Having used it for a little over a year now, I can say that it's strengths may lie in getting junior developer's code more free of bugs and dependency issues. It's just additional overhead when you're trying to do anything more complex, like a Kimball type II slowly changing dimension - then it's just a blocker. Unfortunately, as it becomes a defacto build environment, it's limitations start getting applied to everyone.
Yeah, dbt snapshots do a row hash and update if anything in the row changes. We had a source table that had a bunch of daily changing timestamps, e.g. "load date", that we needed to ignore, and focus on a business key. Dbt was an utter torment to try get this going. Ended up building a more elegant framework without it.
Having worked in the bowels of a major online retailers networking team during black Friday sales, I can say that a lot of the patterns you see in this UI are real. People do indeed get out of bed at ungodly hours of the morning to get two bucks knocked off a stereo.
Of all the years where I worked in ecommerce, the first year with Black Friday was the only one that was any fun.
We where one the first webshop in the country to have a Black Friday campaign, mostly as an aftertought. The entire thing was just one guy in marketing, me, who hacked together a quick way to add the discounts and then our fantastic team of buyers who used to occasion to clean out old stock and mistaken purchases. We ran with anything from 20 - 90% discounts. As stuff sold out everyone just kept digging into old stock and adding insane discounts. It was so much fun to see items that normally didn't move just sell out in minutes.
The next year everything was more or less normalize, planned and just boring and stressful as expectations from customers where much higher and it became more a quest to keep the servers from crashing.
I'd feel sorry for anyone who hacked booking.com, they'd end up trying to decipher several petabytes of email data saying basically, "stop sending me hotel offers in Outer Mongolia!"
I love Perl. But, if I were hired to squirrel away code that helped me spy on people, Perl would be one of my top choices. Lots of opportunity to hide the true purpose of the code with weird, little known side-effects, syntax, and so on. Perl doesn't have to be cryptic, but it can be.
Why would anyone build something like that in Perl? I could only see it being done “just because”. Wasn’t Perl specifically designed for the quickly code it once and not change it again case?
Nuclear energy is THE power source of NIMBY-ism, relatively clean, ecological, always available but just so long as it's next door to somebody else. The Germany plans to do away with this power source with come back to bite them badly in the next thirty years.
Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy on the market. If you fast forward two decades, countries will be producing power at vastly different cost levels that will dictate their economic success. Those relying on nuclear will be piling on debt for getting power way above market prices.
Germany never had a substantial nuclear deployment. It peaked around 20GW. About 8 remains. The disappearance of 16GW from the grid was a complete non event. No blackouts. No instability. It just happened gradually and now its gone. The remaining 8 are tiny compared to daily fluctuations in wind and solar that are also not an issue. In terms of base load it is completely irrelevant whether it stays or goes. It's certainly not worth paying a lot for. If you replace 20GW with a few hundred GW of wind and solar, you end up with plenty of capacity and baseload. That's more or less what happened in the last few decades. The French already import excess power from Germany and elsewhere below the price they are selling their own nuclear power quite often.
Nuclear never mattered in Germany other than for military strategic reasons that stopped being relevant when Russia withdrew their tanks from the DDR 30 years ago. All that remains is cold war era obsolete plants that are expensive to keep going. Shutting them down was going to happen no matter what (because they are obsolete and near end of life) and the decision to not build replacement plants was pretty much a constant. The debate around that was pretty much over before Fukushima already. All that did was fast track some of the decision making. It remains a popular and uncontroversial decision in Germany.
Macron is announcing intentions and plans in the middle of an election season where Macron is under a lot of pressure from right wing populist parties. This nuclear push is very much motivated by nationalist sentiments and Macron is in damage control mode as he's losing voters to several right wing parties; some of which you might classify as far right or even neo fascist.
We'll see what remains of those intentions and plans after the elections. Election time posturing is not to be confused with actually policy to spend many billions on nuclear. Assuming he actually wins, he might find himself once more forming a government with a few other parties that will have strong opinions on this topic and not a lot of budget to allocate to a wide range of topics competing for attention. Until that government is a reality, all you have is a politician trying to stay in power trying to appeal to voters currently entertaining the thought to vote for someone else. Even with these announcements, we're still talking a net decline in nuclear capacity over time. It's just slowing it down slightly.
Personally, I think it is wise for the French to keep the knowledge to build reactors going for another generation. Additionally, exporting that knowledge to e.g. the UK is good for their economy. Hinkley Point C is being built by French EDF. Of course, there are plenty of scandals surrounding that particular setup related to cost overruns, delays, etc. That seems to be a constant with nuclear. One thing is certain, it won't be cheap power. Gas is cheaper, even with the recent price increases. Saving money is not a reason to go nuclear. It never was. Whether the UK ends up buying more is very much up in the air. The drama around Hinkley Point C is probably not helping the nuclear case currently. And having to send the money to France is probably not helping that case.
Friend of a friend is literally an expert on base load provision. What you’ve said about solar and wind providing base load is untrue. You need nuclear (or gas etc) to keep the grid stable. Your base load cannot come from solar or wind, it is literally impossible, this is why we use the term “base load”.
