On one hand there are places that will look out for job-hoppers so the 3yr rule is good. But for promotions, job-hopping is the best strategy.
The part people don't talk about much is the toll it takes on you when you switch jobs. It's like moving but worse. It's not like switching your wardrobe or something, it's a very drastic and intense change.
There really is no hard-and-fast rule with these things, you just have to figure out your industry, country, region and other details and determine what is best.
An advice I could have used earlier myself is the whole networking and building contacts thing. This is both internally and in your industry. There is literally nothing more important for your career than being likeable and building a reputation. Whether it's a promotion, better pay, or landing a better gig, focus on that as a priority.
In case what I'm saying isn't clear: be the biggest butt-kissing sycophant possible, and never be negative or disagree unless you're very confident that's absolutely what's expected of you by the right people. You don't get paid for how hard you work, you get paid for how valued you are. I think that's a bit obvious, but what many miss is that it isn't how valuable you are for the company that matters, it isn't even how valuable you are to your team, or to delivering some goal that matters. What matters is how valuable you are to individuals. Competency matters, but only as a 2nd or 3rd point of order. It matters how well you're liked, but also how good you are at improving how well-liked others are.
Sometimes there just aren't any opportunities where you are, nothing can be done about that other than jumping ship. However, expecting to be promoted, or paid more because of "the rules", that doesn't work well in real life.
I have to say the same, but even as someone who isn’t really “relied upon”. The best asset for my own independent well-being has always been knowing which way the wind blows and sailing in that direction.
I have to imagine if there was some internal Polymarket-esque platform I’d be a rich man... (facetiously speaking) Unfortunately knowing the way the wind blows is not as much of an asset to those in charge.
The internet isn't so simple anymore. I think it's important to separate commercial websites from non-commercial ones. Commercial sites shouldn't be expected to be achievable to begin with, unless it's part of their business model. A lot of sites (like reddit), started of as ad-supported sites, but now they're commercial (not just post-IPO, but accept payments and sell things to/from consumers). Even for ad-supported sites, there is a difference between ad-supported non-profit, and sites that exist to generate revenue from ads. As in, the primary purpose of the site is to generate ad-revenue, the content is just a means to that end.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The main issue is not design patterns, but lack of acceptable payment systems. The EU with their dismantling of visa and mastercard now have the perfect opportunity to solve this, but I doubt they will. They'll probably just create a european wechat.
Another one? What is it with IBM, they must really save lots of money in a way no one else has figured out by firing people at 50yo. This is like the 3rd or 4th one i've heard from them.
How are you guardrailing it? The first thing I thought of was how cryptominer bots love to spin up lots of gpu-enabled vms (malware). Are there any cost or resource hard-restrictions?
twitter, Tiktok, threads, facebook, instagram -> they're all maga now. it's more of a policy directive than a request.
What is not owned/subjugated to the current admin? reddit, bluesky, lemmy, mastodon. People use reddit quite a bit but nowhere near as much as the maga ones.
I don't even know which is worse: if these people control social media and influence society to their nefarious ends, or if they don't and america starts resisting and real conflicts arise from that. No good ends left.
if you publish something to the public, you are responsible for it to a degree.
You can't just say "i'm not responsible" and avoid responsibility.
"I put rat poison in candies and put it outside my door for halloween, but it had a sign that says 'The owner is not responsible for any harm or effects resulting from consuming these candies'" , see how silly that sounds?
If you advertise your software as intended to do a thing, licenses might protect you legally, but not morally or ethically, from people attempting to use it, and relying on it. Imagine if the maintainers of glibc decided to backdoor it, but since they're not responsible for it, and you're on your own for using it, it's not their fault right? If the maintainers of openssl decided to drop sha256 support, they're not responsible for the chaos that ensues right?
FFS! how clueless are devs sometimes. It's insane.
This right here is the worst part of open source. Don't use open source! that's the message here. If you're in the EU, and you're seeing all these efforts to rely on open source software to avoid American-made software, read this post! Don't use open source software because the authors of that software could sabotage their work or do anything they want with the software and they feel like they have no obligation to anyone. Does that sound familiar? At least American big-tech gets fined on a regular bases for doing nasty things, at least they have executives you can imprison if needed be. And they're not under any illusion that "i'm not responsible" is a get out of jail free card. Use only properly supported software.
I'm a bit salty, because I've relied on and supported Open Source software several times before. Every. Single. Time. Even when i'm creating PRs, they're dicks about it. Even when I create issues. Who cares, they're not even responsible enough to refuse support.
