On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:24:07 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> It depends on what you like.
>>>
>>> I gather that there are people who actually *like* travelling. People
>>> who pay to go on round the world cruises. Personally, I'd hate that.
>>> But that's OK; people are different.
>> 
>> Working someplace isn't the same as vacationing there.  But you know
>> that.  And yes, people are different.
>> 
>> I'm trying to point out (and apparently reaching "epic fail" with it)
>> that you're forming opinions on places based on, well, nothing.  You
>> think you would hate living in Zurich or Geneva based on no actual
>> experience at having been there at all.
> 
> Of course. Because I've never been to Geneva. Oh, wait - actually yes,
> yes I have. :-P

And how much time have you spent there?

>> You make assumptions that the
>> people there would treat you as bad or worse than you're treated now,
>> but you have zero empirical evidence to suggest that.
> 
> No, it's more that I find foreigners intimidating. That being the case,
> it's not a good idea to deliberately surround myself with them.

Or putting yourself in that situation could help you learn to work with 
foreigners more easily.  I'm guessing here, but it seems that you find 
foreigners intimidating because you think they're "out to get you" or 
something like that.  You haven't had enough experience with them to 
realize that they're out there just trying to get by - the same as you.

>>> There are people who *want* to live in the south of France, because
>>> it's very sunny there. Personally, I hate hot weather. It would drive
>>> me mad! But hey, that's why I'm not moving to the south of France,
>>> right?
>> 
>> "Sunny" is different from "hot".  OK, you don't like warm weather; I
>> don't particularly like it either.  Maybe you'd like Scotland?
> 
> I imagine that would be far too cold. But yeah, I get your point.

Finally. ;-)

>>> And I am completely confident that there are plenty of people who'd
>>> *love* to live and work in Switzerland. (It would be kind of an empty
>>> country otherwise...) Doesn't mean I'd like it though.
>> 
>> But as I said you don't seem to have any empirical evidence that says
>> you wouldn't like it either.
> 
> Apart from having spent several weeks in Switzerland? And that doesn't
> count because...?

And what parts of Switzerland have you spent time in?  You said Geneva, 
OK.  And what part of "seem" implies that your experiences there don't 
count?  

> I mean, it's nice to go play with the snow and everything, but I'm
> always very relieved to get back home again afterwards. I wouldn't want
> to never return home ever again.

Home is where you hang your hat.  If you turned Switzerland into "home", 
then you would be "home" and able to ski more frequently.

>> So if you want to live near where you work, there are two options: 
>> Find a job closer to home, or find a home closer to the job.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> If you're
>> looking for a new job, then you have the freedom to look anywhere and
>> move near the job.  Which means you can find something you'll actually
>> *like* doing without the constraints of it being "near home" because
>> "home" can be moved.
>> 
>> You're still young (no matter what you think) and unattached.  It's the
>> *perfect* time to look for something that really engages your abilities
>> and skills and passion and not care particularly *where* it is.
> 
> I don't think it's feasible for me to get an enjoyable job. Let's face
> it, nobody is going to pay me to sit around geeking out over monadic
> combinator libraries. They're going to pay me to get a job done, no
> matter how boring it turns out to be.

Well, again, I call BS on this.  It's feasible, but it's not going to 
fall in your lap.  You have to seek it out (and yes, I know you have 
tried - but you give up FAR too easily - you send a CV and don't hear 
back, so you say "well, that was a waste of time" instead of being 
persistent.  Companies don't want passive employees - they want hungry 
employees - hungry for a challenge, ready to step up and to persist in 
doing what they want to do.  Applying for a job and then giving up 
because your initial contact didn't give up (a) doesn't get people's 
attention, and (b) isn't *REALLY* trying to make a change.  Doing that is 
more like what people on unemployment here in the states do in order to 
keep collecting unemployment - making a token effort so they can continue 
to bring in their unemployment cheques.  You have to try harder than 
that, and when you find a place you want to work, keep persisting.

For me with Novell, it took 3 tries before I found something that was a 
good fit.  And when I found the good fit at job #3 that I applied for, I 
was on the phone *every single day* with my hiring manager between my 
final interview and the day they officially offered me the position to 
find out where things were at and what needed to be done.

> One of the careers advisors I spoke to suggested that with my skill set
> I should maybe look at financial modelling. I looked around, and did
> find a job. First, the job was based in London. Second, they demand a
> PhD. Not negotiatable. I guess if I had really amazing grades from my
> degree I could argue that they should at least look at me... but I
> don't.

How many times do we have to tell you that just because it's listed in 
the job requirements doesn't mean it's mandatory?  Job ads are generally 
written by HR people who don't actually know the first thing about the 
job they're advertising.  So let's be real here - you're giving up before 
even trying because you think everyone is 100% honest and accurate in 
stating their job requirements.  If someone asked for 30 years of Windows 
experience, would you apply for the job, or would you say "I don't have 
30 years of Windows experience" and not bother trying?  EVEN THOUGH 30 
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH WINDOWS IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE?

