ricecake

So, I wasn't referring to enjoyment. I spoke of engagement or interest. It's why programming is more appealing than data entry.

You're just doubling down on the false dichotomy I spoke of. It's not at all uncommon to find someone with plenty of experience who can easily and honestly tell you why they think what the company they work for does is interesting.

Asking someone why they think working at the job they're applying for is appealing isn't "hiring for enthusiasm", and it's honestly odd that you keep casting it that way.
I get where you're coming from, and I partly disagree. It doesn't seem like you're parsing what I'm saying because of this "either one or the other" attitude though.
No offense intended, but it makes you come across as burnt out and sad. I don't work for small companies, with inexperienced people, and I'm not constantly shipping broken code that needs rewriting. I've been doing this for roughly 15 years and I can honestly say "working in security in general is interesting because it forces you to think about your solution from a different perspective, the attacker, and working at $AuthenticationVendorYouQuitePossiblyUse in specific is appealing because you get to work on problems that are actually new at a scale where you can see it have an impact".
That's not gushing with enthusiasm: it's why I'm not bored everyday. If you're actually just showing up to work everyday and indifferently waiting to be told what to do because it's all just the same old slog... That's sad, and I'm sorry.

Jan. 28, 2025

That's both unrelated to this, and a different tactic entirely.

Making policy changes so quickly that it's difficult to make press releases about or legally challenge is very different from "get someone to publicly accuse you of pedophilia".

They don't need to distract you, because you don't matter. They do need to make it difficult to address the issues by people with the power to stop him.

So no, that article doesn't confirm that he's been told to make a lot of noise in the least.

I don't think he's bothering to do a "tactic". Why would he care? he's just surrounded himself with sycophants and morons because anyone else wouldn't work with him, and so there's a lot of bizarre drama.

Humans want there to be order and control in their world, so we look for the plan behind the discord.
They're not hiding anything because they don't need to. The people in power who could stop them have no interest in doing so.

The man with a long history of fucking over and alienating everyone who works with him teamed up with the fragile billionaire who finds success when his employees tiptoe around him and manage him to avoid his shitty temper, immature attitude and tendency to call people pedophiles the moment they offend him.

Shockingly, with their powers combined and no one to effectively manage them....

I'm lucky that after all these years still get those moments of great enjoyment when at the end of doing something insanelly complex it all works

I just think it's worth pointing out that that is an example of the work being engaging.

No one is so naive as to think that you work a job for anything other than money. The original post doesn't even seem to convey that it's bad to ask about the pay and benefits. It's saying that if, when directly asked, the candidate has no answer to what seems interesting about the job they might not be a good fit.

You seem to be an experienced software developer. You're easily qualified to do basic manual data entry. Same working environment, same basic activity. Would you be interested in changing roles to do data entry for $1 more salary?
I'm also a software developer, and I can entirely honestly say I would not, even though it would be less responsibility and significantly easier work.
Even the boring parts of my work are vaguely interesting and require some mental engagement.

It seems there's this false dichotomy that either you're a cold mercenary working 9 to 5 and refusing to acknowledge your coworkers during your entitled lunch break, or you're a starry eyed child working for candy and corporate swag. You can ask for fair money, do only the work you're paid for, have a cordial relationship with coworkers, and also find your work some manner of engaging.

It's not unreasonable for an employer to ask how you feel about the work, just like it's not unreasonable for a candidate to ask about the details of the work.

Sure. I wouldn't disqualify someone for being ambivalent towards what we're working on, but the person who seems interested is gonna be better to work with.

Likewise when looking for a place to work, if the tangibles are equivalent I'll prefer the place with better intangibles.

I'm not in HR or management, so I don't care about cost effectiveness or productivity beyond "not screwing me over". From that perspective, it's generally nicer to work with someone who finds it interesting than with someone who doesn't.

There's no point asking "why do you want to work here", because the answer is obviously a combination of money and benefits, and how food and healthcare keeps you from being dead.
I can't fault an interviewer who's clearly trying not to ask the obvious question and instead actually ask how the candidate feels about the work instead of disqualifying them for not volunteering the right answer.

