Those are good points. To my "developer" mind interviewing has a lot more in common with web page hacking. It is pretty easy to make something that will only work in one browser, but you can follow good rules and make something that will be fantastic in most browsers. That is the basic idea with the pay off being a better job or higher pay by learning and practicing a more effective general interview style.
A few things that are easily fixed:
- People don't read job descriptions
- People don't research the company they send their resume to.
- People don't write a cover letter
- People don't read the emails they get from recruiters or prepare for interviews.
- People act like horny teenagers on the phone, so desperate to be liked that they lose all appeal.
- People act as if they have never seen a white board.
- People don't prep themselves on software design, database queries, etc.
- People don't ask questions of a recruiter or show interest in the position at all (but later hound me via email as if they were an ace in the hole).
There are others of course. But 9 out of ten qualified candidates fail on at least 3 or 4 of these basic marks.
In 1967 the the house estimated that Medicare would cost $9 Billion a year by 1990. The real number would turn out to be $67 Billion.
Every week or so the rate of the oil leak is revised upwards. What was once a spill has turned into a bad spill and now is being called a disaster. This seems consistent with the way most government estimates work.
Ironically it is almost as if we need an independent body with no power to spend money but with complete auditing power to get the public actual numbers.
I guess that's why he got BP to put $20 billion into an escrow fund. What is it you want him to do, exactly?
Back when he was talking about the need for more alternative fuels etc. I kept hearing about how he was interfering too much with markets and was a closet statist/socialist/Communist. Of course a few months ago otherwise sane people were still chanting 'drill baby drill' at political rallies.
What should be done: A systematic review of all offshore drilling practices and regulations and a significant reassessment, which would likely lead to the closing of hundreds of productive wells.
What will be done: A massive fine to BP and minor regulatory changes.
Obama is acting like a company man on this one, of course BP will be scapegoated, with the primary goal being to prevent widespread reforms from occurring and focusing on the idea that the problem is BP's negligence rather than on using the new information (spills can be very very bad) to question the practice of offshore drilling being worthwhile in the first place.
Your way of thinking seems to involve substituting portentous phrases for actual argument.
We know spills can be bad; while the degree of damage resulting from this one should certainly be factored into cost-benefit calculations, and prospective drillers required to plan and put up security for such eventualities, we still need to consider probability too. The fact is that incidents of this kind are quite rare in developed countries nowadays.
"Obama = coroporate shill" is just as stupid and mindless as "drill baby drill". 'Systematic review...significant reassessment' - mere buzzwords. If you think his policy should be to just halt deepwater drilling then OK, I can respect that point of view even if I don't fully agree. But please stop hiding behind a mask of pseudo-objectivity.
We knew spills are bad before the Deepwater Horizon spill, however the estimates of environmental damage (for the worst case scenario foreseen) were far smaller than what has already occurred with the Deepwater Horizon spill.
Why? Because spills of the magnitude of this one are quite rare. But, like any low probability event, as the time horizon increases the probability approaches 1.
Obama knows that another spill is very unlikely to happen soon, so he is under no pressure to create a new regulatory environment that actually reduces that probability.
The gulf is a public resource, and so the question for the American people should be something along the lines of: If we are likely to get a Deepwater Horizon level spill every 20 years, should we still allow drilling? My guess is that (barring misinformation) most Americans would agree that we should absolutely not allow any offshore drilling at all.
Offshore drilling in the US does not have a meaningful impact on oil/gas prices as experienced by consumers. It simply enriches the firms that extract that oil, but not enough is extracted to significantly impact the market price of a global commodity.
Supporters of offshore drilling claim that gas would be $10 at the pump without it... which is total nonsense. If anything we'd see about a $0.05 increase per gallon at the pump.
What is your explanation for why Obama is not doing more to create systematic reforms that decrease the chances of another spill? It sounds like you think he wisely views the risk as acceptably low.
Is this really solving a problem? I mean CSS itself has issues but wrapping a developer centric toolkit around it doesn't seem to help. In my view CSS is a necessary evil but it is also primarily used by designers. Forcing them to use variables and learn classes and adhere to another syntax would seem counter productive to most of the gains.
A few things that are easily fixed: - People don't read job descriptions - People don't research the company they send their resume to. - People don't write a cover letter - People don't read the emails they get from recruiters or prepare for interviews. - People act like horny teenagers on the phone, so desperate to be liked that they lose all appeal. - People act as if they have never seen a white board. - People don't prep themselves on software design, database queries, etc. - People don't ask questions of a recruiter or show interest in the position at all (but later hound me via email as if they were an ace in the hole).
There are others of course. But 9 out of ten qualified candidates fail on at least 3 or 4 of these basic marks.