I’ve worked with people who worked in software for the (property) insurance industry, which is similarly conservative and not tech oriented.
The advantage is that it tends to be extremely stable.
Like you can probably work there your entire life if you wanted, and they have a career path that accounts for that.
The downside is that you’re probably going to hate every minute of it. You won’t be doing anything that could be considered innovative. Doesn’t mean it won’t do anything that would fit on a resume or that it’s a dead end, it just won’t be new.
Personally, I would recommend the more interesting job. 27 isn’t an age I would worry about either.
If I could go back to 27 I’d take the interesting job. I’ve done both but waited until my late 30s to really spread my wings. I did a whole bunch of cool things that I wish I had done 10 years earlier so that I wouldn’t mind settling into a more boring thing later.
Just because OP doesn’t like it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, nor does it change the question of what to do when they don’t have said indicators. All OP asked was “why don’t they have indicators.” These are reasons why. The other reasons are greed and laziness.
Tell the tech company about the offer from the finance company. Ask them if they can match it (knowing full well they probably won’t, but ask anyway). If they say no, ask if they can go any higher than the stated offer. Whatever they tell you, tell them you’ll think on it and get back to them this week.
Then do whatever you want. I’d go for the one with the more relaxed dress code, personally.
My background: staff level eng at a moderately large company with experience in both tiny scale (12 man) and massive @Google (that January layoff was so great 🫠), 7YOE in Android + 2 in iOS dev
Getting your first 2-3 years of experience under your belt makes finding jobs much easier in the future: no companies want to hire juniors and train them but most companies are looking for seniors.
Whichever software stack you start on will tend to improve your chances of getting better jobs in that sector and it’s hard to leave golden handcuffs as you get more and more experience in a field.
Were I in your shoes: I’d take the job at (shot in the dark here) Chase Bank over the job through Insight any day. I’ve loved every contractor I’ve worked with but the companies see you as an expendable resource to cut as soon as possible.
What matters most for you is years in the field. Job experience. Skills and technical experience comes from time working on projects more than anything else.
When it comes time to exit Chase Bank be sure you’ve got your algos down and your soft skills on point. Being charming in an interview is as important as your algorithmic knowledge, for better or worse. If you’re charming, have 2-3 YOE and ace your technical questions you’ll be in good shape to move into realms you find more interesting.
Doxxing is bad. I don’t care if the person is a murderer or a protestor. Doxxing can have many, very nasty unintended consequences that can hurt more than just the person being doxxed.
I’m with you, while the people doing the bad things deserve to be found out by their friends, family, employers, etc…The means that this discovery happens matters and doxxing is not ok, full stop.
Great question! Initially, I was 100% against doxxing because it turns into vigilante justice when people gang up on a suspect that hasn’t been properly tried in a court, so innocent people could become victims for something they didn’t do or pay excessive consequences. However, with your question, I think it points out some nuance.
In the case of the Jan 6 insurrectionists, the FBI was trying to find them to press charges, so I think it was appropriate to doxx them. Protesters that didn’t partake directly in the insurrection were also outed and I’m iffy on that one. Their presence still had an impact on the insurrection because it gave energy to the thing and possible increased intimidation. Imagine if there was 1 person outside your house with a guillotine vs 100 people with a guillotine. The latter would likely instill more fear.
Ultimately, I think the main issue is not with being doxxed, but with the vigilante justice that people like to enact when someone is doxxed. Rather than say firing this dentist, the people that had the power to do so could have just accepted that the dentist had his own opinion on the matter irrelevant to his employment and left it at that. Yet, they acted on the desire to punish him by firing him. I think that’s messed up because for all we know, he might have had a valid reason for that behavior or at the very least, it was not affecting his work. I think it’s normal to be frustrated with the situation and have emotional responses to it. Rather than punish and isolate him, they could have had a compassionate talk with him to hear him out and possibly come to a collaborative stance to help ameliorate the situation. After all, conflicts aren’t resolved by increasing antagonism. It’s resolved by engaging in understanding and healthy interdependence. If anything, all they did was further radicalize the dentist.
That’s a pretty fair response. Although I would say that I am against doxxing people who just happened to show up and didn’t actually enter the capital/participate in any illegal behavior. You can’t predict what the crowd will do and I think we would all agree it’s wrong if a BLM protest got out of hand and they decided to punish everyone who was there simply because they “increased intimidation”.
Check out Wonderfalls. It’s one of the stranger things I’ve seen, but quite brilliant. The Good Place reminded me of it in many ways, although they are very different shows.
Mr Bean is pretty universal no matter the audience. I quite enjoyed Blackadder but I also enjoy history and have grown up on exported British television so I could keep up with the it. Not sure as many could like Mr Bean. Still is amazing the cast and what they did after Blackadder.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.