> Recognizing that reality, the Commission’s proposed order will follow Rellas even if he leaves Drizly. Specifically, Rellas will be required to implement an information security program at future companies if he moves to a business collecting consumer information
I'm not aware of any other decree following the CEO to other companies.
Interesting - as cybersecurity insurance becomes more popular, I'm curious how orders like this will affect that. Maybe there will be a new checkbox on insurance forms saying "I'm not personally sanctioned by the FTC for information security lapses"
That's an interesting thing to hang around his neck. You'd hope all companies like that (25k+ customers) already have an information security program though. Maybe Relias can take it as a selling point and has a future as an infosec CEO?
I'm not sure who downvoted you. It is a good question. McDonald's and other consumer goods type companies are not sanctioned, so the company can sell its assets. For that matter they could continue to operate as normal in Russia if they choose.
I'm not sure they really could easily continue to operate as normal. Their business units in Russia get paid by consumers in rubles, but due to the financial sanctions, they can no longer convert rubles to US dollars [1]. From the point of view of their non-Russian shareholders, this effectively means all that money is inaccessible. This would result in complications in reporting the revenue on their income statement. Plausibly (I am not an expert), this would mean they can't even recognize the revenue at all. At minimum, it becomes an open question whether or not the revenue will ever benefit the corporation or if it will be 'trapped' perpetually.
You're right, currently you can't get your revenue outside unless you're down to use a scheme involving exchange for trades inside Russia, move them outside and turn back to money. I've diagonally read the article linked and it depicts everything correctly.
In Russian "to read diagonally" means "to skim" in English. Like, you don't read left to right, top to bottom, but straight from one corner to the other.
Not sanctions, but Russian regulation. From your link:
>The Bank of Russia more than doubled the benchmark interest rate to 20%, a 19-year high, on Feb. 28 and also imposed capital controls, including a ban on foreigners’ selling of securities. Nabiullina said decisions to suspend some regulatory requirements amounted to a capital boost for banks equivalent to 900 billion rubles ($8.7 billion). Putin banned all Russian residents from transferring foreign currency abroad, hardening capital controls.
Interest rate is already back to 14%[1]. Russian economy recovered super fast. Ruble is already stronger than before war (around 64 RUB for USD). Basically sanctions are a joke made for Biden to shout once before American public attention shifts to Amber Heard trial or some other spectacle of the day.
If you read your article you'll learn they are cutting the interest rate back because of sanctions (to mitigate the effects), and inflation is still soaring. 20% is not sustainable, analysts have seen this coming as Russia tries to avoid a recession, in fact the drop by 300 bps was larger than predicted.
Sounds like you need to change the intent of your 1:1s. I am senior at a big company (managing teams of teams) and my manager is a senior executive. I meet with him every other week and that is most of the contact I have with him. That works, as he trusts me to execute on his strategic objectives, and I like it like that. Our 1:1s are very purposeful. I inform him on things I think he should know, ask him for support where I need him, and remind him of my career aspirations to get opportunities that move me in that direction. That's it. It ends up as a nice conversation and gets us both what we need. It sounds like you could move your meetings in that general direction.
Well, my 1:1s go like that actually. My point is: if you suddenly remove your 1:1s, would the business or you get impacted? In my case the answer is: no.
The 1:1s are not terrible nor bad, I just feel that they are just superflous.
As a manager, 1:1s are primarily for you. Not the manager. If you’re getting nothing out of them, suggest changes to cadence and/or frequency.
I won’t let my staff ditch them 100% as there’s also a component where I’m using them to spot problems I might not see otherwise. But for the most part, I treat it as their time
This is a recurring problem in hierarchical relationships. The subordinates have a good reason to assume that these tete-a-tetes can be used against them; they are acting in their own rational interest because of the power imbalance. So they hold back and give superficial feedback.
As an employee I took the tactic of saying fuck it and saying what's on my mind. If it'll be used against me, so be it. I think that's the optimal path but it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. At the end of the day it's on the employee to find their path out of this.
