 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-2-2015 13:37, Doctor John wrote:
> On 16/02/15 10:07, Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/02/2015 09:26, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Beware of the /binary/ nature though. I must have told this story many
>>> times, maybe even here...
>>
>> Not to my knowledge. I have seen the same, a few times with slide
>> projectors. When the carousel has been loaded in the wrong order and the
>> ensuing panic ends up with the slides on the floor.
>> Ah! Well. It was the best that we had at the time.
>>
>
> Guilty!
> Been there, done that. All I need is the t-shirt.
>
> John
>
Oh dear, oh dear, yes... (once I /forgot/ my slides)...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/02/15 12:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Oh dear, oh dear, yes... (once I /forgot/ my slides)...
>
"... and as you can see..."
:-D
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-2-2015 14:04, Doctor John wrote:
> On 16/02/15 12:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Oh dear, oh dear, yes... (once I /forgot/ my slides)...
>>
>
> "... and as you can see..."
>
Yes, but happily I could draw on an overhead projector what the audience
was supposed to see :-)
It felt a bit like 'dancing the Charleston and talking at the same time'
Andrew suggested earlier.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My school experience was quite the opposite; there was even a fair
> competition between pupils to get the highest scores. Good teachers were
> venerated; the bad treated with contempt. It was hard work too, from
> 8:00 till 18:00 on average, six days a week, with only the thursday
> afternoon free. I don't know. Time (50s and 60s) and place (Paris) may
> play a role here...
I wish it had been more like that where I was, but it was sadly not the
case, rather it was "cool" to not do any work and if you weren't "cool"
you were likely to get bullied about it (mostly verbal but sometimes
physical). It got slightly easier at age 13 (IIRC) when we got split
into classes by ability for most subjects, but some subjects were still
mixed abilility so you had complete losers who were only there to cause
trouble in the same class as people who were hoping to make something of
their life.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 22:35:00 +0200, Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 15/02/2015 02:56 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> I don't get it. We learned about logarithms in high school.
>
> In which country?
>
> For that matter, we learned about fractions in school. But I've yet to
> meet anyone from my own generation who has the slightest clue how
> fractions work... [I suppose that's another one of those "nobody cares;
> the computer does it for you" type things.]
South Africa. 1988. But my eldest son is now doing his final High-School
year and they haven't done logarithms yet. So I'm not sure what to make of
it.
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/02/2015 08:40 AM, scott wrote:
> I have to agree with Andy here, my experience of school (compulsory up
> to age 16) and sixth form college (optional up to age 18) is that most
> people didn't want to learn.
At college, every lunchtime my classmates would walk across the road to
the Winter Gardens, and come back after lunch obviously drunk. Every
single day. The lecturers claimed we were the worst class they'd ever
seen. [But they presumably say that *every* year...]
> It was only when I got to University that it was suddenly full of people
> who actually wanted to be there and wanted to learn.
Well, I didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge. I went to some no-name
university that nobody's ever heard of and isn't even there any more...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/02/2015 08:23 AM, scott wrote:
>> According to the Academia Stack Exchange portal, it seems if you have a
>> PhD, everybody immediately assumes you're going to be hellishly
>> expensive to hire and summarily drops you from consideration.
>>
>> Unless you want to work in the finance industry, which only exists in
>> London.
>
> I work for a manufacturing company about 50 miles away from London,
Wait, I thought you were in Germany?
> and
> we have quite a few PhDs working in our R&D team (physics and chemistry)
> and in more senior positions elesewhere in the company. We certainly
> wouldn't reject your application just for having a PhD.
Mmm, interesting.
> My previous employer was much more R&D oriented and at least 50% of the
> staff had PhDs. Didn't you have some at your previous job too?
I don't call anybody having a PhD.
> Maybe the
> problem you highlight is unique to people with computer science PhDs?
I guess the other problem, of course, is that if you're a salesman or an
accountant or a purchasing clerk... *every* business needs those people.
