If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Yahoo employees complain to CEO that they still have 800 vacancies because she is a snob who only wants CS degrees and only from certain schools. Her response? "Why can't we just be better at hiring"? And that's why she makes the big bucks   (reuters.com) divider line 257
    More: Asinine, Yahoo, CEO, computing, Yahoo employees, mobile computing, Evercore Partners, personal project, Ed Boyden  
•       •       •

7585 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Mar 2013 at 11:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



257 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-12 04:53:32 PM

dwrash: I hated college.. the learning pace was way too slow and I have a low tolerance for repetitive nonsense.

The only courses I liked were 2 Comp-Sci courses where the professors gave preemtive final exams about 3 weeks into the course to see what kind of apptitude people had.  I passed both exams and was told I got an A in the course and attendance was not necessary for the rest of the semester unless I wanted to help the other students.

Give me a text book, I will read it and digest it in about a week and pass any test on its contents.

Why do we have to learn at the pace of the slowest learner in the class?... its PAINFUL.


I had a Stats professor fail me for not doing the homework in college.  Seriously.  I set the curve not only for the class that I was in, but for the other like 5 classes he was teaching that semester.  He claims that I was cheating.  I appeal my case to the dean of the math department and retake the much more difficult final in the deans office, 6 feet from him and pass it.

Ultimately because it was the professors decision and class, he still failed me for not doing any of the homework.  Farking asshole.
 
2013-03-12 04:58:09 PM

daveinsurgent: Software development is so young, ambiguous and so rapidly changing, that a degree really doesn't say a whole lot.


I'm neither for or anti degrees, and I'd say that there are advantages to doing a CS degree in terms of the foundations, and if you're going to do things like compiler design, you really need it.

But a lot of what I learnt on my college course 20+ years ago is almost irrelevant background noise to my job. I learnt how to code various sorts of sort routines. Know what I do now? Tell .net to just sort my list by a particular property. Because the difference between one sort mechanism with current CPU performance just isn't worth my time coding.

You want to know the best measure of a good developer that I've found? They're the people who also have a hobby development on the side. Doesn't matter if they custom built a retail store for their wife's embroidery, contribute to an open source project or if they write HTML5 games or sell utilities. Not only does it show they love doing it, and they're also practising what they do more, but typically when people do stuff on the side, they try new things out. And learning the new stuff saves you time and is a virtuous cycle of improvement.
 
2013-03-12 05:02:28 PM
Keep farking that purple squirrel........
 
2013-03-12 05:11:12 PM

Endive Wombat: dwrash: I hated college.. the learning pace was way too slow and I have a low tolerance for repetitive nonsense.

The only courses I liked were 2 Comp-Sci courses where the professors gave preemtive final exams about 3 weeks into the course to see what kind of apptitude people had.  I passed both exams and was told I got an A in the course and attendance was not necessary for the rest of the semester unless I wanted to help the other students.

Give me a text book, I will read it and digest it in about a week and pass any test on its contents.

Why do we have to learn at the pace of the slowest learner in the class?... its PAINFUL.

I had a Stats professor fail me for not doing the homework in college.  Seriously.  I set the curve not only for the class that I was in, but for the other like 5 classes he was teaching that semester.  He claims that I was cheating.  I appeal my case to the dean of the math department and retake the much more difficult final in the deans office, 6 feet from him and pass it.

Ultimately because it was the professors decision and class, he still failed me for not doing any of the homework.  Farking asshole.


My son and daughter are very much like me and encountered even more stupid teachers while going through public school.

The worse was Mrs. Nagle (a humanties teacher) where she required all students to have a spiral notebook where they would staple the homework assignments on the left and do their work on the right... do you know what an entire year does to a spiral bound notebook with so many staples in it does?.. by the end of the year its a mess of torn paper.

It's neatness and completeness was 50% of the class grade... many students purchased boxes that the spiral notebook would fit into and lug it around all year.... total stupidity.  Teachers like that should be run out of town.
 
2013-03-12 05:20:45 PM

sigdiamond2000: "Why can't we just be good at hiring?" Mayer said, playing off a line from what she called one of her favorite movies, 1989's "Say Anything",

Serious red flag.

