I didn’t see it as a brag. The idea is that the cover letter influences the hire in undesirable ways more than it provides relevant information. Think systemically removed from the hiring packet rather than gleefully deleted.
We do use the hiring letter, because the ability to write is important to us, but I understand why it might not be considered.
This is very much counter to my experience as a hiring manager. The only time a cover letter has contributed to a negative response, the candidate stated they didn't care about the company and just wanted the money. That was also pretty much what they said in the phone screen, so yeah, not impressed. Other than that, we made some really good hires because the cover letter gave valuable context to an otherwise bland CV.
I understand. As I said, we value the cover letter and use it. In this case, though, the reasoning is that the cover letter provides unwanted signals about the demographics of the candidate, and avoiding influence from those signals is considered worth not knowing the kind of valuable context you mentioned.
It does not seem to me valuable indicator for technical position. Maybe if you are looking to fill position in marketing.
Even if you want to test communication skills, cover letter is completely unlike normal on the job communication for most of us. Cover letter shows how great you are at selling yourself. Technical person communication skills are more about clarity, ability to express complicated ideas, ability to simplify complex things for management, negotiation about deadlines etc.
He has a concept playbook [1]. His MO is to tie current events back into the concept playbook. If you haven't been following along for a period of years, it is easy to get lost.
“Free users for sure we don’t want to give that because we also want to work together with FBI, with local law enforcement in case some people use Zoom for a bad purpose,”
So they want to keep the data unencrypted so they can give it to the feds. That doesn't sound like privacy to me.
edit: So I mean, something like that should not be allowed by law. Though it's rather the FBI that is breaking the law here, but Zoom explicitly says they want to work together with them. So that means they approve that injustice, making them also unjust. If they would encrypt their data to protect their user's privacy, they would not be unjust on this aspect.
It's not obvious to me why Zoom should have any less right than, say, a hotel to block people using its service for criminal activity.
A hotel that suspects you're taping child porn in one of its rooms is well within its rights to call the police. If Zoom has reason to believe you're distributing child porn in a Zoom room, why shouldn't it be allowed to take action, too?
But you're arguing for the ability for hotels to install peephole cameras in every room to make sure you're not up to no good.
The point of encryption is that no one knows what you're doing, because they can't see it. Just like no one can see what you're doing in a hotel, most of the time.
No one can see what you're doing inside your hotel room, but they know when you enter and exit, who you're with, and they can hear you if you make noise. They can track what you watch on TV, and when you're on the Internet. Housekeeping goes in every day and sees all your stuff, and rearranges some of it.
So they can't literally see you every moment, but they have a lot of visibility into what you're up to.
Wow, used this extensively in my undergrad. Always used the free version. I remember occasionally running into the "too many nodes" error. Thanks to the creator for releasing the full version for free. I'm sure many EE undergrads will be grateful.
It appears the key reason is how parts are managed (the part libraries).
I use KiCad and mostly like it-- it can do everything. But the biggest problem [with KiCad] is there doesn't seem to be a coherent/opinionated workflow about how you manage parts (part libraries).
By "managing parts" I mean the associations in your "project" between the schematic symbol, its footprint, its 3D model, and perhaps even datasheet, spice and vendor info. Keeping this stuff straight is a major pain in the ass and it's stressful to add new parts.
These are hard problems and people have wildly different ideas about what's correct. The fact that LibrePCB is signalling improvements in these areas makes me want to give it a spin.
There does seem to be some initiatives lately to make this stuff easier (eg SnapEDA, UltraLibrarian, EE Concierge, and others). But to really make it work, EDA vendors need to standardize together or find a way to work with "everything".
It appears the key reason is how parts are managed (the part libraries).
Yes. KiCAD in general isn't bad, but the part management tools in KiCAD have very strange user interfaces. Footprints are in directories while schematic symbols are in archive-like files (or is the the other way around). The user interface reflects this, which is confusing.
KiCAD, like most open source, has a large number of annoyance-level problems. Schematic capture isn't bad, but it's strange in some places. For example, the dot that shows a connection between two crossing wires is a separate object which can survive deletion of the wires. Most schematic capture programs, such as LTSpice, do better.
There are really two PC layout programs, one using OpenGL and one using some other interface. Each has some features the other doesn't, and you have to switch modes between them.
There's an auto-router, and due to some IP dispute it's not fully integrated. The auto-router isn't bad if your board isn't extremely tight.
> For example, the dot that shows a connection between two crossing wires is a separate object which can survive deletion of the wires
This has changed in the newest version, I think. Library management has also been updated somewhat.
I used to end up not bothering with making new components. Luckily, for my projects, it was mostly ICs that were missing. So I'd use one of the generic n-pin components (connecters/pin headers), add short wires and labels to all the pins while looking at the datasheet, and then give it the appropriate IC footprint when moving to PCBnew. Smells but works.
Which mirrors my own kicad workflow, but part management difficulties are the main reason I would never recommend it for professional use. Especially with a team, I just can't imagine trying to keep this workflow coherent. Yes, altium is tremendously expensive, but I just can't see kicad being a viable replacement.
They really need to focus on this issue, and make it a main focus over other features. If I haven't used kicad in over a month, I have to look up how to create parts again, and can never remember since schema and pcbnew have such different workflows. I am 100% fine with schematic symbols being divorced from footprints, in fact I like that better, but the workflow to create them should match up.
All EDA (and more generally, all CAD) software seems weird to use and requires significant time to "get used to it". E.g. Eagle (not really EDA in the grander sense, mostly just a drawing program) doesn't have many regular keyboard shortcuts, instead you type (heavily abbreviated) commands into its main command line. This is quite productive ... after a few weeks.
Try one of the Altium tools some time (they have a free one now afaik). Those are more "Photoshop weird" (any really complex software takes some time to grok) rather than "AutoCAD in 1995 weird" (a DOS ui dragged kicking and screaming into Windows).
There's an ongoing debate over whether to go the Kicad approach with a unified footprint library or Eagle where every part has its own footprint/symbol pair.
The Kicad approach makes it easy to add new parts with known footprints but you still need to make them for non standard parts. Also if a component has a kind of standard footprint, but needs eg bigger pads for some reason, you also need to figure that out.
Eagle is a faff be user everything has to either be copied from another library, or you need to make it yourself. But once thaf library is done, it's pretty portable. I'm an Eagle user and am used to it; I can make parts fairly quickly now.
There are also parametric component generators (library.io) which takes a lot of the stress out of it.
For me, the big problem isn't the underlying systems, but the UI on top of them. I've had a board where identical parts needed different footprints, and the kicad system made that very easy to manage. However, the UI & workflow is far too different between creating symbols and footprints, making it harder to learn and easier to forget.
As a newb to PCB design this is dead on. I had to resort to using Circuitmaker (free Altium with a 2 private project limit) to feel confident doing my first few boards.
Circuitmaker uses octopart libraries and maintains its own footprint libraries. When any user creates a footprint in a public project it becomes part of the public (git-based) library for the part.
I get it that some designers want to do all their own footprints and make everything their own, but for someone getting ramped up having easily accessible parts libraries dramatically reduces the amount of tangential knowledge one must have to make usable PCBs.
I'm definitely going to try this out. I am a big fan of Circuitmaker but obviously using something that is 100% open source is a big benefit.
I second this. KiCad is a great software, but it's workflow between schematic and PCB layout is confusing and its parts management is a mess. Hopefully the ideas of this project will make their way into KiCad.
It's always annoyed me that in KiCad, when associating all schematics to footprints as a list, there's no footprint preview by default. Yet when individually associating then the preview does come up.
reply