If you program computers... well, not that many people actually need
such a person. (But then, the same goes for CNC operators, presumably.)
But yeah, the general impression I got from Stack Exchange was that
unless you intend to spend the rest of your life working for a top-tier
university publishing academic papers, there is basically *no point* in
possessing a PhD. You might as well go way 4 years' commercial
experience instead.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Nobody thinks this will work. Nobody ever tries this. Because nobody is
>> that stupid. But replace being able to write French with being able to
>> write C#, and suddenly everybody thinks that somehow "nobody will
>> notice". Wuh?!
>
> I assure you the sames happens for French and everything else. My gf
> works for a company that sells stuff mostly outside the UK, so they are
> always recruiting people for customer service that are fluent in German,
> French, Italian etc. People *do* apply for jobs that blatantly state
> "German speaker" that cannot speak more than the 3 words of German that
> everyone knows. Their reasoning is often along the lines of "well I can
> speak a bit of French and I thought you wouldn't notice, and if you did
> you would anyway see how uber cool I was and see I could learn German in
> a few weeks and hire me anyway". Err no, go away!
Really? WTF?
I still have to ask: Are 95% of the people applying totally talentless,
or is it just a small minority? Because where I work, we LITERALLY
CANNOT HIRE ANYBODY because we just cannot find anybody who knows what
source code is...
> The same happened to me in Engineering in my last job too. A guy applied
> quoting 20 years experience in analogue electronic circuit design and
> test. We got a bit concerned when he couldn't even say what a simple
> 2-component RC circuit was meant to do, let alone how to calculate any
> response. After a bit of drilling down we got to the question of "have
> you ever actually used an oscilloscope?". His answer was No. I mean come
> on!
I presume such people tend not to get hired, though.
I think perhaps the difference with software is that you can sometimes
get away with it. If you produce a physical product and it's crappy,
it's *very obvious* that it's crappy. But you can write software which
*looks* fantastic, but is actually a steaming pile of failure. It's not
so easy to spot...
> LOL
For the LOLZ: [I may have posted this already]
We asked a guy to implement the abs() function. It took him about 20
minutes to write this:
public int abs(int x)
{
int a = x;
int b = 0;
while (a < 0)
{
a++;
b++;
}
return b;
}
My boss described this as "the most bizarre thing I've ever seen". The
correct answer, of course, is a 1-liner. When we pointed out to the guy
that if x is *already* positive this function won't work, he sat there
for *literally* half an hour thinking before we asked him to stop. It
turns out he could work out "which standard library function tells you
if a number is negative".
We did not hire.
Frighteningly, this function does work for negative arguments.
Terrifyingly, for *positive* arguments, it still correctly negates them.
So this abs() function is actually a negate function - one that takes
about 45 seconds to negate a small positive number. (Can you work out
why? It blew our minds when we noticed it...)
> The scary thing is these people will probably be able to get a job
> somewhere and somehow blag there way along. If they're lucky they may
> even get to interview people at some point :-)
Indeed. I believe Coding Horror had an article about this very thing.
The fact that there are so many of these people means they must be
succeeding somewhere.
You may recall, at my last place, the Director of IT seemingly had no
clue about how computers actually work... but was very skilful at
speaking in management power-words.
>> I wonder... Does anybody have this much trouble hiring a carpenter?
>
> Have you ever seen shows like "cowboy builders" or "rogue traders"...
Yeah. And they're a tiny minority, before they get sued out of
existence. The majority of reputable builders can actually do the job.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/02/2015 18:03, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> that nobody's ever heard of and isn't even there any more...
LOL
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/02/2015 18:06, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> But yeah, the general impression I got from Stack Exchange was that
> unless you intend to spend the rest of your life working for a top-tier
> university publishing academic papers, there is basically *no point* in
> possessing a PhD. You might as well go way 4 years' commercial
> experience instead.
That is your impression about everything and why you keep getting your
ears rattled.
