best GPA's in my college graduating class (class of 2012) were known cheaters. They went on to prestigious jobs at companies such as [large american aircraft manufacturer] and [large american defense contractor]. Those of us that left with less amazing GPA's (say 3.0-3.5/4.0) are working dead end jobs making minimum wage.
Though as far as immoral/unethical/illegal activities go, cheating was really the tip of the ice berg for my particular university.
Poor article written on a poor premise. Even assuming that Donald Trump knows everything about how his company's physically operate (which btw, he doesn't), to say that his success is dependent upon that and not the myriad of other factors is a stretch. Further, again assuming that Trump knows all about how his company(s) operate, why are there countless counter examples? Warren Buffet anyone (who if I remember correctly is the 2nd richest man in the world now, because he gave away enough to make Bill Gates the 1st)? How did we come to call upon him as the standard of success? If I remember correctly, he isn't even in the top 100 richest people in the world.
Also, as someone from a business background who is also a programmer, I find the skill of irrelevance in business, and in some cases a hindrance. I am tired of seeing the same dead horse beaten into the ground.
Some hip programmers/start-up folks think that learning to code is going to be that thing that determines success or failure. Its not. If you are not a programmer by profession, then learning programming is not going to be the determining factor in getting you a job or helping with your start-up.
I wish that we all lived in some imaginary land where you knowing Java or understanding how software works, down to the byte of information is going to give you that next big investor or get you that next big job/promotion. Really, I wish it were the case. Unfortunately, its not. When a non-programmer applies for a non-programmer position at a fortune 500 company, not only does he not have space on his 1 page (or maybe 2 page) resume to list all the languages he knows or software projects he has worked on; even assuming he could, the HR manager on the other end is immediately going to toss that resume in the waste basket. Period.
Please HN, stop up voting the same retarded argument. Its made to the front page probably 100 times in the 3 years I have been here. Please stop. The horse is dead.
"Donald Trump knows everything about how his company's physically operate"
My cousin had a property in the 90's that Donald Trump wanted to use for something. It was not a large property at all. It was located in Atlantic City. He was surprised that Donald handled the transaction directly with him and he met with him several times.
Trump is a hand's on person and has a very lean organization. He doesn't have a PR department and his office staff is small relative to what he does.
Its certainly a sticky subject; but suppose the following situation exists:
You are a student at a university somewhere in the United States. You live at said University. You have the right to use internet there, but it only available through unsecured wireless. Would it be ethical for someone/some company to packet sniff the wireless traffic, without your consent (or knowledge)? Would it be ethical for the University to packet sniff the wireless traffic without your consent (or knowledge)?
Even assuming its unethical though, given the current ruling both situations would still be legal. How do you feel about the above?
I would agree that it is a poor article with little reasoning behind it, but I have no idea what sex the author is nor do I think it is sexist.
If anything it seemed like the author was discrediting her because her strategy included locking out developer. I'll meet you half way on the Miami sentence on agreeing that it was tacky. However, I think you are taking it out of context. It is apparent that the author doesn't like her, but no where does the article mention that she is not qualified because she is woman or anything remotely to that effect.
Please enlighten me. Did I miss a whole paragraph somewhere?
When the person who manages a small company and is also a sole owner of it; its pretty common that they look at employees successfully blogging as at least partly, as a result of the business's (i e their) efforts. Conflicts also have a tendency to be arbitrated by the owner, not resoled ad hoc by humans.
I don't agree with this mindset, but I have seen this sort of behavior personally from small employers. I don't think my experiences are rare by any means.
As far as the article goes, I do think its rather over the top.