As a manager the best I can do is try to build a solid rapport with the person in hopes that they feel comfortable opening up. But there's no magic bullet to this and every person is different. That rapport also goes both ways. I struggle with newer employees as I have no connection with them and am much more likely to fall back on generic platitudes. As I get to know the person the questions I ask and suggestions I make can be more tailored to their personalities and comfort zones.
As a Doctor, giving my patient a placebo sugar pill once a month is primarily for you. Not the Doctor. I won't let my staff ditch them 100% as there's also a component where I use them to charge their insurance. But for the most part, I treat it as their time.
There is at least one valid reason to do what GP suggested regarding 1:1s in my experience:
If an employee is having an issue that they don't want to put in writing (or you sense this), oftentimes a one-on-one is the only way to coax it out. Particularly if they have an issue with leadership, HR, other managers, etc. Decent managers are also using 1:1s to make sure their employees are treated well in the org as a whole.
But I recognize the 'decent' is doing some very heavy lifting in that sentence.
Right. As a manager I'm invested in seeing the employee grow, develop, and have a fulfilling life. It's not 100% altruistic on my part, as a happy employee who is motivated to improve is better for the company. But I also care about them as people. Thus, the 1:1 is their time to drive that. My role is to help guide and coach, but they know themselves best.
However, another part of my job is to spot larger problems. That's an exercise in pattern matching. While you're talking I'm matching to keywords I've picked up in my travels. Other meetings, 1:1s, etc. Maybe there's a problem lurking down the road that's only visible if one assembles these disparate data. Sometimes those are problems for the employee that they themselves don't realize as you suggest, other times it has no direct connection to them but they're key to identifying the issue. That last part is why I don't agree with getting rid of 1:1s altogether.
Half of Ohio is flat, and gets lots of storms that blow through the plains and prairies from the west, so not exactly low probability of tornadoes.
Source: I grew up in central Ohio. Public schools made it a point to practice tornado drills. In addition, there was an old Cold War-era air raid siren a block from the house I grew up in that had been repurposed and tested for tornado warnings. One of these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rRSY0dRIU
> Xenia has a history of severe storm activity. According to local legend, the Shawnee referred to the area as "the place of the devil wind" or "the land of the crazy winds" (depending upon the translation).
> On April 3, 1974, a tornado rated F5 on the Fujita scale cut a path directly through the middle of Xenia during the 1974 Super Outbreak
> Xenia was struck by an F2 tornado on April 25, 1989, and again by an F4 tornado on September 20, 2000.
Even large, damaging tornadoes have quite localized impacts (max of maybe a mile in path width) -- and you don't generally do much more than stay up to building code in order to prepare for one. In contrast, earthquakes devastate entire areas and require substantial changes to building construction in order to protect against them.
Tornado protection is mostly about avoiding damage in the periphery of a tornado. A building of that size can't realistically be protected from a direct hit of a major tornado. Proper engineering can protect a building from basically all earthquakes. Whether the contents inside are secured properly is a different matter and that's where most damage occurs.
you don't generally do much more than stay up to building code in order to prepare for one.
Interesting. I'm unfamiliar with building code provisions that are designed to mitigate the effects of tornadoes, which are arguably the most destructive force on Earth apart from an erupting volcano or a nuclear attack, on a semiconductor fab, which is arguably among the most sensitive and easily-disrupted facilities ever built. Any good sources for further reading?
