I personally do not think it is a right of an employee to have privacy when having a discussion with another employee, over a work medium, about a work related matter.
Just because using the ability to read private messages screams micro-management, it doesn't mean that it's not occasionally necessary to discover instances of harassment or abuse.
That is the case for some legislation, such as when is necessary to override a presidential veto. Requiring it for all legislation would pretty much lead to a standstill, or worse - peddling to the special interests of a small coalition (this is my opinion).
Yeah, maybe. I think it would be super corrosive to party politics. Cooperation is mandatory. It's just not possible to pass anything without reaching across the aisle.
I'd assert that things that need to change would have broad support, and that change would happen. Stuff without broad support, well, maybe that's not as important as we think it is.
i mean, sure. the American reinvestment act wouldn't have passed - and a bunch of the other stimulus packages. Of course, glass steagall wouldn't have been repealed in the first place.
I think if you want anything to be resistant to byzantine failure, it's making laws. shrug. They didn't ask me.
Black Girls Code, in my opinion, is a great organization with a well executed mission and good reach (several major cities throughout the US). Glad Rust picked them.
Source: I've volunteered for them in the past as an instructor.
At my current job (where i've interviewed candidates) we give out a take home assignment, but we explicitly enforce a 2 hour time limit to do it. We felt this was reasonable because combined with an onsite interview and a phone screen, the total amount of time a candidate would spend interviewing for a position is about 8 hours (a typical workday). I'm not against take home assignments per se - but 3 day assignments seems crazy. I can't imagine myself doing that as long as there are other decent jobs out there that don't require it.
I think this is the best approach. You get the opportunity to do exactly what the job expects, without the pressure of having to manage communication with someone breathing down your neck. A savvy employer can extrapolate what you're able to produce over 2 hours to whatever project they'd have you work on.
We've had pretty good luck with it thus far. Generally, it is a good way to chop off the long tail of "not good enough" and bring the better ones onsite.
As you said, we calibrated our general expectation to what we think is reasonable in 2 hours - so we expect "good enough" code, but not perfect code.
This seems like a good thing. Admittedly, before reading this I did not even realize companies could force employees into arbitration.
I’d be curious to hear a concrete argument saying this is a job killer. Would companies hire less employees if they could not settle with them in forced arbitration? Maybe. Seems weak, just like non-compete agreements - for which there’s very little evidence of actual harm from not enforcing them (in California).
Exactly - and for all intents and purposes, that should be good enough. If the data is marked "deleted" and then written over within some reasonable amount of time (whatever their VACCUM cycle is to rewrite the immutable partition) then that should be good enough.
Now as for backups, this is much harder. I don't know how reasonable it is to ask them to discard backups in cold storage - seems like a compliance nightmare that would absolutely punish smaller players that can't build infrastructure to do that.
Just because using the ability to read private messages screams micro-management, it doesn't mean that it's not occasionally necessary to discover instances of harassment or abuse.