Honest question, as this is related to something my company's HR department is grappling with (I am not involved, I'm just a lowly engineering manager): How does this law interact with companies whose pay range is location based? I.e., the starting salary band for a Silicon Valley-based candidate would take into account SF cost of living, and therefore be significantly higher on paper than the starting salary band for, say, an Arkansas-based candidate.
Obviously it would be impractical to list all the possible geo-based salary bands on a JD. Is the intent to "shame" such a company into picking a single salary range that doesn't take geo location into account?
I feel as though that would either lead to (1) everyone being paid Silicon Valley wages (which has a number of consequences of its own, both good and bad) or (2) companies which can only afford to do so for certain positions, losing out on otherwise qualified candidates who happen to live in a higher COL area.
I know there's an argument that if the company can't pay competitive wages, then they shouldn't be in business. But it feels like in case (1), candidates who live in high-COL areas are actually getting penalized. Some of them could move to lower-COL areas and get the net benefit, but others may not be able to move.
I don't know the answer here, but I'm curious to see how others in the industry are thinking about the situation.
Presumably you could list the entire range, assuming you can reasonably show that it actually is truthful when challenged. (potentially it could be an issue if the upper end is not available to all locations? Although I'd question if that is a sane policy to have either ways)
> basically, you can move around with CMD+Arrow. Up goes up a directory, down goes down a directory (or opens the file). Left / Right go forward / back in history, like a browser.
This is really helpful to know - it's one of my biggest bugaboos about using Finder & navigating the Mac GUI.
On the other hand, I suspect this kind of obscure key-based shortcut is a big part of why Macs don't feel intuitive to a lot of users. How could I have known this shortcut exists? It's not broadcast anywhere obvious. My options for finding all these obscure shortcuts aren't great. I could scroll through a submenu in the Settings pane, hoping to find something that looks like it says the thing I'm trying to do (and then that I can figure out what keys it means, since Apple key symbology is VERY arcane). I could stumble across a mention of the shortcut in a forum like this. Or I could Google in the hope of finding something - though that assumes I believe it's doable in the first place, which I didn't in this particular case.
It would also help if Apple chose easier / more intuitive keyboard shortcuts. A "shortcut" which both is the only way to do something, and also requires pressing a minimum of four seemingly-random keys, is not a shortcut at all - it's a mental load on the user that they just have to hold in their heads forever.
Yeah, I remember being frustrated about the discoverability when I started using Mac OS.
Shortcuts mostly appear in the menus, but I remember one in particular being elusive: cmd + down. I've found it out by asking a friend.
I think there is supposed to be a method to the madness, though it's maybe less and less clear nowadays, especially with applications that don't implement them correctly (such as MS Office, electron apps, etc) and people being very used to Windows' conventions.
For example, the modifier keys' names are usually an indication of what you can achieve with them.
CMD (the "flower-like" key, directly next to the space bar) is usually the one used to produce... commands. As in Copy, Save, etc.
Then you have your ALTernative / Option, which usually modifies some other key's usual behaviour. You can obtain dead keys with it. ALT+e / e = é. etc. It also works in menus to obtain alternative actions. You can click a menu, press alt, and see the entries change.
And CTRL deals with control characters. ctrl-c in the terminal, line editing (ctrl-a in any text field goes to the beginning of the line, etc). It's not clear to me why right click is obtained with control and not alt, though...
I think it's in the "mental model". You're kind of "expected" to know that "option" will produce an "optional / alternate" behavior. It's kind of like windows. How are you supposed to know that win+left will move the window to the side?
At least, on macOS, if you press OPT, the entries will change. On Windows, if you click right → delete, the file isn't deleted. It's moved to the recycle bin. "How are you supposed to know that?". On Mac, it says "move to trash" or similar. Now say you don't want that. If you hold Shift and click delete, it actually deletes it. But if you hold Shift while looking at the Windows menu, it still says "delete".
