Would you mind giving some information about what makes a junior engineer stick out in those threads? I'm currently looking for that type of work and any advice would be greatly appreciated.
I'm attempting to currently move into a junior SWE role after completing a second BS in Computer Science (I'll be done this fall). I'm 31 and my first degree is in finance. This is a major fear of mine.
I haven't really had an issue with this. Though job searching is a little harder as a junior engineer. You can also have your resume start with your second degree.
In the US this is unlikely to happen because the big 4 sports all want to control their own distribution, TV rights, and streaming. I think they believe there's more money in that method.
And... there could be a case where you will need to write in a lower level language for something maybe for performance or because you’re doing something on a controller or a firmware or a driver etc. In any case it’s good to be able to move between languages
Finance, accounting, engineering, and many other careers have been around longer, have been commoditized to varying degrees, yet still enjoy good pay.
I think developers will still make good money for decades. I could, however, see an issue with junior developers finding less opportunities in the coming decade. I think there will be less need for juniors and the entry level jobs will be harder to come by. Some of those skills are more easily "commoditized."
To add to your point, I think this reinforces the value of spaced repetition learning. It's been show to been one of the best ways to actually retain information. So, as you said, just doing the exercises only gets one so far. You'll need to either use what you learned or at least do refresher exercises to better put what you learned into memory. The benefit is that you may be able to do these refreshers and greater intervals over time, effectively retaining the information longer.
For me personally, there does seem to be a tipping point where what I learned really sticks in my brain and degrades much slower. However, I can't seem to pinpoint where that point happens or if it is even consistent. There are some coding concepts I never forget, and some that seem to leave me within a month.
The government (the Supreme Court in this case) wasn't speaking for everyone, they were merely protecting the rights of a certain segment of the population. It's an important distinction to make. There was no constitutional basis for denying same-sex marriage.
True that, but that can be completely true, and yet it can be also true that having it imposed by the courts leads to a backlash, and an increase in anti-gay bias.
It is sort of like how people never like it when their candidate in an election loses, but if the courts intervene and disqualify their candidate, their resentment of the winner is greater. Regardless of whether the courts were right or not, the fact that a non-electorate authority made the decision, increases the dissatisfaction with the outcome.
Good point, I guess the comment to which I responded could be read two different ways also.
No one likes to be forced to do anything, and any perception of unfairness could easily elicit a stronger response of resentment or resistance.
I personally think when it comes to protecting rights it may be warranted, but I definitely see how the situation you explained could also be true. It's a tough thing to balance.
Sorry, but these examples aren't properly analogous.
A driving equivalent would something like automatic breaking technology. If it was proven that people driving with this were 50% less likely to cause accidents and the technology was available in all cars, then it would make sense to fine people that opted to manually turn it off.
Abortion isn't the same situation at all. That is a loaded topic involving religion, body autonomy, the concept of a "soul", person-hood, and science. It is not a binary issue.
Vaccines are black and white. There is sound science proving they don't cause autism and by not getting them the rest of the population is in danger. I would think heavy fines would be appropriate throughout society for these type of circumstances (or some other types of behavioral push).
The argument being made is "infringing on peoples bodily integrity is ok if a measurable amount of lives are saved by the infringement".
I simply extended that argument to other things where we can measurably evaluate how many more people would be alive if we infringe on peoples rights.
Abortion is a perfect example because not only can we establish a clear upper bound on the number of lives lost due to it, but we can also save those lives through an infringement on bodily integrity in particular.
In short, if we can infringe bodily integrity to save less than 1 life a year, by mandating mandatory measles vaccines, then it stands to reason that all other similarly permanent offenses to bodily integrity are also permitted if they save 1 or more lives per year.
They also __legally__ unload a large amount of tax burden by working with APs[1] on special custom ETF redemption orders.
For example, an AP will place a redemption order for an equity ETF. Typically, they will either receive cash value of the ETF or a basket of equities that are selected by the Front Office that are part of the underlying index represented by the ETF (the selection for a given standard basket is its own topic of portfolio management). However, in the case of the aforementioned custom orders, Vanguard and the AP will negotiate a special basket of equities to be given in return for the redeemed ETF. Sometimes this basket will just contain a large number of shares of simply one security. It's even possible that both parties make money off of this transaction due to the tax code. This transaction allows Vanguard to unload a large number of securities without paying taxes on them, and allows the AP to obtain these securities a negotiated, cheaper price.
Essentially, the transaction could like something like this:
->Vanguard has 1,000 shares of CompanyX they want to unload. This company can be found in Index Z.
->AP has 1 share of the Vanguard ETF that tracks Index Z. They want to redeem it
->AP gives their 1 share of the ETF to Vanguard
->Vanguard gives them n shares of CompanyX, at say a 5% discount so that:
.95 * $CompanyXPrice * Shares = 1 share of Index Z value
->Vanguard is spared the capital gains tax on these shares. AP gets these shares at a discount. They both (on paper) make or save money.
This is legal in the current tax code. The above example is simplified, but it should illustrate the situation (hopefully) well enough.
It's almost a creative writing contest in some threads. The problem is that just enough situations are verifiable that it blurs into the well written fictional accounts. I spend time on r/BestOfLegalAdvice sub and I have no doubt that upwards of ~25% of posts are fake.
Thanks!