Here is what should be done, if most devs really agree with this take: You can write any software you want, but publishing it to the public should only be permitted after you pass tests, like your identity being verified, support process being established,etc... You can't just give away food, vehicles, houses, just about anything you can think of without some requirement of that sort. If devs are going out of their way like this to be irresponsible, then the chaos and damage they cause must be mitigated.
When you "Open" anything, it could be a door, software, a canister of nerve-gas; you're responsible for what comes out of it and how it affects others. you're also responsible for what happens when others enter it.
The only way around this I can think of is if perhaps in every way a person can download or access your software, publish a clear and unmistakable warning "Do not use this software for any reason at all. Do not read the source code. Do not attempt to build it, or run it." even then, you're not free from all responsibility.
It's like malware authors that put disclaimers like "for educational purposes only" on their malware publications. you'll still go to prison, it isn't a defense.
I'm not claiminng random people have entitlements to get their PRs approved, or issues resolved. But for developers to go so far as show hostility towards people who use their software, is not far from actually publishing harmful software.
A good and reasonable balance might be that software that's used by more than a certain threshold of people should be required to either support their software, or close-source it. You have free-speech, not the right to put the public in harm's way. Honestly, I think this sort of whining is what is driving all these verification laws and restrictions.
I think being glad people are using your software so much, and they're requesting support, creating PRs, and so on is the right attitude with open source software. If you get mad about all that, you're hurting the freedoms of open source devs all over by trying to make your software open for the sake of clout or whatever.
And really, don't publish a repository to the public if you expect no contribution. Just host tarball on your site. "Open source is not about you", yeah, sure, it isn't about irresponsible devs getting free advertisement and farming clout either.
I believe I've addressed those licenses multiple times in my comment. you're not responsible for the support of the software, at the same time, you're not free of all responsibility for it either (regardless of what you say in your license). A license is not a contract either. there is a reason even eula's sometimes require you to actually scroll through them before you can hit accept. and even then, eula's have been thrown out of court plenty. "I'm not responsible" does not absolve of you of responsibility, you don't get to decide that, laws decide in court. but in terms of ethics, it's even more dire, if you know what impact your action or inaction will have, legalese can hardly excuse ethical obligations.
It seems both the Linux desktop and Matrix have the opportunity of a life time now. If they don't rise to the occasion and grab that marketshare, I fear there may never be an opportunity like this again.
Linux won't rise to the occasion because there's no figurehead leading the rise. Linux's greatest strength and weakness is in its breadth of a community. But that's not how you traditionally attract a mainstream audience.
That's why Valve is the best chance here, and why I'm not too optimistic. Valve's incentives are to make its own walled garden, which in my eyes defies the idea of linux. But that seems to be the only thing that works these days.
Friendly reminder that DHS exists because of the war on terror, and the state of emergency the US has been under since 9/11 (yes, still under the same emergency).
Why are nazis kidnapping Americans in broad daylight? Osama Bin Laden. The most successful terror attack in history.
I do not think that it is correct to call that as "the most successful", when the only people in the entire world who have benefited from the attack have been Bush Junior and all his political or businessmen friends, and they have benefited tremendously, by gaining huge amounts of money from the wars and from internal US "security" activities and by ensuring the reelection.
If we assume that the purpose of the terror attack was the official one, it has not been successful for its initiators, but for those controlling USA.
If "successful" is intended to refer to the fact that 3 out of 4 airplanes have reached their target, I remember how I watched live the events and I was stupefied that the 2nd and the 3rd airplanes have hit their targets. For the 1st airplane, it was normal to be successful, as nobody expected that action. But for the following 2, I was familiar with air defenses from places that are supposed to be much less advanced than USA and there was plenty of time to find the airplanes and shoot them down. I could never understand why this did not happen and even more I could never understand why there has never been any credible US official explanation for why it did not happen (I mean the explanation that they could not find the airplanes because
they have turned off their transponders is not credible).
what do you mean? The purpose of the terror attack was to destroy America. Bin Laden/AQ weren't trying to get rich (he was already from a rich family).
He probably didn't anticipate how successful he'd be. he attacked WTC because it's a symbol of finance and economy; pentagon, military. he had targets like that. If you recall, it wasn't the US alone that invaded Afghanistan, it was NATO. Now, using the very same reactionary forces of his 9/11 attack, that very force that retaliated after 9/11 is being destroyed.
If the purpose of the attack was to destroy America, it certainly was a failure.