> Let's be real here. You want to be a programmer? Why should I hire you?
> There are other programmers out there. Programmers who can do C and C++.
> Programmers who understand cache coherence and can cope with
> little-endian data (mis)representation. Programmers who won't get bored
> and do something unrelated every five minutes.

Discipline in a field comes with time in the field.  You gotta start 
somewhere.

> You wanna be a technical writer? Other people can write. And most of
> them write a damned site better than you. They can express themselves
> clearly, they can FREAKING SPELL, and they can type faster than you. Why
> should we hire you?

Again, skills that come with time.  You could be a technical writer, 
absolutely.  You'd need to edit carefully from a spelling standpoint, but 
so what?  I've written professionally, and I needed an editor too.  Big 
f'ing deal - that's the way the business works.

Why should they hire you?  Because if you're applying for the job, you 
have some passion in the area (because you wouldn't apply for a job you 
didn't have passion for, right?) and because you know your skills will 
grow as you learn the job.

Nobody - and I mean *NOBODY* has 100% of the skills they need for a job 
they've just started.  I'm responsible for practical testing technologies 
and business at Novell.  I started this position about a year ago, and 
had absolutely no background in testing technologies.  I was thrown into 
the position and then my attendance to the one conference that would 
really have helped me understand my business was canceled because of 
travel restrictions.

But my background in IT combined with my skills on the business side of 
things have really made the fact that I know nothing about testing 
methodologies (other than what I've learned on the job) makes me pretty 
effective in my job.  I enjoy what I do and I learn something new every 
day.  It's been an opportunity for me to learn about project management, 
time management, business planning, and other things in that area - 
things I never thought I could do or would enjoy doing.

It also means that I can set up requirements for the developers I work 
with that are realistic, and I get results because they can't BS me - 
something my management really seems to like about having me in this 
position.

So don't think for one minute that people won't hire you because you 
don't have 100% of what's on the job requirements - nobody really expects 
that, and you need to learn that.

> You wanna do something with maths? Other people have a real, formal
> mathematical education. With certificates and grades to prove it. Who
> are you trying to kid?

Formal education is overrated.  I say this as someone who didn't graduate 
college.

> You want to design digital logic? We have engineering graduates who have
> been *actually doing* this stuff for, like, the last 8 years. Why should
> be hire some guy who's read about it in a book when we have a queue of
> people who have done it for real?

Again, everyone has to start somewhere.  Apply for a job like that; if 
you don't get it, ask the hiring people what would help you be better 
prepared for a position like that.  You're not quite 30 if I remember 
correctly - you've got plenty of time to learn new skills, but new skills 
take time to develop.

> I need to be realistic about what work it is actually possible for me to
> get. I'm never going to be a software architect or a document writer.
> These jobs are few and far between, and there are plenty of people far
> more qualified than I am already competing for them. I need to look at
> jobs I might actually be able to get - and I doubt location makes a huge
> difference to that.

It does make a huge difference.  Look at the number of software architect 
positions in, say, Lagos, and the number in San Francisco.  Huge 
difference - and someone who might not get such a position in Lagos 
certainly might be able to where there's actual demand for their skills.

That's what it boils down to - supply and demand.  The demand is not 
uniform the world over, so if you want to do something specific, you have 
to go where those jobs are in demand.

>> Actually, most of them are in Germany because that's where they live
>> and they are doing something there that makes them happy.  I also know
>> someone who grew up in the Netherlands who works in New Zealand,
>> someone who grew up in New Zealand who works in New York, and my
>> younger brother grew up in Minneapolis and now lives and works in
>> Osaka, Japan.  I've another friend who grew up in Alabama (if I
>> remember correctly) who lives and works in Germany.  Shall I continue? 
>> Coworkers who grew up in India who live and work in Utah; another who
>> is from Australia who lives and works in Utah.
> 
> Like I said, some people *like* to travel. I don't.

You seem to like going to Switzerland. ;-)

>>>> and why would it be "obviously impossible" anyways?
>>> Because ordinary people don't get to work in cool places like that.
>>> Only special people. I'm not special. (Not that way, anyway...)
>> 
>> Bullshit.  The only people who don't get to work there are those who
>> are (a) unqualified, or (b) don't bother to apply because they don't
>> think they stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the job so they
>> don't even try.
>> 
>> TRY, DAMMIT!
> 
> I've tried applying to Wolfram. (They specifically requested
> applicants.) I applied to some bluechip on the M25. I've applied for
> just about every Haskell-related job going in the UK. Want to take a
> guess how many of these people even bothered to reply?

You applied.  Did you follow up on the application?  Or did you passively 
wait for something to happen?  Don't let life happen to you - take 
control!

Jim

Post a reply to this message