I had a similar experience where the entire marketing and BI teams (BI was part of marketing) were called into a meeting at short notice.
Everyone expecting layoffs or some such bad news. Turned out the guy heading up marketing was leaving, and ego being a thing, needed a platform to announce this.
This fricking act put unnecessary fear into folks with mortgages and kids, for absolutely no reason!
This advice is spot on, never, under any circumstances say more in an exit interview than some blithe meaningless words. "I'm looking for a new challenge", "I want to change career direction", etc. Nothing will come of you bitching about the company to the company, period.
This is a fantastic resource, great to see someone reconstructing a hill fort, even virtually, that's north of the border.
I'd love to see something about the vitrified forts (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrified_fort) the Picts were known to build. These basically hardened glass walls would have been more resistant to attack, but why they over-engineered these walls is a bit of a mystery.
In fairness, we're only hearing one side of the argument here. It's easy enough for anyone to say they're hard-working diligent team players, but we don't know if they're getting the work done! Don't get me wrong, Google are notoriously nasty when you get on the wrong side of management, but to start claiming discrimination is a bit fresh.
Having been a manager, about 1/10th of employees had... issues. Those employees took up an inordinate amount of management time and especially energy.
I don't know whether she or her manager were the problem; in most cases, it's 50/50. If I know a potential hire had issues before, it raises the risk of a hire a lot. I want to avoid that kind of employee.
If they act unprofessionally after leaving, that goes up to 95/5. Perhaps her boss had issues, but she definitely did as well. Posting a list of management emails? Naming her boss publicly? That goes to a serious red flag.
When I was managing, I would never have hired someone who did this. The risk goes in several directions too. Since then, I've picked up a harassing stalker. Having an employee do this sort of thing went from psychologically draining to potentially devastating to my safety.
Naming their manager in twitter complaint and then asking people to spam every node in the org chart from their manager up to Sundar. Yeah, that is going to get the results you want...
Not the best move but at the same time what else is there she can do?
Being young, in your "dream job" and then being told "there’s someone waiting outside to collect your corp devices" without any real explanation.
It's 100% HR + Managers fault that this situation has escalated to this.
If a future employer asks for a reference from Google she's screwed.
This whole "don't say anything bad about X, it will reflect badly on you" is how the Epsteins and Weinsteins of the world go undetected for years.
If what she says is true she should probably go to a lawyer and sue.
This is a weird one. Google is notoriously slow to fire people for performance reasons. People get Needs Improvement ratings. They go on PIPs. It takes ages. A sudden termination typically means something else. This can either mean that the individual did something especially foolish or a lot of people are doing the wrong thing to get this person fired (a manager, a skip, some people in HR, and probably a director would be involved in this sort of thing).
But the complaints here seem to be related to performance management. Getting a frustratingly low rating. Being told that they aren't doing enough work. For this sort of situation I'd expect the firing process to take months.
"CME for missing a meeting" is strange, but the good news is that manager calibration notes are stored in durable systems and in many locales people have the legal right to see them. So it'd be possible to see if this was actually the reason for a rating.
The individual was very likely on a PIP. They mentioned "performance issues". It could've went on for months.
If a manager really wants you gone they can manufacture evidence and have you yanked quickly by constructing unobtainable and/or subjective PIP targets.
It may depend on the org, but in my org at Google there is a ton of oversight in PIP construction. I've not ever personally seen unobtainable or subjective PIP targets.
It'd also be extremely odd to be on a PIP after receiving a Consistently Meets Expectations rating. Only a subset of Needs Improvement ratings actually get PIPs. CME, by definition, means that you are doing your job sufficiently.
> If a future employer asks for a reference from Google she's screwed.
If a future employer checks and see she was asking people to go and harass her former managers and HR, it'd reflect pretty badly on her; I know I wouldn't want her in my team.
And as for what she can do, isn't wrongful termination illegal? Like she could instead open a civil case against Google
Admittedly, being fired when on an h1b visa is stupendously stressful because you need to get a new job immediately or be booted from the country. Opening a civil case won't achieve any rapid goal of getting employment. We'll see whether this strategy helps or hurts. There are enough people out there who really don't like Google that I would not be surprised if this sort of strategy allows for rapid connection to these people even if it sours most companies on this person.
i’ve been in high stress situations, and angry, where I made a bunch of correct decisions, and a bunch of mistakes. in this case, especially since I’m not the one who is in the crosshairs, i understand her pain
Not at all, ALWAYS name the bad managers ... it's the only way they will face repercussions, and the only way to deter others from following in their footsteps.
It does deter others from following in their footsteps. Once name-and-shame comes in, that deters anyone but the super-privileged from going into management. No one who can't weather name-and-shame will go for jobs like that.