The attack has killed a great number of innocent American citizens, but while this was a tragedy for their families, friends and relatives, this provided an opportunity for the US government and Republican Party of obtaining greatly increased powers and greatly increased spending and they have secured reelection and the ability to initiate a couple of wars from which some well-connected companies gained a lot.
There is nothing that Bush Junior could have done to gain so much as he did, other than USA being the victim of such an attack. Assuming that the US government had nothing to do with the attack, it was nonetheless the luckiest event that could have ever happened to them. Bin Laden and his followers have gained absolutely nothing, except cheering like fools for a few days that they have hurt their supposed enemies.
Americans have lost their freedoms, and so much of what made America great. NATO is basically gone now. America can't catch up with it's competition in the east when it comes to tech and infrastructure. It'd be a miracle if the US avoids a proper civil war in the next few years. I don't know what else you can count as success short of that, an asteroid destroying the continent? The US isn't focused on invading the middle east, and it cost the US $20T in afghanistan and iraq. If a few wealthy americans got richer, bin laden wouldn't have minded. He wanted the influence of america to end. and he succeeded. America used it's influence in the 80's and 90's to interfere with islamic nations, and spread its culture. Now america is a pariah, even europeans consider america more hostile than russia right now. People either laugh at or pity america these days at what it's become. In the 90's people either hated america or loved it. That's all bin laden wanted. In his view, muslims were being oppressed by the west, and america was the west's leader. That has changed. and the catalyst to that change was his attack.
You seem to measure success with quite a short term view. You are wrong, the comment you are replying to is quite right.
A few days? That one day led America to prosecute two wars for over a decade - both of which failed. Both of which seeded the ground for the current moment, as the prevailing political establishment has lost all credibility.
This century was supposed to belong to America. Go back and see how optimistic people where about the new millennium. Where is that now? It's gone.
Because the American government responded to one of the darkest days in history by:
1. Invading Afghanistan only to lose it two decades later to the very people they had tried to dislodge in the most painful way possible - literally running away on the tarmac while those that had risked their lives to support them were begging not to be abandoned.
2. Invading Iraq when there were no WMDs and Saddam Hussein has never had anything to do with the faction that was in Afghanistan. Thousands died for what? And we are still there even though that war was supposed to end long ago.
Both of these entities had previously been supplied weapons by the United States btw, in Afghanistan against the Soviets and in Iraq against Iran. No one was held accountable for that. Oops.
Why do you think people are voting for the system to be torn apart? You are correct the attack itself would not destroy America, as everyone knew. The question is what would America do after.
On that count, the failures were numerous and again, no one in power was ever held accountable. This is its own form of lawlessness that has encouraged the present circumstances.
Now a security apparatus that has failed to impose its will on the streets of the likes of Baghdad is manifesting in a new form in Minneapolis. Afghanistan was known as the graveyard of empires. The goal was to draw us there so it could once again live up to its name. In such a circumstance, success is not measured in a manner of days, but in years. Thus I very sadly find much to agree with in the comment you so eagerly dismissed.
The Obama family seems to be doing quite well also... Obama turned everything that GWB was doing up to 11, and it would do most well to be aware of that. Obama had way more deportations than Trump has had and with less pressure to do so. The main thing today is a concerted campaign to literally destroy the country in favor of maoist reform.
The part people don't talk about much is the toll it takes on you when you switch jobs. It's like moving but worse. It's not like switching your wardrobe or something, it's a very drastic and intense change.
There really is no hard-and-fast rule with these things, you just have to figure out your industry, country, region and other details and determine what is best.
An advice I could have used earlier myself is the whole networking and building contacts thing. This is both internally and in your industry. There is literally nothing more important for your career than being likeable and building a reputation. Whether it's a promotion, better pay, or landing a better gig, focus on that as a priority.
In case what I'm saying isn't clear: be the biggest butt-kissing sycophant possible, and never be negative or disagree unless you're very confident that's absolutely what's expected of you by the right people. You don't get paid for how hard you work, you get paid for how valued you are. I think that's a bit obvious, but what many miss is that it isn't how valuable you are for the company that matters, it isn't even how valuable you are to your team, or to delivering some goal that matters. What matters is how valuable you are to individuals. Competency matters, but only as a 2nd or 3rd point of order. It matters how well you're liked, but also how good you are at improving how well-liked others are.
Sometimes there just aren't any opportunities where you are, nothing can be done about that other than jumping ship. However, expecting to be promoted, or paid more because of "the rules", that doesn't work well in real life.
reply