There are quite a lot of "have to know" things in other OSs, too. They each come with a mental model which may be closer or further from the user's.
I think the issues we see nowadays come up because many apps work the same everywhere, and people may switch between systems more often, so figure since <app> works the same, everything works the same.
It's also hard to think that what comes naturally is actually a mental model that's been ingrained and not something "absolute".
I guess this is why computers used to have manuals, but who reads those anymore?
> How are you supposed to know that win+left will move the window to the side?
You're not. Shortcuts are a power user thing. If you want to move the window you drag it.
> There are quite a lot of "have to know" things in other OSs, too.
Oh definitely. It just seems to me that OSX is exceptionally bad at telegraphing these things. On windows and even linux most all features have something visible to clue you in to their existence. OSX seems to do its best to hide things instead.
Yeah, I ultimately don’t understand the complaints about unintuitiveness: what makes a system intuitive is that you’ve internalized its conventions. macOS has its own set of conventions and they apply pretty consistently across Apple’s first-party applications and native (Cocoa) applications. I learned most of them when I switched to Macs in ‘08 and they’re now “intuitive” to me and they “just work” in most applications I use. I went through the same learning process when I was about seven on Windows and when I was like 13 on Linux.
I love this idea! I've kept around a lot of old sentimental value shirts with a similar, albeit more vague, idea of putting them together in some form that makes them visible. Keeps the memories and lets you actually look at/revisit them.
I would argue that men are not "simply" more interested in computers than women. Computing was originally a female-dominated field[1]. However, as computing became more and more important and presigious a field, more men entered it, kicking off the "glass escalator" phenomenon[2] and eventually pushing women out almost entirely.
Nowadays, girls are socially discouraged from showing interest in STEM[3], and women who make it past all that to go into STEM fields are still strongly discriminated against[4].
You're right that the article isn't clear about what it means by "computing skill". However, its foundational conclusion - that simple tests show no difference in basic computer literacy but do show significant confidence differences - is unsurprising and reflects what women have anecdotally reported as their experience for years.
There is a paradox that with increasing gender equality, fewer women get into STEM. That indicates that women are in general not so interested in STEM if they have a choice.
> However, as computing became more and more important and presigious a field, more men entered it
Anecdotally, almost all of the male programmers I know (and I know many) entered the field because they thought technology was cool, out of interest in the field or they enjoy the problem solving challenge. Almost all of them tinkered with computers and programming in their own time before entering the field and many still do outside of their jobs (not to improve their job prospects, but because they find it fun or interesting or intellectually stimulating). Incidentally, almost all of the (far fewer) female programmers I know entered the field for the same reason.
My conclusion, perhaps wrongly, is that more males are interested in computing than females.
The major shift occured during the 1960 compared to 1940. What kind of prestige occurred in computing during that time that elevated the status of programmers?
The period when computing was originally a female-dominated field is quite known for something else. It was the world war 2. Men was sent to the front line and there existed a major lack of labor resource. Ballistics calculations and cryptography was very labor intensive, and unsurprising a lot of those position were then held by women.
Comparing the job market during the second world war with a few decades later does not make much sense. Still I am interesting in hearing what kind of prestige was given to programmers that supposedly triggered this change in the job market.
Most of these examples only explain why there's a difference at all but not why it's so severe. If anything most of the 4th example could just as easily be explained by a mix of interactions with female coworkers being higher risk for male employees (limiting equally charismatic women's ability to network by comparison) and the reality that if you spend a decade giving money to gendered industry initiatives people are going to attribute that gender's success to those initiatives and not merit (don't ask for tokens if you don't want people to assume you're a token).
> Computing was originally a female dominated field
From allyshack's source:
> sitting at tables and doing math laboriously by hand
Yea thats not computer programming or electrical engineering so please don't conflate that with modern computing.
> as computing became a more prestigious field more men entered it
No, as men invented electronic computers the armies of female laborers were replaced with a smaller number of overwhelmingly male engineers and programmers.