When I was in college, that was #3 on my list of red flags for potential bedmates, right between earwax candles and Gypsy Kings CDs.

This woman's going to end up pounding on someone's door at 3 AM sobbing, screaming something about being responsible for her own happiness and demanding her Proto Pipe back.


Its Gipsy Kings.
 
2013-03-12 05:26:35 PM

Hollie Maea: RexTalionis: She's a pretty big name and a pretty good engineer - she was pretty much essential on most of Google's core services. That Google Search with just the logo and search bar? That was her idea:

Some people who are really really good at one thing are really bad at others.  See also: Michael Jordan as a team owner.


Jordan really really sucked when he tried to play AA baseball.
 
2013-03-12 05:30:43 PM

timujin: Mentat: I think the personally vetting every hire is a bit much, but as for the rest?  Why not?  The worst that happens is that Yahoo! doesn't improve and she walks away she drags Yahoo! even further into irrelevancy and then walks away from the smoking rubble with tens of millions in golden parachute money.  At best, she changes the culture for the better.

FTFY

It's not "gets better" or "stays the same".  The third option, continuing its downward spiral and imploding, is seeming more and more likely.  She's applying 20th century practices to a 21st century company.  This isn't IBM circa 1955.  The best talent these days doesn't necessarily come from Stanford or MIT, sometimes it's just a wunderkind hacker who's never even gone to college.  Ignoring that because of some antiquated idea of what corporate standards should be can ruin an IT company.


She came from Stanford, so obviously smart people like her only come from Stanford.
 
2013-03-12 05:39:19 PM

GAT_00: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Voiceofreason01: Because you have a clueless twat for a CEO.

Misogynist!

/not really, just thought I'd get it out of the way

I'm pretty convinced she's a terrible CEO no matter what, but her actions, such as banning mothers from staying home with their kids right as she finished a huge new nursery in her home, is the very definition of an out of touch CEO driving a company into the ground.  Her gender is irrelevant in that, except that her actions are somewhat more shocking when she personally knows better, or would if she had any empathy.


You realize it's not normal to be able to work from home, right? That's a fringe perk that maybe 1% of the labor force gets to enjoy. And if she wants to build a nursery and hire a nanny to take care of her kid with her own money, that's her business. What would make her a hypocrite would be if she didn't come into the office.
 
2013-03-12 05:47:53 PM

Tommy Moo: What would make her a hypocrite would be if she didn't come into the office.


I think the argument is that she *isn't* coming into the office, she's just extending her definition of home to include the office.
 
2013-03-12 05:53:40 PM

Moopy Mac: CPennypacker: Shrugging Atlas: If Mayer wasn't a good looking woman, would Yahoo! be getting any attention at all regardless of all these stupid policies?  Honest to god, every time it comes up the only thing I can think of is, "Why the fark is Yahoo still around?"

No seriously, why is yahoo still around?

Fantasy sports?


They still can't make a mobile app that performs adequately for their fantasy leagues.
 
2013-03-12 05:55:16 PM

browntimmy: poot_rootbeer: Guys, can you maybe find a way to critique Mayer's job performance without calling her a "twat" or a "coont"?

Come on.

We call men we don't like "dicks" and no one complains. Is that misandry?


Was going to say basically that.

For me:  dick, douche, or asshole
For women: biatch, c00nt, or twat.

It's not sexist.
 
2013-03-12 06:13:52 PM

Tommy Moo: GAT_00: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Voiceofreason01: Because you have a clueless twat for a CEO.

Misogynist!

/not really, just thought I'd get it out of the way

I'm pretty convinced she's a terrible CEO no matter what, but her actions, such as banning mothers from staying home with their kids right as she finished a huge new nursery in her home, is the very definition of an out of touch CEO driving a company into the ground.  Her gender is irrelevant in that, except that her actions are somewhat more shocking when she personally knows better, or would if she had any empathy.

You realize it's not normal to be able to work from home, right? That's a fringe perk that maybe 1% of the labor force gets to enjoy. And if she wants to build a nursery and hire a nanny to take care of her kid with her own money, that's her business. What would make her a hypocrite would be if she didn't come into the office.


