The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
I have one for you, not necessarily LinkedIn but sh*tty recruiter related, none the less.
This recruiter that was unable to place me about 5 years ago, sends me emails every so often, asking me if I know of any developers looking for work, but never actually asks me if I would be interested in the position; only if I know someone else that would be.
It's much easier to enjoy the favor of both friend and foe, and not give a damn who's who. -- Lon Milo DuQuette
I definitely found that to be true during my last job search. After hundreds of useless e-mails through LI, I ended up finding one through Craig's List. It was an advert posted by a recruiter but she was quite competent. Apparently the company has used her extensively and I can see why.
FWIW, she is based in the Portland, OR area and works nation-wide. If anyone wants her name and info then contact me and I will pass it along.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
I can see how that might be frustrating or humiliating. I'm not a big fan of Java personally, but I feel I can code it. The thing that irritates me more than anything else is "Must have X years of experience in XYX" programming language. That's usually not a good indicator of a programmer's ability to adapt. When screening for candidates, companies should search on paradigms (Imperative, OOP and Functional) and possibly experience with APIs and business processes to see if a candidate is a good fit.
I'm thinking about applying for a IT job with the IRS, but for their external positions, they often say something like "Must have X number of years of programming experience in Java or COBOL..." I can understand why companies look for programmers with COBOL experience because COBOL is IMO very hard for a CS graduate to tolerate, but Java is a respectable language even if C# and Haskell are better
It has always been like this in the profession. It is just becoming more pronounced as a result of the Internet and the constant churn of the technologies being used on it.
I retired in 2014, though I still do development on my own projects. And yet I still receive emails from recruiters for various positions, including quite a few, where my resume clearly demonstrates I have no experience in such areas.
And considering the increasing and rampant age discrimination in our profession, one would think that a quick look at my resume would clearly indicate that I would be too old for such consideration (And yes this form of discrimination will get everyone here as well; you ain't getting younger.).
Recently I signed up with Indeed to see if I could get some remote, software, technical writing work. Now I receive emails from Indeed for all sorts of projects that I don't have the slightest expertise in.
Before the Internet became a thing, recruiters would often list an entire laundry list of requirements for developers whether they worked in the Java Community or the Microsoft Development Community. Obviously the job specifications were so flagrant and outlandish one had to wonder how anyone ever got called in for an interview.
Going back further to the day that IT was transitioning between Visual Basic 5.0 and 6.0, recruiters would not look at anyone without substantial Visual Basic 6.0 experience, even though there were no significant differences between the two environments by which a competent Visual Basic developer could not easily acclimate to...
The issues being reported here regarding the nonsense now coming out of LinkedIn recruitment for technical professionals is just another development in the on-going deterioration in the usage of technologies over the Internet.
In the last two years alone, I have seen a trend demonstrating that development is increasingly producing shoddy results. For example, I have seen an increased usage of flaky drop-down entry forms whereby if you move your mouse just slightly while attempting to enter some text, the form suddenly disappears along with your text. And it can be quite maddening after several attempts at this.
Of course the most serious examples are the ongoing disastrous issues with Boeing Corporation where present trends are starting to show that the company will very possibly be bankrupt by the end of 2020.
Though many tend to laugh off such issues, such as the one here with LinkedIn, the totality of such issues is becoming an increasing threat to society in general as it is merely compounding existing issues that many are becoming aware of.
For example, Silicon Valley software engineers are increasingly starting to demonstrate by speaking out that much of the smart-device technology that has been developed and still is in development is actually designed to impede the daily lives of their users. Instead of providing legitimate software processing, much of the software used on such devices is instead there to spy on users and\or collect their data (ie: recent lawsuits against Amazon for their ridiculous door-bell system), while giving the impression that the software is doing something useful (ie; FaceBook "Like" buttons).
I have been advising for quite some time to the younger professionals to get off this merry-go-round of "junk" technologies by simply refusing to use them in the way most vendors intend. So for example, stop using your cell-phones as if your entire lives are wedded to it. Instead simply use them for what the basic premise of their use was designed for originally, important and\or emergency communications with love ones and friends.
Do people really have to talk on their phones while on the toilet?
The idea of my professions on this is to remove the factor that has made our technologies today such a disastrous mess to society in general; the people who enable the tech vendors to achieve such success, such as people who may read this comment.
You cannot move forward in this instance expecting that such things will correct themselves as a result of altruism on the parts of tech vendors. They are driven by one thing only like all businesses; separating you from your monies and in many cases, even your own moral convictions. This entire profit-driven motivation began when the vested owners of the companies they created to actually produce decent products left due to retirement and other factors only to be replaced by what are called "professional managers"...
And for this we now have planes falling out of the sky...
So it is all on you to "Think" as the old IBM motto promoted before you do actually continue to invest in such "junk" technologies.