> Girls are socially discouraged from showing interest in stem
And now we get to the patriarchy arguments. No; women have much easier and more personally fulfilling life options than sitting behind a computer screen all day, and so they chose not to.
All of these feminist arguments have been made and rebutted hundreds of times here on hackernews and anywhere else that allows critical discussion of feminism so it gets very tiresome after a while and should probably fall under flamebait at this point.
Programming was female dominated in 1967. IBM hired the first generation of programmers based on aptitude tests because there weren't really any university CS degrees yet.
Does anybody know how successful this aptitude test was in hiring women? The (sponsored by IBM) article mentions that 349 companies hired 20,000 women based on this test, but they do not mention how many programmers in total were hired based on this test.
If I'm reading both the Apple prompt details and the Twitter statement correctly, what that tweet is saying is that Facebook will not request access to the IDFA at all, and will also not allow developers using Facebook's SDK to request it. This means they won't trigger ("adopt" per the tweet) the prompt notifying the user of tracking, since they aren't using the IDFA to track anymore.
The rest of the tweet goes on to describe how to comply with that policy from Facebook, and to suggest alternate methods for developers to track users on iOS, including Facebook Login or Advanced Matching.
I want to switch to Firefox, but of all things, its tab management is keeping me away. On my last try, I gave up after five minutes because I couldn't see all my open tabs at once (had to scroll). Does anyone know of an extension or setting I can use to force Chrome-like tab behavior, where all tabs are shown at once regardless of how small they become?
I don't think you can prevent tabs from scrolling off screen, but you can set the "browser.tabs.tabMinWidth" about:config pref to a tiny number so you can fit more tabs on screen.
You can also see the full list of tabs (with titles) in the tab overflow dropdown menu. It's the down arrow button to the right of the tab strip. The dropdown menu only appears after you open at least ~20 tabs. I set the browser.tabs.tabmanager.enabled about:config pref = true to always show it (because I like see the full tab titles).
Do you still have to navigate? Like, click or scroll or whatever, to get between tabs? I'm looking for a UI that shows me all my tabs, all at once, no clicks/scrolling/navigation required.
For people with a lot of tabs, I recommend trying a Vertical Tabs add-on. I am currently using Vertical Tabs Reloaded, but there are a couple different ones. Usually people have plenty of horizontal space and you have a scrollable sidebar with all your tabs in it.
Thanks, but I'm looking for something that doesn't require scrolling - where I can see all my open tabs at the same time, no scrolling, clicks, or other interaction required. I toggle between tabs a LOT, and having to scroll or otherwise navigate to find the right tab is a hard no for me.
The Firefox search also searches open tabs a lot. Which could be even quicker than using the mouse. There is a limit on Chromium browsers - tabs smaller than the favicon aren't really that useful.
They don't always respect this. I've had multiple Instacart shoppers replace items without marking them as replacements, including replacing some of them with things I explicitly indicated I did not want as replacements.
A company I do contract work for banned Instacart from one of their local stores entirely due to customer complaints to store management about unapproved substitutions.
I'm curious what metrics are driving that behavior by Instacart shoppers. In my (entirely amateur/armchair) opinion, it would seem like the time you'd save by making an unapproved substitution wouldn't make up for the potential for negative reviews, which could get you driven off the platform entirely.
Maybe a majority of customers don't care enough about unapproved substitutions to review poorly? Though reading through this thread suggests otherwise. Maybe there's some other internal metrics which shoppers or Instacart have access to that incentivize poor substitutions in the name of speed?
Honest questions - I don't know anything about this business and it's interesting to me that it appears to be such a pervasive issue.
Purely out of curiosity, how do the store police this? (I'm not very familiar with how Instacart operates, but I thought it was just a person going to the store as a normal shopper in your stead.)
I’m pretty sure the shoppers pay with a special card. They probably just tell the employees at the check out counter to refuse service to anyone with an Instacart branded credit card.
