|
Mustach posted:Post from the guy leaving the PA position: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/185114/about-the-penny-arcade-job-posting Given that all I've really read has been anger that the posting exists, I thought this was a good description (didn't read any comments) and was worth reading. Thanks.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Dren posted:I'm not hypothesizing that they'll take a gamble on some kid. I'm hypothesizing that they will end up taking a vetted professional who will negotiate for a deal he or she believes is reasonable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario. How dare you be reasonable about the dickwolf people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Dren posted:a reasonable post. You're probably right. Still, my experience makes me think the position might be filled by a fan for 80k because he doesn't know better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:http://kylerichter.com/our-responsibility-as-developers/ We should circle back around to this thing because it's pretty hideous, especially given that Path already got smacked down for this kinda bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Penny Arcade sure are free to make any job postings they want. I am pretty sure I am free to hate on it.. ON THE INTERNET. If I wanted to as well. Also people see poo poo job postings everyday but I think the biggest thing people are annoyed with (and has been mentioned earlier) in regards to this job is that Penny Arcade is trying to pawn themselves off as not being "money oriented" when they have a huge nerd empire that includes conferences, charities, and video games and getting big bucks from game companies to advertise for them. If this had just been a regular job posting from them I doubt anyone would have cared. I guess maybe they are being yelled at for being super honest? And when they say "negotiable" but then add in the caveat that they're not money-oriented the salary is really not that negotiable. Essentially they are saying you are going to get lowballed hard. I agree though that they are at least being honest about things. It's still terrible. Monkeyseesaw posted:We should circle back around to this thing because it's pretty hideous, especially given that Path already got smacked down for this kinda bullshit. Here is essentially their response. http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/25/quizup-privacy-violations/ Gist of it is, "Oh it was a 'bug' with some third party library, and we didn't store the FB Token that would allow anyone to access your account, no we just passed it back and forth over plaintext. But we didn't store it! PS This issue wasn't as big of a problem as this guy made it out to be."
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Dren posted:Furthermore, if they can get a candidate at below market due to their enormous fanbase, good for them. That's smart business. They don't owe anyone anything just because they make a profit. The reason they are profitable is that they make smart business decisions. I bet this position ends up being in the neighborhood of $120k and I would have no problem walking in the door and asking for $150k to start if I were applying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
And they're only asking for 3 years experience. I'd be surprised if it even hits 80k, I'd guess 60-70.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
I'm not sure how much of a horror this is if it depends on us correctly guessing what a hypothetical salary might or might not be at some future date.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I'm not sure how much of a horror this is if it depends on us correctly guessing what a hypothetical salary might or might not be at some future date. It's true we don't know any actual numbers, but their ad sure as hell has lots of red flags, like the implication that higher salary vs. better workplace (however they define "better") is an either-or situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
DaTroof posted:It's true we don't know any actual numbers, but their ad sure as hell has lots of red flags, like the implication that higher salary vs. better workplace (however they define "better") is an either-or situation. Oh yeah, that's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Also no matter how much they pay, they're literally saying "Do Four Jobs For The Price Of One" and no matter how you twist that, especially if they're paying less than the standard wage for one (but we can't be sure there), you're getting majorly hosed over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
LOL I totally read the post by the PA guy wrong. I thought he was quitting to go teach. But he's quitting to find a job with higher pay so that he can save and eventually go into teach (which pays significantly less). So he literally admits in his post that he is quitting to find a bigger paycheck, but you other guys should definitely consider working for Penny Arcade. They are like family!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:And they're only asking for 3 years experience. I'd be surprised if it even hits 80k, I'd guess 60-70. They want all that stuff for 3 years experience? I can't imagine them finding a 3 year person with experience in all the areas they want. You're in the right range for a 3 years experience person but if someone is that good and that young that's all the more reason they should ask for a way higher salary of at least 100k (and probably find a better place to work than PA because who is that smart, that young and lacks the ambition to be more than the IT monkey?). The "not particularly money oriented" phrase keeps getting brought up and I get that, it kind of reads like they intend to lowball candidates. Probably not the smartest thing to put in your posting and one of the first questions an interviewee should have is "What does 'not particularly money oriented' mean?" Then follow it up with questions as necessary to determine how that would affect them. Anyway, nothing wrong with what they're doing. If they can find someone willing who can do the job and wants to take the job for the money they're offering then good on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
Dren posted:Anyway, nothing wrong with what they're doing. If they can find someone willing who can do the job and wants to take the job for the money they're offering then good on them. I don't really want to start a labour vs capital derail but this is a bit of an industry horror. In no other industry with proper unions would people be cheering on businesses that undermine the value of the trade, they'd be rightly putting the screws on them for abusing a position of power to low ball the worker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 10:24