Name-and-shame is... random. I've never been hit, but the people I've seen hit... It hasn't had much to do with them, so much as with the people doing the shaming.
google is so big nobody can get anyone else’s attention. so making a public stink, while very questionable otherwise, may get someone’s attention who’s able to fix this mess
Truth be told, there’s this giant argument in support of this side: the person is on H1B work visa. Which makes one think twice before slacking off on the job or whatever they were accused of. Compared to residents, the price for not keeping the job is way too high, so I’d rather assume they really worked their arse off.
A friend from India is a recent immigrant (arrived on H1-B) and is now a US citizen. He is working for a company that also has a lot of fellow indians on H1-B visa. His salary is rougly 50% higher (for the same profile), and he gets to go home by 6 PM while they still slog with all the extra work they are expected to do.
Ignoring the fact that H-1B visa holders have to be paid a “prevailing wage”, which makes extremely difficult for them to be 50% underpaid, are you suggesting that your friend has kept the same work profile as recently arrived workers for well over ten years?
I have know Indians who, after almost two decades in the country, finally managed to get ahold a green card. Most I have worked with, have been on H-1B visas for at least eight years. It is hard to believe that someone would have left his or her home country, for a specialized and well paid job in the US, but haven’t progressed at all in the seniority scale in decades.
"Prevailing wage" doesn't mean equal wages because there's no such thing - there's a payscale for every position, and it is different in every company. And H1-B visa holders invariably get the lower end of the payscale (often the lowest). This ends up being even lower when they arrive through indian IT consultancy firms.
> are you suggesting that your friend has kept the same work profile as recently arrived workers for well over ten years?
I have no idea where you got that idea from. He married a US citizen, and became one himself after a few years. As soon as he became a US citizen, he got an offer from an indian IT consultancy firm with a pay hike of $75,000 based on his multi-national experience / expertise and, ofcourse, the fact that he was a US citizen.
> "Prevailing wage" doesn't mean equal wages because there's no such thing - there's a payscale for every position, and it is different in every company. And H1-B visa holders invariably get the lower end of the payscale (often the lowest).
I went through this process, and when they calculated the prevailing wage for my position, it was a number, not a range. It is calculated as the average of wages for all similar positions, in the same place of employment, and there is a minimum of $60,000, as far as I understand, at least for H-1B visas.
If a company were to pay less to visa holders than to their peers, it would be committing fraud.
> I have no idea where you got that idea from. He married a US citizen, and became one himself after a few years.
Essentially, because applying for US citizenship takes several years. Green card through marriage may take up to 3 years, and US citizenship takes at least another 5, so that may make around 8 years. I assumed your friend came to the US as a professional with a H-1B visa, and went down the full process, from H-1B, to green card, to citizenship, which, for an Indian national, may take even decades.
Point is, if this person was making around the same amount of money as recently arrived visa holders, even after several years in the US, and only started receiving better wages with a change in citizenship status, there must be something else to it. Either way, it seems strange that a H-1B holder would stay in a position for many years, without no effective wage increases at all.
> As soon as he became a US citizen, he got an offer from an indian IT consultancy firm with a pay hike of $75,000 based on his multi-national experience / expertise and, ofcourse, the fact that he was a US citizen.
Sadly, that is the modus operandi of certain IT consultancy firms, especially Indian ones.
It may be fraud. It is not like this has not happened before[1][2]. But this does not mean that the system rules are broken, it may mean that the enforcement of such rules is inadequate.
To clarify, earning $75,000 more than people in a similar position is not fraud per se, but people making less than the mandatory average is. And given that H-1B visa holders must make at least $60,000, I'm not capable of understanding how this company calculates prevailing wages without committing blatant fraud.
I think loopholes are possible and are being used whenever feasible. What if prevailing wage is uniformly low, it’s just that employees who are more equal than others receive bonuses?
If wages are low, H-1B workers wages would still be on par with those of their peers. It is already illegal to set wages otherwise.
There is a minimum prevailing wage per level, set by the government agency in charge, and bonuses and other incentives too count towards median annual wages.
The H-1B program is flawed, yes, but not for the reasons most people think of. It is effectively used by many IT consultancy companies, especially Indian ones, to bring workers to the US, and essentially keep them captive through several methods.
Working hard or being motivated to work hard isn’t the same thing as being a good employee though. We’ve all known employees who work hard (or think they do) but don’t contribute much, or cause problems in other ways.
I still think there’s a problem. If they are smart enough to go through the infamous circles of interviews at the fucking google and be deemed worthy, then work through the circles of immigration hell, and then you see they are working hard but not smart enough, I dunno, have you tried talking to them? It’s not like they became stupid overnight.
But at this point it's Google's problem, moreover, a problem it inflicted unto itself, especially since they make people jump through all the hoops and organize long, multi-stage interviews, complete with tricky questions, specifically to make sure they find people who really know their shit and weed out con persons.
I mean, you know and I know that passing exhausting interviews and actually doing work are two distinct skills (I, for one, blanket refuse to apply for any and all jobs where there are more than two interviews), but it seems that some large companies think they know better than that. Well, they can cry me a river.
Lemme guess, the non-cititens also dream of getting residence or citizenship and work humanly hours and go home at six while their slack will be picked up by the next wave of serfs. Bonus if they can boss around some.