In Canada at least, the Real Canadian Superstore chain has set up InstaCart as their "official grocery delivery" partner. When you go to the Superstore website and click "Shop Delivery", you go through an InstaCart flow.
Although I suspect complaining to either the store itself or to InstaCart is going to be relatively futile, it seems that having the store managers bubble their complaints upward to regional managers may be more effective than complaining directly to InstaCart. Corporate makes decisions like that partnership, and if all of the store managers in a region are making the same complaint to HQ, maybe something might change. Maybe.
I'd strongly recommend looking into the Aesthetics of Play[1][2]. It's a framework that talks about eight primary reasons why people play video games, and only one of those reasons is "Challenge" (i.e., beating a goal). Games like Gone Home, Animal Crossing, The Sims, Minecraft, etc all reflect different play aesthetics, and are intended for people who enjoy different things than pure Challenge.
You don't specify why Instacart "became less usable", though if your experience is like mine I'd guess it's a combination of delivery windows being a full week out and the results being somewhat unreliable between replacements/out of stock. What's been working for my household is to make the Instacart order knowing it won't be delivered for at least a week, and use that time to fill out the order as needed. We're not to this point yet but I've also thought about doing a rolling window (i.e., make one order with a delivery window of next Saturday, then start another one in two days with a delivery for next Monday, etc) so there's always something coming in.
Another suggestion, which I have not tested yet personally, would be to look up small grocers in your area. If you're willing to drive to pick up your shopping, a small grocer may be willing to prepick your order and have it ready for you in the parking lot without an intermediary.
A third option would be to check for local milkman deliveries, since many of them deliver more than just milk. A quick search for the Bay Area brings up "Bay Area Milkman" and "Milkman SF". Again, haven't tried them so can't vouch for them, but I'm keeping similar options in my own back pocket if/when we need them.
> You don't specify why Instacart "became less usable", though if your experience is like mine I'd guess it's a combination of delivery windows being a full week out
I can't get a delivery window at all in Instacart right now. I can't get pickup of delivery from any grocery store in northern New Jersey right now.
Oh yikes. Mine's been iffy, but looking a full week out I've usually been able to find something. I suppose I should consider my area fortunate for that.
I don't know if either of my other suggestions are of any use to you, but I genuinely wish you luck in your search.
> a small grocer may be willing to prepick your order and have it ready for you in the parking lot without an intermediary.
This is what I did. A small, upscale grocery near me started offering curbside pickup: you send in an order in the morning, get called to arrange payment in the afternoon, drive there the same day, and they drop off your groceries at your car. Worked perfectly. Yum.
Unfortunately this is in a different state. But maybe Mountain View/Palo Alto/Sunnyvale/etc. has something similar? Where do all the vegans and serious foodies shop? I'd try there.
What do you think 80% normal will look like? I'm currently planning a small (30-50 people) event in October and I'm trying to figure out if I need to postpone/reschedule.
I'd just assume it needs to be rescheduled into 2021. Should group gatherings resume before the end of the year, which seems unlikely, it seems a safe bet that turnout would be rather low just due to people not wanting to risk it. On top of that, we're most likely going to be neck-deep in a pretty painful recession (at least) by then.
Obviously it would be impractical to list all the possible geo-based salary bands on a JD. Is the intent to "shame" such a company into picking a single salary range that doesn't take geo location into account?
I feel as though that would either lead to (1) everyone being paid Silicon Valley wages (which has a number of consequences of its own, both good and bad) or (2) companies which can only afford to do so for certain positions, losing out on otherwise qualified candidates who happen to live in a higher COL area.
I know there's an argument that if the company can't pay competitive wages, then they shouldn't be in business. But it feels like in case (1), candidates who live in high-COL areas are actually getting penalized. Some of them could move to lower-COL areas and get the net benefit, but others may not be able to move.
I don't know the answer here, but I'm curious to see how others in the industry are thinking about the situation.