You just get different natural disasters. Flooding that could damage your basement and foundation and prevent you from accessing certain roads is a regular occurrence, some people are always pumping out their basements every time it rains. A bad roof you could get away with in California where it rains 5 x a year could quickly spiral into more expensive rot and repairs in places that see heavy rains. Storms can still fall trees onto your house or car. Snowstorms often don't stop your employer from demanding your presence in the office or schools from closing because we are supposedly hardy in the midwest, and increasingly as the weather gets milder, ice storms that manifest as rain during the day but dangerous ice as soon as the sun sets and temperatures fall, coating your car in an inch thick layer of ice when you leave for work in the morning. And plus when the west burns up in flames, the smoke plume wafts east and settles down on the midwest, giving you the bad air anyhow. Speaking of air quality, if you have any allergies, the midwest is also not for you. You get slammed from pollen both from a variety of seasonal weeds, as well as from the intensive agriculture performed in the region.
Fun fact, Ohio was supposedly high on the Soviet nuke target list, because of Wright Patterson AFB, which houses the Air Force Research Lab (and aliens).
I have an old Soviet invasion map of central Ohio, marking all potential airfields etc.
There's a lot more to it than urban legends. A FEMA publication[1] from 1990 has a map on page 86 with assumed Ohio targets.
Tiny Waverly would have definitely been wiped off the map because of its fuel refining facility. There's a non-zero chance I keep my EMP-proof diesel truck running due to growing up in those times.
Looks to be a 1:500,000 topo map of the Ohio/Kentucky/WV border. You can see Columbus and I think Dayton at the top. Google translate via camera is a real charm here.
Apologies in advance for Imgur, but two other services I tried simply didn't work /sigh.
The small town I grew up in also had a specific Soviet doomsday theory. Which in hindsight, doesn’t feel very plausible.
In the wake of the George Floyd protests family talked about their concern that out of state “Antifa looters” were spotted driving down the interstate headed right for them.
I don’t mean to call you a liar, Im sure there indeed are some obscure targets, and your home might be one.
I do think it’s a fascinating phenomenon- this idea of small town obsession with their own destruction.
A quote from Terrence Malick’s BadLands goes something like:
> and if the reds ever do drop the bomb, well I hope they drop it right here in Rapid City (South Dakota).
In fairness to the parent poster, in the event of nuclear war an Air Force base with two runways longer than two miles each isn't an obscure target, it's just a target.
It's not just two runways it's the headquarters of the USAF Matrials Command since 1961 I think. Which is the biggest airforce command (by budget). They are responsible for running most R&D labs of the Airforce and for procuring new weapon systems and airplanes. It certainly would have been a major target. Dayton in many ways is still the birth place of new trends in aviation.
Guess which is a more important target to the enemy in the event of an all-out war: the runways, hangars, and fuel facilities or the research and development offices. (I mean, it's sort of an academic question if a well-placed enemy warhead makes it through...)
In the imagined scenario of a 1980s MAD first-strike, it's wherever the nuclear missile silos are. There's a lot of farmland around Dayton. I would not rule out the possibility that there is at least one nuclear launch site near Wright Patterson AFB.
Lol, growing up in Ohio I've heard this same thing but for various different reasons over the years. Would be interesting to see an authoritative source if one exists
I have a book that is all those old soviet maps - amazing how detailed they were. All hand drawn and they had detail down to individual houses and streets. Many time those maps were more detailed than the ones the US was making about itself!
Yep - one of my classrooms in Ohio was in the old fallout shelter. I saw the signs with radioactive label every morning going into the building. The location is now demolished.
Same. My high school was very near a GE plant in northern Cincinnati and I frequently heard how we were a target because of that. Seems plausible but based on other comments in this post, it may have just been cold war propaganda.
We also have a particle accelerator in Southern Ohio, I’ve heard it would be on a lower priority tier of things to nuke/otherwise destroy. Not sure how accurate the statement was, but I think it was from somewhere credible enough…
Wright Patt definitely has some high level stuff stored, I have a few friends who work engineering there.
The invaders would cross the ocean from an orbital path streaking in as multiple units launched from submersed platforms or silos in the Motherland raining down from heaven. Those invaders would not need to put a single boot on the ground.
When I was growing up the rumor was that both sides had enough nukes to destroy the entire earth 10x over. I have no idea whether that is even close to true but at that point every city is a target because, why not?
