|
Analytic Engine posted:cool, and is that including the EIT professional exam? or can you start out and get it later like Actuaries Both of the people I keep up with from undergrad are material engineers in their field (Steel, Aluminum processing and QA-ish stuff). I'm the only one of the three of us to do a Phd. and I'm also doing engineering stuff. And it's not like we wen't to the top MSEN school either, so I dunno what you are getting at. Tehdas posted:The REAL engineers are the guys who work with engines. It’s in the name, ENGINEer. Didn't we have (siege) engineers from forever ago? Because I thought engineer was just bastardizing the latin word ingeniare which was something like clever or maker or something.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Triangle Shirt Factotum posted:Both of the people I keep up with from undergrad are material engineers in their field (Steel, Aluminum processing and QA-ish stuff). I'm the only one of the three of us to do a Phd. and I'm also doing engineering stuff. And it's not like we wen't to the top MSEN school either, so I dunno what you are getting at. Engineers planned the Pyramids. It's an old job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
Triangle Shirt Factotum posted:Both of the people I keep up with from undergrad are material engineers in their field (Steel, Aluminum processing and QA-ish stuff). I'm the only one of the three of us to do a Phd. and I'm also doing engineering stuff. And it's not like we wen't to the top MSEN school either, so I dunno what you are getting at. Theres some drift because originally engineers were designers of engines (in this sense mechanical tools). Siege engineers made siege engines (catapults etc) in this sense. After the industrial revolution, engine came more to mean a specific type of mechanical device that converts combustion energy to mechanical motion. Due to the idiomatic drift, engineer also started to mean one who operates an engine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And you want to, but not everybody especially if they are getting other professional credentials will. One doesn't need it to get a job, but it's certainly is a BFD. I'm glad I did, too bad my employer didn't have a PE, which has screwed me for ever getting that. As long as an employer at some point has a PE you should be fine? Also are we talking mechanical or civil? Most MEs I know didn’t go into fields where they need a PE. The industrial exemption is huge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Analytic Engine posted:What's it like when you guys (non-software-monkeys) do a cold interview at another company? Do they heavily weight exams and licensing? Or is it mostly up to on-the-day-hoop-jumping performance I worked at a consultancy that was >75% ME's. Some of the engineering interview questions included giving them a stamped sheet metal part and asking how it was made (tooling marks and other indicators can tell you the order of operations), the same kind of project questions on resume items that CS folks would get, and design challenges like "how would you design a battery for IR LED's mounted on glasses".
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Tehdas posted:The REAL engineers are the guys who work with engines. It’s in the name, ENGINEer. Unlimited horsepower gas turbine, motor, steam motherfuckers. It's not a real engine unless you can fit a car inside one of the cylinders.  hobbesmaster posted:As long as an employer at some point has a PE you should be fine? Naval Architecture and Marine. We have atleast one Naval Architecture, but he's from before being a PE for that was a thing (everybody gets unlimited horsepower licenses). There are a couple of states where I could sit, but not most.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Also, don't underestimate the sheer loving quantity of bio, biochem, synthetic chem, blah blah people that universities are graduating every year. It's like the lawyer thing--the "started out barrister, ended up barista" thread title on the SA law school thread was only slightly tongue-in-cheek. It's not tongue in cheek at all. The most successful/happiest poster in that thread is the guy running a taco truck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Also, don't underestimate the sheer loving quantity of bio, biochem, synthetic chem, blah blah people that universities are graduating every year. It's like the lawyer thing--the "started out barrister, ended up barista" thread title on the SA law school thread was only slightly tongue-in-cheek. Someone has to do all of the government-funded research that brings in hundreds of millions a year for research Universities and it sure isn't going to be employees that make real money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
This is a pretty interesting read https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...WT.nav=top-news
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:This is a pretty interesting read And lol at the former Twitter security programmer who basically said "Twitter doesn't care about security"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:The design and presentation of all that data is loving astonishing. What a beauty. I mean, it's very flashy but it's kind of grating when you just want to read an article
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
I mean if Twitter has a policy against fake accounts why can't they do anything about this company? Or at the very least shut down the accounts of the people that flat out admitted to buying bots from it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:I mean if Twitter has a policy against fake accounts why can't they do anything about this company? Or at the very least shut down the accounts of the people that flat out admitted to buying bots from it. Twitter is fine with this. It helps keep their usage numbers up and extends the amount of time remaining before anyone starts wondering why the company that they own shares of isn't making any money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Yep, perverse incentives. Their priorities are still in the start-up mode of thinking, where the numbers are all that matters and you just damage control around them. They will burn down the quality of their network in preference to this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Dog-piling on that good QA people are worth their weight in gold. I wish they were more common, but the are incredibly valuable to businesses Amen, and their value really never decreases. This goes double for quality engineers who can automate their work, not just the reporting but the actual testing itself. It’s why we have UI testing mechanisms built atop our accessibility APIs: You can make lots of computers work the app the way a user will, in lots of different scenarios. (And also ensure that the app is properly accessible.) It winds up being a real force multiplier for a good quality engineer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:This is a pretty interesting read Maluco Marinero posted:Yep, perverse incentives. Their priorities are still in the start-up mode of thinking, where the numbers are all that matters and you just damage control around them. They will burn down the quality of their network in preference to this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:This is a pretty interesting read Regulate tech into the stone ages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