So do you think other Yahoo employees have the freedom to build nurseries *right next* to their offices? Cause I really, *really* doubt that.
 
2013-03-12 06:29:02 PM

timujin: The best talent these days doesn't necessarily come from Stanford or MIT, sometimes it's just a wunderkind hacker who's never even gone to college. Ignoring that because of some antiquated idea of what corporate standards should be can ruin an IT company.


The days of the basement dwelling hacker being a super star in IT are mostly over.  To fill nearly 1000 positions you are not going to find diamond in the rough types, you find the people who have already proven they stand up to tough challenges.
 
2013-03-12 06:39:18 PM

AdolfClamwacker: timujin: The best talent these days doesn't necessarily come from Stanford or MIT, sometimes it's just a wunderkind hacker who's never even gone to college. Ignoring that because of some antiquated idea of what corporate standards should be can ruin an IT company.

The days of the basement dwelling hacker being a super star in IT are mostly over.  To fill nearly 1000 positions you are not going to find diamond in the rough types, you find the people who have already proven they stand up to tough challenges.


To fill 1000 positions? No.  But to deny employment to those who have come risen to the top through non-traditional means is shooting yourself in the foot.  Also, as has been pointed out by many here and in the article I posted above: "Yahoo doesn't have the luxury of turning down a lot of highly qualified people right now. It doesn't have the same prestige as Google or Facebook."
 
2013-03-12 06:45:56 PM

Magorn: The problem is they do absolutely no such thing, and basically reward those good at, those extensively coached, in how to, identify the "trick" in the logic puzzles they present, and pretty much little else


I actually now want to take it based on your description.  Just did some sample questions online, aced them, they were fun.

mesmer242: Magorn: mesmer242: She wanted to give the LSAT to admins? Really? That's stupid.

Re: the college degree thing: I know some people who work for a large company that requires only certain bachelor's degrees (CS, CE, EE, etc.) for many positions. They don't do this because they want to. They do this because it cuts down on discrimination claims when someone doesn't get hired. They used to take the self taught, and the history majors turned computer gurus... and it bit them in the ass.

When I took them, the line was that the LSATS gauged your reading comprehension, logic reasoning, and problem solving skills.  SO I see why she might have thought they'd be a good thing to test.  The problem is they do absolutely no such thing, and basically reward those good at, those extensively coached, in how  to, identify the "trick" in the logic puzzles they present, and pretty much little else

(No I'm not bitter, I hit the 98 percentile on the test because those puzzles are in my wheelhouse)

Yes, that's why I think it's stupid. I both studied standardized tests from an academic perspective, as well as taught standardized test classes for one of the major companies (not the LSAT though). Academic tests are a weak predictor of academic success, and work best when combined with other information such as GPA in previous academic endeavors. And predicting workplace success based on the LSAT is even less likely, as a large scale empirical study of lawyers rated on various positive attributes showed that most correlations were very weak (.1 or less) and some were actually negative (-.19 on networking).

There are people that argue that IQ testing shows a correlation with job success, but there have also been studies that show that over a certain IQ (115 or so), there's almost no difference. The strongest correlations are when people go into a job with no previous experience.

What gets me is they weren't talking about introducing these tests into the hiring process - they were talking ...


I get the idea that Yahoo has no idea how much work any of their employees are doing.  One of the justifications for getting rid of telecommuting was that they couldn't tell who was actually doing their work and who were deadbeats.  That, combined with wanting existing admins to take the LSATs, seems to paint a clear picture that Yahoo has some serious management issues.  Either the new CEO is a control freak who needs to look over people's shoulders to see if they are working, or management has been so bad the last few years they don't have any reliable methods of measuring individual work output or quality.
 
2013-03-12 07:02:38 PM

Magorn: She still basically cancelled all work from home because she felt that people working at home weren't 100% focused on their jobs, and then, at the same time, installed something in HER office that makes it clear she doesn;t intend to focus on her job 100% of the time.  It's a really obnoxious expression of an RHIP attitude


She didn't 'feel' that people working from home weren't doing their jobs - she had data that showed they weren't even logging in to the corporate network. So they were paying 0% attention. I hardly think taking a minute to feed your newborn, or spend lunch hour with them is a big deal - especially not when she's working longer than an 8 hour day to start with.