Just mentioning. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/02/2015 18:14, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Because where I work, we LITERALLY CANNOT HIRE ANYBODY because we just
> cannot find anybody who knows what source code is...
That makes me think that your company's pay scales are too low.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/02/2015 06:29 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 16/02/2015 18:14, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Because where I work, we LITERALLY CANNOT HIRE ANYBODY because we just
>> cannot find anybody who knows what source code is...
>
> That makes me think that your company's pay scales are too low.
I don't know about that. I don't think our adverts actually state what
we might be willing to pay. It's possible that we're not paying *the
recruiters* enough money, of course... They all seem pretty disappointed
that we will only pay them a 6% cut (they seem to be looking for nearer
40%).
It does make me wonder though - if it's THIS HARD to find anybody
capable of even the most basic programming tasks, maybe I should find
another employer and start charging a hell of a lot more money...
(The difficulty with that, of course, is making it clear just from your
CV that you actually know your stuff and you're not just blatantly lying
through your teeth!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2015-02-14 10:33, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> Now MP3 does that to sound files, but it does that by DELETING DATA. The
> compressed file has lower fidelity than the original. It's not that
> surprising that you can make a file smaller by removing data from it.
> But LOSSLESS compression algorithms do something seemingly impossible:
> they take a file, somehow make it smaller, and yet the process is
> EXACTLY REVERSIBLE. When you decompress the file again, it is IDENTICAL
> to the original. How is that even possible?
It's not. The resulting decompressed file is a good* approximation of
the original, but it's not the same.
*For some arbitrary definition of good.
>
> Well, it ISN'T always possible. Sometimes when you zip a file it gets
> tiny, and sometimes it doesn't get that much smaller. You may not have
> experienced this, but occasionally a file will get LARGER. For example,
> zip a file - any file - and then go zip the zip file. It WILL NOT get
> any smaller. I promise. (Think about it; otherwise you could take an
> arbitrary file and zip it over and over until it gets arbitrarily small.
> But that really IS impossible!)
That's normal. If the space saved by compressing the file is smaller
than the dictionary, then you end up with a file that's going to be
larger than the original.
[Rest of discussion snipped]
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I work for a manufacturing company about 50 miles away from London,
>
> Wait, I thought you were in Germany?
I moved back to Oxford with that employer in 2010, then moved on to
where I am now near Cambridge about a year later. I wasn't sure at first
but am certainly glad I moved.
> I guess the other problem, of course, is that if you're a salesman or an
> accountant or a purchasing clerk... *every* business needs those people.
> If you program computers... well, not that many people actually need
> such a person. (But then, the same goes for CNC operators, presumably.)
It's pretty evenly split between mechanical, electrical and software
engineers here, about 8-10 of each. We also have 2 people working in a
machine shop that are CNC operators (amongst other things). On site
there's in total about 500 people, although a large proportion of those
work on the production line, and a lot are dedicated to managing the
rest of the business away from this site.
> But yeah, the general impression I got from Stack Exchange was that
> unless you intend to spend the rest of your life working for a top-tier
> university publishing academic papers, there is basically *no point* in
> possessing a PhD. You might as well go way 4 years' commercial
> experience instead.
As with most academic qualifications it merely shows you are capable and
willing to learn to a certain standard, the content is often irrelevant
to your job. Take a look at people in charge of large R&D departments in
big companies, most of them have a PhD. It's not because they had a PhD
they got to that position, but the type of person who gets to that sort
of position is more likely to have got a PhD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Because where I work, we LITERALLY CANNOT HIRE ANYBODY because we just
>>> cannot find anybody who knows what source code is...
>>
>> That makes me think that your company's pay scales are too low.
>
> I don't know about that. I don't think our adverts actually state what
> we might be willing to pay. It's possible that we're not paying *the
> recruiters* enough money, of course... They all seem pretty disappointed
> that we will only pay them a 6% cut (they seem to be looking for nearer
> 40%).