It's not unreasonable for an employer to ask a candidate how they feel about the work anymore than it's unreasonable for the candidate to ask about the working environment.

I actually kinda agree with both here.

It sucks working with someone who is utterly disinterested in the work, if it's anything above rote work.
Asking the candidate what they found interesting about it is at least a basically fine idea. If they can't answer when you ask, that actually is kinda concerning.
Big difference between asking and expecting them to volunteer the information.

At the same time, if the people interviewing you can't even pretend to show basic conversational courtesy by asking some basic "what do you do for fun" style questions or anything that shows they're gonna be interested in the person they're looking to work with, that's a major concern.

If it's developed for the government, even by a private contractor, it's still considered US government code and is public domain. It's why sqlite is public domain.

I personally doubt there's much available in the off-the-shelf fighter HUD system market, personally.

Eh, there's an intrinsic amount of information about the system that can't be moved into a configuration file, if the platform even supports them.

If your code is tuned to make movement calculations with a deadline of less than 50 microseconds and you have code systems for managing magnetic thrust vectoring and the timing of a rotating detonation engine, you don't need to see the specific technical details to work out ballpark speed and movement characteristics.
Code is often intrinsically illustrative of the hardware it interacts with.

Sometimes the fact that you're doing something is enough information for someone to act on.

It's why artefacts produced from classified processes are assumed to be classified until they can be cleared and declassified.
You can move the overt details into a config and redact the parts of the code that use that secret information, but that still reveals that there is secret code because the other parts of the system need to interact with it, or it's just obvious by omission.
If payload control is considered open, 9/10 missiles have open guidance control, and then one has something blacked out and no references to a guidance system, you can fairly easily deduce that that missile has a guidance system that's interesting with capabilities likely greater that what you know about.

Eschewing security through obscurity means you shouldn't rely on your enemies ignorance, and you should work under the assumption of hostile knowledge. It doesn't mean you need to seek to eliminate obscurity altogether.

Well, you probably could. Issue is that you can't self host the IRS. If they aren't running the service that accepts the data there isn't much you can do.

More likely they'll just turn off or unpublish the API that it depends on.

The Detroit Arsenal. https://tacom.army.mil/about/detroit-arsenal

It was where they made a lot of the tanks, but it's since been "consolidated" to be an r&d and testing center. Factory unionization gave Ohio and Kentucky a major headstart in the race to the bottom, and that extended past the auto sector to other related manufacturing centers as well.

Typical Ohio. First sign of disagreement and you go running to tattle to Andrew Jackson.

In seriousness though, I went to refresh my memory about the cause, and it's just preposterous.
Congress divided the Great lakes area based on a terrible, but best available, map. A state boundary was supposed to run from the southern tip of lake Michigan eastwards until it hit either Canada or the north shore of lake Erie, and then come out the other side of lake Erie and continue until Pennsylvania. At the time they thought lake Michigan only went about as far south as Detroit, give or take.
When Ohio became a state they had started to hear rumors that lake Michigan wasn't shaped the way they thought, so they included some clauses in their constitution to ensure they had more northern territory regardless. Congress said whatever, referred the change to committee, neither rejected nor accepted it and then granted statehood.
When they incorporated the Michigan territory, they used their original definition because they hadn't looked at Ohio's proposed changes at all.
When Michigan moved towards statehood we had come to a clear understanding of the shape of lake Michigan, and so Michigan assumed they got the land that Congress said they got: southern tip of lake Michigan east until lake Erie or Canada. Which would end up being Michigan stretching from roughly Gary Indiana to Sandusky Ohio.

World's most tiny drunken border conflict later and the feds say Ohio wins because a state takes precedence over a territory, but Michigan was right on the cusp of statehood and they didn't want a fresh state to immediately hate their party so they traded it for a disconnected and totally disproportionate chunk of Wisconsin, which wasn't applying for statehood yet and hence didn't matter politically. Michigan was irate until it turned out the UP was full of resources that had more value than the shipping that went through Toledo.

(I can't read a wiki and then not share if I read it because of a comment. I have no regrets for the wall of text)