eschaton posted:Amen, and their value really never decreases. Just a gentle reminder that the person who brought this up is a laboratory QA, not a software tester. Good UIs are nice, but so is safe food, properly produced medicines and so on. I’m not trying to be Fishmech here, it’s just that I was literally in that person’s shoes several years ago and seeing this conversation is bringing back every lovely call with recruiters who didn’t know the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:It's even worse than that. You're taxed at vesting. If you got your options for free or almost nothing, that's a big hit, because your cost basis is nearly zero. If stocks vest, you hold them, and they then fall in value (not uncommon) you wind up having to pay taxes on money you never actually had. This was a loving disaster in 2000/2001.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Great read. My understanding of this is Twitter is screwed, they are beholden to users, of which many are bots. To remove bots would make the few users who drive revenue possibly/probably leave for another platform, and so they stumble on till the early investors find a way to bail. Is that it more or less?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Mercury Ballistic posted:My understanding of this is Twitter is screwed, they are beholden to users, of which many are bots. To remove bots would make the few users who drive revenue possibly/probably leave for another platform, and so they stumble on till the early investors find a way to bail. Is that it more or less? Bots don't actually drive revenue, and Twitter's been a public company for years now. Early investors have been able to bail by simply selling off stock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
So it is just about user count then? More = better?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Mercury Ballistic posted:So it is just about user count then? More = better? There's really no good reason that they do it. The bots clearly gently caress with what their legit advertisers want to target, they upset a ton of the real users, and they're generally not useful to twitter. I think perhaps some leadership is mistakenly convinced that BIG USER COUNT = PROFIT but really it's not working out that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There's really no good reason that they do it. The bots clearly gently caress with what their legit advertisers want to target, they upset a ton of the real users, and they're generally not useful to twitter. I think it's more that their infrastructure is duct-taped together and they don't have a good way to efficiently manage and remove them at scale. Bots are profitable for bot owners, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Part of the New York Times article is dissing Twitter for not using even the most basic of anti-bots technology like captchas. I don’t think Twitter has a serious interest or incentive to kill bots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Part of the New York Times article is dissing Twitter for not using even the most basic of anti-bots technology like captchas. I don’t think Twitter has a serious interest or incentive to kill bots. IMO twitter is only relevant because of the orange guy and Rooster Teeth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
Just FYI the median income for biochemists is $80,000.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
Twitter doesn't care that all their traffic is fraudulent, full-stop, and its a reason why advertisers continually shy away from them and they make no money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Just FYI the median income for biochemists is $80,000. Whats the median income for those with a bachelor's in biochemistry?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
What was Twitter’s last good idea? Let’s give them their own founding, as having a worldwide message board is an interesting notion. But literally everything since then has been terrible, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Whats the median income for those with a bachelor's in biochemistry? $40,000 But we all know you don't go into chemistry intending to stop at a bachelor's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:What was Twitter’s last good idea? Let’s give them their own founding, as having a worldwide message board is an interesting notion. Three years ago they wanted a million dollars for the privilege of making an emoji that would double as a hashtag. Last month they offered that feature for free as part of a plan that came in at less than $100,000. They are a trash company and all their features are bad because a) they don't care about bots at all and b) their most competent sales agent is now touring in a band you've never heard of
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:$40,000 And what percentage of undergrads have the grades to immediately enter grad school?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
Anecdotally I'd say four out of five seniors I know are headed for grad school. It's hard to say without data because people who don't get acceptance letters aren't eager to advertise it. If you want statistics you're as welcome to look it up as I am.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Three years ago they wanted a million dollars for the privilege of making an emoji that would double as a hashtag. Last month they offered that feature for free as part of a plan that came in at less than $100,000. Is the band any good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:Is the band any good? Well he was the best Twitter had to offer so, no, no they're not good. They sound like a parody of a band from 2006 but its the year 2018
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
Twitter should just charge any large company they find their advertising rates everytime they make a tweet. Boom, profitability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
Twitter, the company that actively refuses to do anything right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
Twitter? More like Twatter 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 09:20
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
I think it's another case of an internet-based business that literally doesn't know or understand what business they're in, what they're supposed to be selling and providing to who.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 11:54
|
|