I think it's a plus to put your pay range in the advert. If I see an
advert that doesn't mention salary or says something wooly like
£excellent then I'll generally ignore it. If I saw something that looked
interesting that I cold do and it said £<my_current_salary+X> then I
might get in contact.
> It does make me wonder though - if it's THIS HARD to find anybody
> capable of even the most basic programming tasks, maybe I should find
> another employer and start charging a hell of a lot more money...
FWIW (if the pay scales here for software are the same as hardware) then
graduates/no experience people would be earning £25-30k, senior
engineers (perhaps ones with 10 years experience) would be on around
£45-£55k and the principal/lead people wouldn't probably be on nearer
£65-£70k (that's more a guess). I think those are about the going rates
for mechanical/electronic engineers at least, I can't imagine we pay
software engineers much different.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> At college, every lunchtime my classmates would walk across the road to
> the Winter Gardens, and come back after lunch obviously drunk. Every
> single day.
We had a few that would come back completely stoned off their faces -
they were amusing to watch during the afternoon classes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/02/2015 08:59, scott wrote:
>>> That makes me think that your company's pay scales are too low.
>>
>> I don't know about that. I don't think our adverts actually state what
>> we might be willing to pay. It's possible that we're not paying *the
>> recruiters* enough money, of course... They all seem pretty disappointed
>> that we will only pay them a 6% cut (they seem to be looking for nearer
>> 40%).
>
> I think it's a plus to put your pay range in the advert. If I see an
> advert that doesn't mention salary or says something wooly like
> £excellent then I'll generally ignore it. If I saw something that looked
> interesting that I cold do and it said £<my_current_salary+X> then I
> might get in contact.
Salary or rate is a measure to take into account when looking for work.
The very least I'll look at is "market rate". When a company uses an
employment agency they will tell them their budget. The Agency will
probably not waste their time contacting people who want more than the
budget.
Remember if you pay peanuts expect to employ monkeys. ^^
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/02/2015 10:06 AM, scott wrote:
>> At college, every lunchtime my classmates would walk across the road to
>> the Winter Gardens, and come back after lunch obviously drunk. Every
>> single day.
>
> We had a few that would come back completely stoned off their faces -
> they were amusing to watch during the afternoon classes.
You mean, like, when they start doing cpaddy races?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice long posting. :-D
Have you ever heard of the Hutter Prize? http://prize.hutter1.net/
The initiators of that prize also claim that good (lossless) compression
is strongly related to AI and learning neuronal networks. :-)
Perhaps you've got some ideas how to beat the current best record?
Lars R.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> That makes me think that your company's pay scales are too low.
>>
>> I don't know about that. I don't think our adverts actually state what
>> we might be willing to pay. It's possible that we're not paying *the
>> recruiters* enough money, of course... They all seem pretty disappointed
>> that we will only pay them a 6% cut (they seem to be looking for nearer
>> 40%).
>
> I think it's a plus to put your pay range in the advert.
Only if it's good. If you actually do pay peanuts, it's probably best
not to advertise that fact.
> If I see an
> advert that doesn't mention salary or says something wooly like
> £excellent then I'll generally ignore it. If I saw something that looked
> interesting that I cold do and it said £<my_current_salary+X> then I
> might get in contact.
I agree.
IME, recruiters are scum. If I see £excellent, it just looks like BS to
me. It always astonishes me that employers expect your CV to be this
immaculate work of art or they won't hire you - and then they themselves
post job adverts that look like arse...
...and then I saw my boss write a job advert, and the job agent
completely changed it all *for absolutely no reason*. Broke all the
sentences, screwed up the grammar, rearranged everything so it had no
logical order, and inserted lots of BS sentences about "excellent
company culture" which mean precisely nothing and just make it look like
you have nothing real to say. They also *removed* several critical,
non-negotiable requirements from the advert. (I'm talking about *legal*
requirements - stuff we legally can't waive.)