We've asked you many times to stop posting flamebait to HN. If you keep doing it, we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to ban you, so please stop.
Low Geopolitical risk but high risk to personal liberties, especially if you are a woman. Look at Ohio and its slow decline from purple into red state. Gerrymandered to hell and back too to prevent this from changing in the foreseeable future, and a state democratic party that is powerless against the state republicans who have secured tenures for life thanks to their inventive mapmaking processes. Companies move to Ohio because a corrupt politician offered them a cherry deal on property like this more often than not.
So you're saying maybe in the future there might be an issue?
Also plenty of people here want to ban abortion too. Tons of small counties have managed to prevent any kind of reproductive health clinics from opening or defacto forced them to close.
Makes sense to me to play to where the ball will likely be, not currently is, if your investment timeframe will be many years in the future. I believe Texas just effectively came to within an inch of banning abortions outright, but effectively they reduced people’s access to it.
My prediction is state governments will make a big difference in quality of life for many people.
I was going to say the same as you did: SCOTUS may very well make the legality of abortion a state-controlled issue, so that's definitely at risk in Ohio.
Ohio has no parental leave laws, especially ones that provide women with automatic 6 to 8 weeks of disability leave for the period before and after childbirth.
California does. CA also has other protections beyond federal ones for breastfeeding and other pregnancy related accommodations, and gives employees the right to sit at work if they do not need to stand.
I would not raise my kids in a state outside of CA to WA and NJ to MA and IL just for this reason.
> Ohio has no parental leave laws, especially ones that provide women with automatic 6 to 8 weeks of disability leave for the period before and after childbirth.
How is this a "personal liberty" thing? This in turn is probably violating the freedom of association that employers have...
>breastfeeding and other pregnancy related accommodations, and gives employees the right to sit at work if they do not need to stand
Of course, there is no free lunch. But nature dictates that if you want society to have workers in the future, women need to make a huge sacrifice.
So you can either worry about the small picture and employers losing a little freedom about who they have to employ. Or you can look at the big picture and realize that for women to maintain financial independence and still be incentivized to have kids, society needs to offer them something.
The first thing I thought about was tornados, actually. That Amazon facility in Missouri was just totally flattened back in December. Given the cost of manufacturing chips, it seems like it would be a huge loss if it was hit.
There no longer exists any real debate. Effectiveness of the vaccines have waned over time but as stated in the article "Our findings support the conclusion that COVID-19 vaccines remain the most important tool to prevent infection and death."
A charitable interpretation of GP would be that he referred to ending of restrictions (masks, testing, papers please, lockdowns etc.) after a vaccine becomes widely available. These hopes have certainly been raised by politicians in late 2020 and early 2021 ("just have to get herd immunity through the vaccine and we're done"[1]). However, the reality is that e.g. in Germany case numbers and incidence numbers are reaching new all-time-highs every day now despite 70-75 % of all people being vaccinated.
These hopes were probably based on experiences with "normal" vaccines, which are apt to eradicate diseases through sterile immunity (though there are a bunch of exceptions to this, it's not like we're getting rid of the flu and some other stuff by vaccinations [2]). However, we since learned that a vaccine providing sterile immunity against COVID-19 seems to be off the table (as none of them are), so herd immunity against COVID-19 will likely never be a thing and eradicating COVID-19 is just not possible.
[1] Herd immunity was THE talking point in early 2021 in Germany. Also, remember a few countries trying to get herd immunity by intentionally letting the virus spread (great britain cough cough)?
[2] Sterile immunity seems to be difficult with respiratory diseases (flu, covid, cold, pertussis come to mind). Naively I'd guess that's because the critters have some time to multiply on the surface of the airways and be infectious before the immune system gets a chance to nuke 'em. If that's the explanation though I'm kinda wondering why the herd immunity theory was so common, so it's probably more complicated than that.