As some one who telecommutes for a major industry player, I can only shake my head in disbelief that this wasn't caught by her predecessors. Also, not every single employee who telecommutes was ordered back to the office.
 
2013-03-12 07:04:41 PM

Shrugging Atlas: If Mayer wasn't a good looking woman, would Yahoo! be getting any attention at all regardless of all these stupid policies?  Honest to god, every time it comes up the only thing I can think of is, "Why the fark is Yahoo still around?"


Yahoo got some publicity here recently because the national telecom use their shiatty email service and the whole thing got hacked all to shiat, Yahoo being criminally incompetent and all.

As far as I am aware, the only legitimate use Yahoo now has is their mailing group/list system which they will kill sometime soon
 
2013-03-12 07:07:19 PM

Tommy Moo: And if she wants to build a nursery and hire a nanny to take care of her kid with her own money, that's her business.


In the company offices? Her own business? No it farking isnt, it is the company's business, and the sort of practice you either do company wide or not at all. If a worker hired a nanny to look after their child by their desk they would be fired and you know it.

For a CEO to set up something like that for their personal use is in fact extraordinary.
 
2013-03-12 07:12:19 PM

cefm: If she wants to review and approve EVERY applicant then she's going to drive away her top managers and disillusion her employees pretty quickly.  When the CEO rejects the qualified candidate that the manager has already selected, she's telling the manager that he sucks and is a retard.  That kind of thing doesn't go over well.  Plus the guy who's overwhelmed with work and has empty cubicles on either side of him is going to burn out pretty fast.

Problems:  A) CEO approving every hire - that's not the CEO's job; B) Setting arbitrary and irrelevant standards for new hires that have nothing to do with the work product.

If she wants to be "better at hiring" there's one sure-fire way to do it - PAY MORE.  Other than that, you have to widen your acceptable pool (not doing it) and/or make the workplace more inviting (totally blew it) so......good luck with that.


She doesn't review every applicant - she signs off on the hire and the compensation package - fairly standard practice actually, and incidentally one that Google itself uses. Larry or Sergei signed off on every new hire for a very long time. And she does and has hired people without degrees. Hires without degrees tend to have been recruited for specific roles or expertise. It is only junior engineers that need a degree to get through the door. It is no different than the jobs that used to take only high school now requiring college - you need a way to winnow the applicant pool.
 
2013-03-12 07:19:15 PM
I don't think I can criticize what she is doing, because I don't know what her end-game actually is. Many say that Yahoo is a dying company - and many CEOs have built vast fortunes, not saving dying companies, but looting them. And one thing that involves is keeping the stock price up as long as possible - and slashing the workforce always works, at least in the short run. Laying people off and firing them costs money. Not filling positions and making the environment so unpleasant that people quit costs nothing.
If we don't necessarily know what she is really up to, how can we say she's doing it wrong?
 
2013-03-12 07:20:46 PM

verbaltoxin: So how long until an anonymous source from Yahoo tells the media, "Don't you think she looks tired?"


Yeah, but Harriet Jones never regretted her decision...
 
2013-03-12 07:32:10 PM

cybrwzrd: This is just a theory of mine:


Degrees are for people who are not intelligent enough or adaptable enough to learn and succeed on their own, which happens to be the plurality of humanity. I would say that for people of average iq - 90-120, a degree - or some sort of specialization is necessary to succeed in life. You can be a very good doctor, lawyer, scientist or anything else with a 110-120 IQ, but you will likely be unskilled at just about anything else you try to learn outside your speciality.


The the truly capable - a small minority, like your father- are able to do pretty much anything they put their mind to. This applies to IQs above 120 or 130 - and the higher the IQ, the more detrimental structured learning and/or specialization becomes. The higher the IQ, the sharper the ability to see patterns - and the ability to see patterns ties in with the ability to see how different fields interrelate.


I'm guessing you don't have a degree.
 
2013-03-12 07:35:37 PM

Katie Couric's Crotch: She's the CEO of Yahoo. What are you doing with your life asshole?


Once I was the king of Spain.