Naturally, we called them to demand why they took our perfectly good
advert and messed it up. After several iterations, we gave up trying to
make the actual published advert not look like arse.
All these recruiters seem to do is run Google searches for CV documents
who's buzzword content vaguely matches the buzzword content of the job
spec. They all *claim* to be doing all this candidate vetting stuff for
you, and yet we still end up interviewing people who don't know what
"operating system" means. And yet, the recruiters think we're going to
pay them 40%? Er, NO!
> FWIW (if the pay scales here for software are the same as hardware) then
> graduates/no experience people would be earning £25-30k
Glad to know my salary isn't *completely* crazy...
A while back I did find a site with some statistics on this. (Damned if
I can remember where though...) Their data was based on *advertised*
salary for new hires. [Presumably nobody ever gets paid what it actually
says in the advert.] But the histograms seemed to suggest that for a C#
programmer in Milton Keynes, the minimum is around £25k, the lower
quartile is about £29k, the median is around £34k, and I forget the
upper quartile. It was a year or two ago now, so I may be remembering
this wrong [and market rates may of course have changed].
I do recall suggesting to our boss that I go show the graph to the head
of finance. Everybody agreed it would be utterly *hilarious* to see the
look on her face - you know, for the remaining 17 seconds of my
employment with the company...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/02/2015 11:08 PM, Lars R. wrote:
> Nice long posting. :-D
TY.
> The initiators of that prize also claim that good (lossless) compression
> is strongly related to AI and learning neuronal networks. :-)
Like I said, PAQ uses several statistical models together with an
*artificial neural network* to combine the estimates into a final total.
In other words, the ANN is there to "learn" which model(s) work best for
this specific file.
*sigh* Oh how I haven't missed our GAANN lectures... Mostly because of
the lecturer involved, not the content.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...and then I saw my boss write a job advert, and the job agent
> completely changed it all *for absolutely no reason*. Broke all the
> sentences, screwed up the grammar, rearranged everything so it had no
> logical order, and inserted lots of BS sentences about "excellent
> company culture" which mean precisely nothing and just make it look like
> you have nothing real to say. They also *removed* several critical,
> non-negotiable requirements from the advert. (I'm talking about *legal*
> requirements - stuff we legally can't waive.)
Sounds to me the same as how scammers deliberately put bad grammar in to
improve their hit rate. If you're paying peanuts you don't want to waste
your time with people expecting double the salary :-)
> All these recruiters seem to do is run Google searches for CV documents
> who's buzzword content vaguely matches the buzzword content of the job
> spec. They all *claim* to be doing all this candidate vetting stuff for
> you, and yet we still end up interviewing people who don't know what
> "operating system" means. And yet, the recruiters think we're going to
> pay them 40%? Er, NO!
I get emails from recruiters offering me staff, sometimes I honestly
don't know if they are spam or real emails.
> I do recall suggesting to our boss that I go show the graph to the head
> of finance. Everybody agreed it would be utterly *hilarious* to see the
> look on her face - you know, for the remaining 17 seconds of my
> employment with the company...
If you don't ask... I only found out recently but our directors here get
about 40 requests (as in official written requests from managers) every
year for pay rises, separate from the annual pay rise system. Apparently
there's about a 50% success rate.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Have you ever heard of the Hutter Prize? http://prize.hutter1.net/
Interesting!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/02/2015 08:07 AM, scott wrote:
> Sounds to me the same as how scammers deliberately put bad grammar in to
> improve their hit rate. If you're paying peanuts you don't want to waste
> your time with people expecting double the salary :-)
Well, it would explain why we never interview anybody actually worth
speaking to. :-P
> I get emails from recruiters offering me staff, sometimes I honestly
> don't know if they are spam or real emails.
Same here.
Mind you, when I was looking for a house, I emailled an estate agent
about viewing a particular property. They never bothered to arrange that
viewing - but they've been spamming me on an almost daily bases ever
since. (I moved house well over a year ago now.)