> However, the reality is that e.g. in Germany case numbers and incidence numbers are reaching new all-time-highs every day now despite 70-75 % of all people being vaccinated.
Which is great, but we're still seeing a large influx to ICUs which will cause problems allocating ICU beds shortly (unless the trend reverses). To get that trend reversal high incidence districts are getting more restrictions again.
Ironically we also had a reduction in ICU capacity during COVID because working conditions didn't improve so people reasonably resigned instead of being continually exploited. There has also been a huge increase in hostility towards nurses, doctors and medical personnel in general (mostly driven by the small but aggressive anti-vaxx "community"), which certainly doesn't help retain people.
Is this true? I've heard claims in both directions but seen no sources for either.
> mostly driven by the small but aggressive anti-vaxx "community
Same question as above. There's a massive push to fire all the essential workers that took the brunt of the pandemic early on if they happen to believe the growing body of evidence showing that they don't need the vaccine if they've already recovered.
Thanks for the links. I get a strong sense from these sources that cases are ticking up in Germany and government is considering more restrictions. I get less strong of a sense that ICUs are primarily filling with severe covid patients. Seems reasonable that if cases are going up, hospital admission (including ICU beds) would go up, but its hard to conclusively validate that from these.
Maybe the second deep link isn't working correctly, but look at the ICU beds used for COVID-19 patients graph. Also the first link. Also from yesterday: "Meanwhile, German authorities issued threats of a new lockdown, while a top virologist called for immediate action in the face of overburdened hospitals. ... Several hospitals have said in recent days that they are again working at their limits and have ICUs so full of COVID-19 patients that they cannot admit new patients at the moment. Charite said Tuesday it had to cancel planned surgeries due to the number of staff members caring for people with COVID-19. Authorities have said most of latest patients are unvaccinated."
I did see the graph from your second link and the projected stats going up and to the right, but I wasn't sure how to interpret it in isolation (for example, what does a graph of ICU usage over time look like historically?)
The media landscape on this topic seems so polluted and untrustworthy that I can't help but wish for some kind of straightforward data supplement to go with statements like
> Several hospitals have said in recent days that they are again working at their limits and have ICUs so full of COVID-19 patients that they cannot admit new patients at the moment
where I can read that and then compare it to a spreadsheet and say yep that adds up. Your second link isn't quite that for me (and I realize its an unrealistic expectation). Another poster in this thread linked to something that was closer, but also didn't quite make the case imo.
Anyways, appreciate the links. It seems clear something is going on in Germany, and I may need to get a hold of my skepticism a bit.
The summer waves clobbered various hospital systems in the US on a region by region basis. Winter is likely to be worse. For example, right now Minneapolis is under heavy load, ICUs at >95% across the board. https://covidestim.org concurs, the Midwest is undergoing a wave.
Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if it's showing a large influx due to covid though. For example, the top row in your second link shows 98% beds full, but n/a for covid patients. The second row says 75% ICU beds full, but only 14 positive for covid in the 7 day avg, and its not clear what of those are ICU patients.
It also isn't clear if these are patients in hospital for covid or they just happen to have covid (click on the links in the column headers to see the inclusion criteria).
Agreed, it's not a perfect resource. The other tool I know of is https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/minnesota, but its resolution is only state level, can't dig in at county or hospital level. Between 30% covid ICU at state level and red hospitals concentrated in Minneapolis, I'm making a guess that it's probably a covid wave hitting Minneapolis.
> These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection. Among previously infected Kentucky residents, those who were not vaccinated were more than twice as likely to be reinfected compared with those with full vaccination. All eligible persons should be offered vaccination, including those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, to reduce their risk for future infection.
I don't know enough about immunology to say whether "binding more broadly" confers more immunity or not.
It would certainly go against prior knowledge about human immune responses for a single spike protein (vaccine) to elicit a greater immune response than _the actual virus_.
That CDC study is so bad I'm surprised they had the gall to publish it with the conclusion they did. Testing positive says nothing about severity of infection.