/Now the Leafs call me up to drive the Zamboni
 
2013-03-12 07:41:40 PM

Endive Wombat: dwrash: I hated college.. the learning pace was way too slow and I have a low tolerance for repetitive nonsense.

The only courses I liked were 2 Comp-Sci courses where the professors gave preemtive final exams about 3 weeks into the course to see what kind of apptitude people had.  I passed both exams and was told I got an A in the course and attendance was not necessary for the rest of the semester unless I wanted to help the other students.

Give me a text book, I will read it and digest it in about a week and pass any test on its contents.

Why do we have to learn at the pace of the slowest learner in the class?... its PAINFUL.

I had a Stats professor fail me for not doing the homework in college.  Seriously.  I set the curve not only for the class that I was in, but for the other like 5 classes he was teaching that semester.  He claims that I was cheating.  I appeal my case to the dean of the math department and retake the much more difficult final in the deans office, 6 feet from him and pass it.

Ultimately because it was the professors decision and class, he still failed me for not doing any of the homework.  Farking asshole.


This tells me that if you read a requirements doc and didn't feel like doing some of them, then you wouldn't bother to implement them. In my algorithms classes, I did exactly half the homework plus 1 question, told my prof that I wasn't going to submit the rest and was that a problem. Or were you under the impression that there would be no homework in the class? I'm guessing you didn't read the syllabus.
 
2013-03-12 07:47:33 PM

cybrwzrd: This is just a theory of mine:


Degrees are for people who are not intelligent enough or adaptable enough to learn and succeed on their own, which happens to be the plurality of humanity. I would say that for people of average iq - 90-120, a degree - or some sort of specialization is necessary to succeed in life. You can be a very good doctor,


It's a stupid theory.

See how far you get trying to become a Doctor without a degree.
 
2013-03-12 07:52:20 PM

dwrash: The only courses I liked were 2 Comp-Sci courses where the professors gave preemtive final exams about 3 weeks into the course to see what kind of apptitude people had. I passed both exams and was told I got an A in the course and attendance was not necessary for the rest of the semester unless I wanted to help the other students.


When I was an Electronics major, I took a Pascal programming class for the hell of it.  It turned out I knew it better than the professor and he had the decency to recognize that fact in the class.  Yeah, I got an A.  It's hard to fail someone who does the homework assignment on paper, without verifying it on a computer, five minutes after he wrote the problem on the board, and I handed it in as I walked out.  I think he stopped bothering to grade my homework.
 
2013-03-12 07:53:48 PM
As a software engineer, this woman is a clueless idiot. Not hiring people without degrees? Not allowing anyone to work from home? Way to turn back the clock 20 years to outdated business practices. No wonder no one wants to work there.
 
2013-03-12 07:56:44 PM

OgreMagi: dwrash: The only courses I liked were 2 Comp-Sci courses where the professors gave preemtive final exams about 3 weeks into the course to see what kind of apptitude people had. I passed both exams and was told I got an A in the course and attendance was not necessary for the rest of the semester unless I wanted to help the other students.

When I was an Electronics major, I took a Pascal programming class for the hell of it.  It turned out I knew it better than the professor and he had the decency to recognize that fact in the class.  Yeah, I got an A.  It's hard to fail someone who does the homework assignment on paper, without verifying it on a computer, five minutes after he wrote the problem on the board, and I handed it in as I walked out.  I think he stopped bothering to grade my homework.


I just want you to know that when I say, "Oh my God", I'm thinking of you.

I bet you're quite handsome and I feel like I should write you a check for several thousand dollars.
 
2013-03-12 08:25:55 PM

impaler: cybrwzrd: This is just a theory of mine:


Degrees are for people who are not intelligent enough or adaptable enough to learn and succeed on their own, which happens to be the plurality of humanity. I would say that for people of average iq - 90-120, a degree - or some sort of specialization is necessary to succeed in life. You can be a very good doctor,

It's a stupid theory.

See how far you get trying to become a Doctor without a degree.


I think you completely missed the point.
 
2013-03-12 08:26:44 PM

impaler: See how far you get trying to become a Doctor without a degree.