>> I do recall suggesting to our boss that I go show the graph to the head
>> of finance. Everybody agreed it would be utterly *hilarious* to see the
>> look on her face - you know, for the remaining 17 seconds of my
>> employment with the company...
>
> If you don't ask... I only found out recently but our directors here get
> about 40 requests (as in official written requests from managers) every
> year for pay rises, separate from the annual pay rise system. Apparently
> there's about a 50% success rate.
I'm guessing your employer *isn't* teetering on the edge of financial
ruin though?
If the company has no money, they ain't gonna give you a raise.
(Having just said that, a few days ago I had my annual review, and I did
in fact get a small increase. So it would be particularly pointless to
ask for me right now...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/02/15 18:40, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
<snip>
> (Having just said that, a few days ago I had my annual review, and I did
> in fact get a small increase. So it would be particularly pointless to
> ask for me right now...)
I don't know how your employers conduct their annual reviews but IMHO
they should be a two-way process. You have a right to respond their
criticisms and offers.
Assuming that you have hit or exceeded your targets (set in last year's
annual review), they offer a 5% pay rise; don't accept it. Instead
counter-offer with a request for 15%. This, of course, will be rejected
- but now you have started a bargaining process. Your target is 10% or
7.5% with additional perks. BTW don't forget to get the agreement in
writing before you leave the room ;-)
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't know how your employers conduct their annual reviews but IMHO
> they should be a two-way process. You have a right to respond their
> criticisms and offers.
> Assuming that you have hit or exceeded your targets (set in last year's
> annual review), they offer a 5% pay rise; don't accept it. Instead
> counter-offer with a request for 15%. This, of course, will be rejected
> - but now you have started a bargaining process. Your target is 10% or
> 7.5% with additional perks. BTW don't forget to get the agreement in
> writing before you leave the room ;-)
Our annual rises are non-negotiable and totally separate from any other
request for a rise. For the annual rise you are put into a category
(1-5, most people are 3) as previously agreed with (or told by!) your
manager based on your performance against targets etc. The rise % is
determined for each category based on the company performance.
But there is no problem at all with asking and starting the process for
a rise the day after you get an annual pay rise. If you have a valid
reason in the eyes of your manager then they will help you write the
request, or write it for you if you're lucky. After that it's up to
various directors to consider which applications to accept.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/02/2015 07:52 AM, scott wrote:
> Our annual rises are non-negotiable and totally separate from any other
> request for a rise.
Likewise.
> But there is no problem at all with asking and starting the process for
> a rise the day after you get an annual pay rise. If you have a valid
> reason in the eyes of your manager then they will help you write the
> request, or write it for you if you're lucky. After that it's up to
> various directors to consider which applications to accept.
On the one hand, in the last few days I implemented a fairly major
feature. Our Director specifically mentioned that several customers
desperately want this feature, and so I went and implemented it. [It
turned out to be unexpectedly easy.]
On the other hand, the company seems to be severely struggling for cash
right now. (To the point that I've just been updating my CV. I think it
may be curtains time soonish.) Asking for more money seems futile.
Remember, I don't work for some huge multi-national conglomerate. We
employ less than ten people! If a few customers are a bit slow to pay,
that severely upsets our cashflow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On the other hand, the company seems to be severely struggling for cash
> right now. (To the point that I've just been updating my CV. I think it
> may be curtains time soonish.) Asking for more money seems futile.
Yes that seems a bad idea under those circumstances - updating your CV
seems the right thing. If you're interested in moving to Cambridge:
"Develop cost-effective and innovative embedded software solutions,
meeting technical, business and quality requirements. Ideally degree
qualified, you must have excellent C++ programming skills, working
knowledge of STL plus proactive approach to work and ability to work as
part of a team."
> Remember, I don't work for some huge multi-national conglomerate. We
> employ less than ten people! If a few customers are a bit slow to pay,
> that severely upsets our cashflow.
Indeed, and without cashflow you're in trouble.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