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:I don't really want to start a labour vs capital derail but this is a bit of an industry horror. In no other industry with proper unions would people be cheering on businesses that undermine the value of the trade, they'd be rightly putting the screws on them for abusing a position of power to low ball the worker. They're not abusing a position of power. They aren't in a position of power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
shrughes posted:They're not abusing a position of power. They aren't in a position of power. This is correct. The market for developers now is crazy. I read recently that the unemployment rate for devs in Austin is -2%. Negative 2. No one is forcing people to take the job. The only people interested are those that value working for PA highly, which the business is using as part of their compensation package.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
PA Zealot posted:I am leaving because I have always wanted to teach. Doing so comfortably requires that before then, I need to put away a lot of money to support myself when I’m getting paid a truly ludicrous wage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:They're not going to 'bet' on some promising kid like you're hypothesizing. They're going to take a vetted professional who happens to be a starry eyed fan and exploit them for a few years. It's sickening because they'll find someone eager to do it. Fact is that if the job position gets filled, the job responsibilities, hours and pay is perfect; otherwise it would remain vacant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Pilsner posted:Fact is that if the job position gets filled, the job responsibilities, hours and pay is perfect; otherwise it would remain vacant. Take a step back and think about this... real dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Pilsner posted:It's sickening that someone voluntarily accepts a job? I thought the typical developer wasn't a nut with such attitude. What do you propose; making federal standards that ban busy jobs and set a national enforced equal salary for all? If I'm getting arbitrary wishes, I'd start with "total shitheads don't have a multimillion dollar empire" since that's a tad easier to obtain. It's fine if you're approaching this as if you've never heard of these particular shitheads, but don't expect the rest of us to make believe with you. And I'm curious how your 'perfect' system ever hires certain roles. Fucks sake that's an idealistic mental model of employment. Nobody ever took a job they didn't want just to put food on the table? Or are you stretching 'perfect' to cover 'grinding poverty coercing people into accepting degrading low wage jobs' JawnV6 fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Nov 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
No, listen you guys, the free market --
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Pilsner posted:Fact is that if the job position gets filled, the job responsibilities, hours and pay is perfect; otherwise it would remain vacant. 
RoadCrewWorker fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Nov 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Dude stop acting like you know anything at all about how much money they make. Multimillion dollar empire is probably true on the revenue side but you have absolutely no idea what their cut is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
This thread is going good places.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Perhaps a new thread, "Coding horrors horrors".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Mirror mirror in my cube, who's the troll and who's the rube? For content, I had a "who's the numbskull that wrote thi- oh, yep, now I remember writing this." moment on Wednesday. As my coding style grows more generic and enterprise-y, Fizz Buzz EE looks less and less like a joke and more like a wise system to head off eventual refactorings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
One of the node devs got really angry about a patch that eliminated gendered pronouns in documentation. Fortunately this commit has since been removed from history and Joyent says they would've fired him if he worked there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Looks like the term "manchild" is a lot more literal than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Opinion Haver posted:One of the node devs got really angry about a patch that eliminated gendered pronouns in documentation. Fortunately this commit has since been removed from history and Joyent says they would've fired him if he worked there. quote:You guys are bat-poo poo insane. White knighting to the extreme level over a trivial thing. :cookie: Have a cookie though, your social justice is making the difference and making the world a better place! /s  Some pretty  replies in that thread. What a pointlessly unfriendly gesture, rejecting that patch on the grounds that it was 'trivial'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
Nothing good came out of any of that. It was pretty clear that Ben Noordhuis had no idea what was going on in regards to why the PR was made. Nor why Isaac made a forced commit into master for this small change. So now instead we (and I mean that in loosest terms of the node community at large) have spent an entire day dealing with the fallout from that when it all could have been avoided if Isaacs PM'd Noordhuis in private and told him why this change was important. Seems like all of this was terribly handled. Well looks like he is stepping away as I thought, he admits his mistake in not just letting it go after Isaac committed straight to master: https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568172 And now the trolls will flood into that GitHub thread, and I will further despair for humanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
The blog post from Bryan Cantrill at Joyent is absolutely ridiculous, and if he worked for me I can definitely say he would be *fired* right now for that poo poo (lack of sensitivity towards non-native English speakers on gendered pronouns, and for publicly castigating someone for executing an established procedure rather than reflecting on What Went Wrong).