That's a stupid argument - you might face plenty of difficulty if not an outright impossibility in becoming a Doctor (big-D) -- but I see no reason why a person of considerable intelligence would not be able to learn the information on their own that would otherwise enable them to be a doctor.

But the analogy ends there - a doctor can perform reasonably well with a reasonable ongoing commitment to learning. A software developer on the other hand can practically throw away knowledge more than a few years old - obvious exceptions notwithstanding. It's only getting worse as the number of languages and frameworks balloon out. It doesn't matter per se - a good developer should be able to learn any of them, but if you need someone to say, fix something, and fast, you can't rely on that. So what matters more is the real world working knowledge that they currently possess. The equivalent would be going to a doctor and saying "Hey, so I don't have any of the organs you would expect, but can you diagnose what's wrong with me?" - zombie apocalypse aside, would you want a vet looking at you?
 
2013-03-12 08:48:04 PM

daveinsurgent: impaler: See how far you get trying to become a Doctor without a degree.

That's a stupid argument - you might face plenty of difficulty if not an outright impossibility in becoming a Doctor (big-D) -- but I see no reason why a person of considerable intelligence would not be able to learn the information on their own that would otherwise enable them to be a doctor.

But the analogy ends there - a doctor can perform reasonably well with a reasonable ongoing commitment to learning. A software developer on the other hand can practically throw away knowledge more than a few years old - obvious exceptions notwithstanding. It's only getting worse as the number of languages and frameworks balloon out. It doesn't matter per se - a good developer should be able to learn any of them, but if you need someone to say, fix something, and fast, you can't rely on that. So what matters more is the real world working knowledge that they currently possess. The equivalent would be going to a doctor and saying "Hey, so I don't have any of the organs you would expect, but can you diagnose what's wrong with me?" - zombie apocalypse aside, would you want a vet looking at you?


The converse is always true.  If the thing was written, in whatever language, with strong foundational knowledge it probably wouldn't be broke and you wouldn't have to fix it quick in the first place.

Software development isn't about languages, it's about marshaling ideas and people using proven scientific and non-scientific principals .
 
2013-03-12 08:50:36 PM
Yahoo needs to go back to its roots of maintaining an organized list of links to the whole Web.
 
2013-03-12 08:58:30 PM

cybrwzrd: See how far you get trying to become a Doctor without a degree.

I think you completely missed the point.


As did you. A lot of people don't get degrees so they can learn, they get them to show that they have learned. Autodidactability be damned.
 
2013-03-12 08:59:48 PM

midigod: Darke: Is... is that not normal?  Sorry if this is a stupid question, but aren't you recovered enough after childbirth after two weeks to return to work?  What's normal for that?

You're physically "recovered" enough to go back to work after a couple of days.  But most mothers prefer to stay home for about six weeks to bond with their infant, a process that most pediatricians agree is very important for the future mental and physical health of the child.

I suspect though, that a policy of woman coming back after a specific amount of time that's much shorter than average has more to do with the company not wanting the mom to change her mind about coming back at all.  Because that happens a fair amount as well.


You will ooze blood clots for about a month, and wake up every 2-3 hours around the clock to nurse the baby for at least twenty minutes at a time. Your breasts will leak every time you think of your baby or hear another baby cry. You will be weepy, irritable, suffer short-term memory loss and find yourself so madly in love with your baby that every moment away from him is a feeling of pure anguish. You'll forget when you last showered for a couple of months and doze off throughout the day for about a year.

That's when everything goes well, as I hope it does for you. Don't let some freak with a team of nannies make you feel you have to prove anything. The family leave policies in this country are disgraceful. And this woman? She's not helping.
 
2013-03-12 09:01:22 PM

rohar: Software development isn't about languages


Okay sure, yes, that's a really great poetic thing to say, but "it probably wouldn't be broke" is really not applicable - you didn't necessarily break it, you don't get to make that decision, if everyone did things right most software developers would be unemployed. Not to mention requirements change - there's little purpose in distinguishing between a bug and a feature request if they both change behavior. At the end of the day software developers get money to solve problems - the business doesn't really care about proven scientific or non-scientific principles, in fact sometimes those can outright harm the business if they are not used pragmatically. Software development is about languages, it's also about frameworks, and people - it's about whatever it takes to solve the problem and generate profit (or most likely reduce cost) for the business. No more and no less. A smart business doesn't care if you have your PhD - if you've never written a line of Perl and they have something that needs to be changed (there, I said that instead of 'fixed'), a high school student who hacks in their spare time is going to be more desirable.
 