If you don't, things will only get far worse...
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
Funny part is this blurb at the top of my library (emphasis mine): "Every ebook and video you’ve purchased through your O’Reilly account is available below. You get lifetime access to these products, and we will alert you when they are updated." I guess their lifetime is way shorter than mine.
O'Reilly used to be my go-to publisher for books. You could almost never go wrong buying a Nutshell book. I was surprised when they stopped selling their own books. Now they can't even be bothered to keep the space for ebooks they promised to give you "lifetime access" to.
Their entire focus seems to be shifting to trade conferences and the so-called O'Reilly online learning, which is their subscription access service, formerly Safari.
I know books are "passé", and I'm probably dating myself by still wanting to read them, but this seems like another great service dying in favor of subscription pricing.
Anyway, enough ranting.
Bottom line, if you have ebooks on O'Reilly and you want to keep them, be sure to get them downloaded prior to March.
It sounds as if you are expecting them to relate to your lifetime.
That's a complete misunderstanding. They are relating to the product they sold you.
When that product dies - which seems to be what has happened in this case - then you have no longer access.
O'Reilly couldn't possibly track the lives of each and every customer. Their products is all they care about.
For being slightly more serious:
This is a major reason why I am not using streaming services, neither for music, movies nor books. If it is not worth my time listening / watching / reading a second time (or more), then it wasn't even worth the first time. I always want the option to return to the same work. To me, "spoiler" is a silly concept: When I know that the butler is the murderer, I find great pleasure in re-reading from page one to see how cleverly the author step by step provides small clues, without revealing any more than absolutely needed. Even if I know the final chords of a tune, I enjoy the singer's voice on the second hearing. And so on.
During the first years of streaming, disk space was expensive. After some time, movies were taken out of the catalogs (I guess some of it had to do with publishing rights as well). Every time I came across lists of movies unavailable after a certain date, I could check 2-6 of them: But they are still available in my bookshelf, and will remain available for as long as I want, at no additional cost!
Today, disk is cheap, but rights questions remain. The Norwegian National broadcaster ("NRK") makes a major part of their productions over the last 60 years freely available, tagged "Available until: Always". Last newyear, contracts with the artists' organizations (actors, musicians, and all the others) was about to expire. To renew the contracts, the artists were demanding a doubling of the compensation for the next period. They came to an (undisclosed) agreement a couple days before the old contract exprired. If no agreement had been made, that would have been the end of "Always".
So, not only do I buy physical media music, movies and books - I've got around 4000 books in my shelves, 1500 CDs and 3-400 DVD/BDs: I also record a lot of radio music, often live, unavailable on CD. I save great shows and movies from the NRK archives / free streaming services. (Norwegian law explicitly grants me the right to do so, for privat, non-commercial purposes.) I will continue to do so, and continue to buy music, movies and books on physical media.
Two other reasons for going to my bookshelf rather than to the Internet: First - which books I read, and read again, which chapters I read is nobody's business! I know that it is impossible to completely avoid monitoring, but I strive towards reducing my electronic traces as much as possible. This is related to the second point: A survey of books been banned in the USA, the land of freedom, counted 1500+ titles. Often, it was not a nationwide ban, but the book only banned from public institutions like schools and public libraries. Yet I learned that several of the books in my shelves would have earned me a prison sentence if I moved to the USA and brought the books with me.
Over the years, quite a few artists have left the USA: While not thrown in jail, they have been actively "silenced" by commercial interests, religious groups, political movements, and sometimes the public autorities. I am quite sure that if streaming had been available in the 1940s, you wouldn't find many Charlie Chaplin movies in the catalogs. During the Viet Nam war, the Simon and Garfunkel "Silent Nigth / 7 O'Clock News" was banned from all major radio networks. Today, the White House takes steps to stop the publishing of unwanted books.
There are lots of examples from other countries as well (certainly including Norway!), but less widely known. In my shelves you can find books and movies banned in Norway. In some cases, the ban was lifted since I bought them. In other cases, I bought them while legal, but later "withdrawn" (I can keep my copy, but it cannot be sold).
Owning my own copy contributes not only to evade monitoring, but evade censorship as well.
That was actually my point (hidden in all the grousing ): O'Reilly used to be one of the best book publishers, because books were their product. Now their business seems centered around conferences and the subscription model.
I understand the book market probably isn't what it used to be, and companies have to adjust to survive. I just really don't like the subscription model at all for books, music, or video.
As an aside, I am with you on owning physical copies. I have nearly all my music on physical CDs. All the video I care about is on DVD or BR. My book collection is also pretty big. I mainly buy e-somethings for the convenience of being able to travel with a collection in my tablet or phone. I try really hard not to get e-anything that I can't download and keep a copy of.