return0 fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
return0 posted:The blog post from Bryan Cantrill at Joyent is absolutely ridiculous, and if he worked for me I can definitely say he would be *fired* right now for that poo poo (lack of sensitivity towards non-native English speakers on gendered pronouns, and for publicly castigating someone for executing an established procedure rather than reflecting on What Went Wrong). What's ridiculous about the blog post? It seems quite reasonable to me. e: didn't quite catch your edit. Everyone involved seems pretty fluent and "they" instead of "he" is very common. It's pretty clear that What Went Wrong was Isaacs being a stereotypical programmer I'm not quite sure why you'd revert the commit otherwise. distortion park fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:What's ridiculous about the blog post? It seems quite reasonable to me. It presumes that the maintainer who reverted the commit is familiar enough with English to comprehend the subtleties of gendered pronouns and the social implications of using them in the docs that they would (without instruction or communication) deviate from established commit acceptance protocol for documentation changes, which in a distributed FOSS community is disgustingly anglocentric. He then tries to publicly humiliate the guy in a cynical attempt to appear like he is a cool dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:What's ridiculous about the blog post? It seems quite reasonable to me. It was Ben Noordhuis who reverted the commit, who is Dutch and not a native English speaker. He explains why he reverted it here https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568172 I guess it's up to you if you think that Bryan Cantrill blog is a proportionate response, I don't and I think it's ridiculous?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:What's ridiculous about the blog post? The part where it assumes malice (can you say projection?) from a position of absolute brutal loving ignorance of 800 years of English usage in the face of the language's lack of a true neuter third person plural personal pronoun (which isn't a problem in the reverter's native Dutch, and which you can find native-English-speaking authors struggling about whether to misuse 'he' as a neuter or to misuse 'they' as a singular when faced with this pickle going back to works contemporary with Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and various versions of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight), and the rest of the text that followed on from this pontification-from-a-position-of-ignorance. I can just about guarantee you the shitheels at Joyent (the same folks who got in trouble over cancelling 'lifetime' accounts without warning for a whole bunch of their customers) butcher the English language in many and varied ways besides the pronoun bit, too - they probably use 'decimate' to mean 'destroy' and other heinous offenses against grammar and taste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
return0 posted:It was Ben Noordhuis who reverted the commit, who is Dutch and not a native English speaker. He explains why he reverted it here https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568172 Its about time we kicked the filthy foreigners out of my software.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:the same folks who got in trouble over cancelling 'lifetime' accounts without warning for a whole bunch of their customers I didn't even get an email warning, they just deleted all my poo poo without saying a word. Basically Joyent is a bunch of shitbags.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
The entire situation is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
So he's not a native english speaker, yet he thought he was qualified to reject changes to the english documentation by someone who is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
A few things about the Joyent post. 1. Essentially calls a core node contributor and main libuv maintainer an rear end in a top hat on Joyent's blog. Which seems unprofessional. 2. The whole blog post is about acceptance of others and empathizing with them. Yet makes me consider whether I want to work on open source for a company that has a previous track record of calling contributors to their project assholes. 3. Instead of waiting to see if the flames would die down a little bit and then post a blog later on, he instead fans the flames by posting this blog about an hour or so after everyone started getting mad. 4. Saying he would have totally fired Ben if he worked for Joyent. Except Ben doesn't so it's just lip service. Why didn't he kick Ben out as a repo owner if he felt so strongly about it? Maybe StrongLoop (Ben's employer and another company that has people contributing to key node projects) and Joyent have to come to a joint decision, but then if that's the case that seems like more lip service. I get as a company Joyent needs to disassociate itself from Ben since people on the internet are dumb and got mad at Joyent, so just act like a professional company and say he doesn't work for you. 5. For a guy who was lucky enough to have written this (http://cryptnet.net/mirrors/texts/kissedagirl.html) in 1996 instead of today, where he probably would have been blasted over writing that comment and probably have blog posts written about it, he seems to lack much tact or empathy. He never even apologized for this! StrongLoop's response to all this was more professional. 1. They acknowledge a mistake was made and 2. What are they doing to fix things. Strong Sauce fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 20:44
|
|