2013-03-12 09:11:02 PM

daveinsurgent: rohar: Software development isn't about languages

Okay sure, yes, that's a really great poetic thing to say, but "it probably wouldn't be broke" is really not applicable - you didn't necessarily break it, you don't get to make that decision, if everyone did things right most software developers would be unemployed. Not to mention requirements change - there's little purpose in distinguishing between a bug and a feature request if they both change behavior. At the end of the day software developers get money to solve problems - the business doesn't really care about proven scientific or non-scientific principles, in fact sometimes those can outright harm the business if they are not used pragmatically. Software development is about languages, it's also about frameworks, and people - it's about whatever it takes to solve the problem and generate profit (or most likely reduce cost) for the business. No more and no less. A smart business doesn't care if you have your PhD - if you've never written a line of Perl and they have something that needs to be changed (there, I said that instead of 'fixed'), a high school student who hacks in their spare time is going to be more desirable.


I was going to argue this, the realized you're possibly my competition and it's to my advantage you remain ignorant.
 
2013-03-12 09:15:12 PM
RexTalionis
Marissa Mayer is Employee #20 at Google and was the engineer who helped design almost all of Google's core services for a while. What is your criteria for geek so that Mayer isn't one?

I probably understated her geek credentials. She was hired as an engineer early on in Google's existence, though fairly quickly took a career turn towards management and executive roles.
 
2013-03-12 09:16:35 PM

daveinsurgent: if everyone did things right most software developers would be unemployed... At the end of the day software developers get money to solve problems...sometimes [proven principles] can outright harm the business if they are not used pragmatically... A smart business doesn't care if you have your PhD... a high school student who hacks in their spare time is going to be more desirable.


Looks like the high school student who hacks in their spare time is the cause and solution to all your problems.
 
2013-03-12 09:22:39 PM

impaler: As did you. A lot of people don't get degrees so they can learn, they get them to show that they have learned. Autodidactability be damned.


How does a degree show that you have learned? A degree shows that you had the persistence to complete it. It does not show that you have knowledge. I have learned a hell of a lot more in the last 5 years of my life through experience from actually doing than the 4 years prior to that which was spent in university.
 
2013-03-12 09:29:32 PM

impaler: cybrwzrd: This is just a theory of mine:


Degrees are for people who are not intelligent enough or adaptable enough to learn and succeed on their own, which happens to be the plurality of humanity. I would say that for people of average iq - 90-120, a degree - or some sort of specialization is necessary to succeed in life. You can be a very good doctor,

It's a stupid theory.

See how far you get trying to become a Doctor without a degree.


Specialized case.  An MD comes with a bunch of on-the-job training.  It's not like most degrees.

Generally, I've found that having a degree is only weakly correlated to actual intelligence.  I've met plenty of very smart people who don't have degrees, and plenty of stupid people who do.  What it seems to measure more closely than intelligence is perseverance.
 
2013-03-12 09:33:23 PM
Pretty soon, this will be the only Yahoo anyone remembers:

donteatthegrapefruit.files.wordpress.com

I'm Serious!
 
2013-03-12 09:33:39 PM

rohar: Software development isn't about languages, it's about marshaling ideas and people using proven scientific and non-scientific principals  logic.


FTFY.  If you can't think logically, it doesn't matter how many languages you know, you'll generate shiat code.

If you can think logically, then learning a new language is merely memorizing syntax.

Unfortunately, some people, even people with advanced CS degrees, have a hard time thinking logically.
 
2013-03-12 09:57:05 PM
I don't care what she does at Yahoo.  She could have everyone sit in a drum circle and chant all day for all I care.  Problem is, it's affecting the site.  Since she has taken over, the place is going backwards and looks more and more like something from the late 90's run by a sorority.  The colors, fonts, the usability of the email page is all garish and clunky.  Hearing all about Bill Clinton and what Obama had for lunch and what Kim Kardashian is doing right-farking-now is getting old.  Having her face telling everyone that she's made some exciting changes to Yahoo that she just knows you will like without giving you any choice in the matter is just icing on the cake.
Any company going into the shiatter will have massive layoffs to boost the stock price in order to buy time.  By impeding the hiring like she is, she keeps the payroll down without having to explain the real reason why.  She looks like the hero.  It's her short game, probably all she's got.
 
2013-03-12 10:06:09 PM

cybrwzrd: impaler: As did you. A lot of people don't get degrees so they can learn, they get them to show that they have learned. Autodidactability be damned.

How does a degree show that you have learned? A degree shows that you had the persistence to complete it. It does not show that you have knowledge. I have learned a hell of a lot more in the last 5 years of my life through experience from actually doing than the 4 years prior to that which was spent in university.


And no degree? What does that show? No one ever said a degree proves someone is intelligent. It conveys information.
 
2013-03-12 10:10:58 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: OgreMagi:

When I was an Electronics major, I took a Pascal programming class for the hell of it.  It turned out I knew it better than the professor and he had the decency to recognize that fact in the class.  Yeah, I got an A.  It's hard to fail someone who does the homework assignment on paper, without verifying it on a computer, five minutes after he wrote the problem on the board, and I handed it in as I walked out.  I think he stopped bothering to grade my homework.

I just want you to know that when I say, "Oh my God", I'm thinking of you.

I bet you're quite handsome and I feel like I should write you a check for several thousand dollars.


Fark you very much for revealing yourself as a dumbass who has enmity toward people who succeed on their own.

Similar to OgreMagi's story, when I started college in an engineering curriculum, one of the required classed was "Introduction to Computer Science" (FORTRAN).  They were wise enough then (in 1986) to realize that it may be too BASIC (sorry, small joke in large font) for some and provided an optional, early exam in the 2nd week.  Pass it, you get an A.  Fail it, you continue attending the class and earn your grade.  What is wrong with that?  Nothing.  I think a student oughta be able to "CLEP" any class, not just the low level ones usually set aside for CLEPing.
 
2013-03-12 10:43:06 PM
Farty McPooPants: Valid criticism... its font choices and design are pretty clunky and garish. But to be fair, Yahoo looks better than it ever did.

The problem Yahoo has had, and continues to have, is in answering the question: what is Yahoo's role in the industry? It tries to be a cloud e-mail provider, a search engine, a content aggregator, a discussion forum, a travel site, and a news site... but it does none of these particularly well.

This might strike someone at first as mirroring Google's approach, but really it isn't - Google started out by doing one thing best, then when they'd mastered that they moved on to one other thing, and one other thing. These days adherence to that "do one thing and do it well" formula has waned a bit at Google (and they've suffered a bit as a result, I'd argue), but at Yahoo it never applied at all - they've never shaken that 1990s dated "we're a portal site" mentality.

Consequently, Yahoo's customers are generally confined to the people who never shook the 1990s "we want a portal site" mentality - low-tech/low-brow/soccer-mom/change-intolerant types, to cast casual aspersions on market segments. Is that really a niche needing to be filled, or just an unsustainable attempt to capitalize on the lowest common denominator of the day? With the scheduled demise of iGoogle, we seem to have that company's answer.

/call me, Marissa
 
2013-03-12 11:10:51 PM
Eight weeks to get back to someone?  Screw that.
 
2013-03-12 11:31:08 PM

mmagdalene: Your breasts will leak every time you think of your baby or hear another baby cry. You will be weepy, irritable, suffer short-term memory loss and find yourself so madly in love with your baby that every moment away from him is a feeling of pure anguish. You'll forget when you last showered for a couple of months and doze off throughout the day for about a year.


Thankfully, that is not the experience for every woman who has a child. The way you describe it makes my skin crawl.

/woman
/had a child
 
2013-03-13 12:03:14 AM
Yahoo has over 10 thousand employees? Bullshiat. To do -what-? The only time anyone goes to yahoo is by a misclick.
 
2013-03-13 01:17:49 AM

soakitincider: this lady is a terrible CEO.


No, Ron Johnson is a terrible CEO.

GFYRJ.
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report