> were about five times more likely to test positive for the infection than people who had been vaccinated
Testing positive is not a very good metric. Were they hospitalized? Was it severe? Did they even get sick, or just test positive?
They even admit to a sampling flaw in the discussion:
> Second, persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated.
The best study on this so far is from Israel with a much larger sample in a highly vaccinated country. Here's a Harvard doctor discussing the contradictory studies.
> For a low-risk person, which includes most people with natural immunity, a 35% risk reduction is more marginal in terms of absolute risk.
> Based on the solid evidence from the Israeli study, the Covid recovered have stronger and longer-lasting immunity against Covid disease than the vaccinated. Hence, there is no reason to prevent them from activities that are permitted to the vaccinated. In fact, it is discriminatory.
I found a Feb 2021 piece from Derek Lowe a good 30k ft overview of how the immune system works. tl;dr it is stochastic, with a wide range of antibodies having different effects against an infection, some of them even negative (OAS). Usually the aggregate effect is positive, and the infection is cleared out.
"It's important to realize, though, that all immune responses to a viral infection generate a mixture of neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibodies. That's one of the things about the immune system - it revs up production of a wide variety of antibodies, selected from the untold billions of them circulating around in your bloodstream. Some of them bind to one part of the pathogen, and some to another. And they bind in different conformations, sticking to different parts of the surface of the invading virus from different directions."
It is conceivable that a targeted vaccine is more effective at shutting down an infection than natural immunity by focusing the immune system to produce a narrow band of very effective antibodies. The tradeoff is that a virus mutation can create a catastrophic situation where the same antibodies are less effective, possibly having negative efficiency enhancing the infection. The risk is amplified by vaccinating the entire population with the exact same protein sequence, creating hundreds of millions of living incubators for the virus to learn how to evade the narrow antibody response.
We are creating a biological landscape prone to black swan events. Good luck convincing any total vaxer that this is a very real risk. They will laugh and sneer and maybe call you criminal because obviously the data shows the vaccines are safe and effective. "Hahaha, I've been told that we're all going to be dead by now, look at those peddling conspiracy theories." Just like the Wall Street crowd created the run-up to the 2008 crisis. Who could have possibly predicted that CDOs were prone to a black swan?
> We are creating a biological landscape prone to black swan events. Good luck convincing any total vaxer that this is a very real risk. They will laugh and sneer and maybe call you criminal because obviously the data shows the vaccines are safe and effective.
If you don't survive the problems of today, then there's no point in worrying about tomorrow's possibilities because you're dead.
The data does show that the COVID vaccines are generally safe and pretty effective. Not 100%, but the perfect is the enemy of the good, and so let's try to improve our lot now so we have a chance to fight for later.
Generally speaking, under 50 populations survive covid fairly well. Under 18 survive almost perfectly, with a higher survivability rate than drowning. Therein lies the problem: we expose the young(er) populations to a black swan event.
Please spend a few minutes to refresh on the data. Some nice dashboards from Singapore (ongoing delta wave), but also e.g. King County, WA (Seattle) shows similar data, though you have to drill down a bit (Demographics tab, then Deaths metric). For example in the past 30 days a total 12 deaths in the under 50 population, for a total of 10% of total covid deaths. Or, since the pandemic started, a death rate of 22/100k or less in all age groups <50, going as low as 0-3/100k for under 30s.
This is not to say that people, especially the elderly, should not get vaccinated if they choose so. It is only a reminder that there is a perception problem around covid and that the long term risk calculus is more complicated.
> These companies can afford good cybersecurity but don't want to spend more money than the damages they would incur from a successful attack.
A bit off your "real" point: No company should ever spend more mitigating a risk than the potential cost they could incur from the risk. That is just good business, but the reality is that companies generally won't spend more on cybersecurity than their peers (either as a percentage of revenue or percentage of IT spend). Whether that is the proper balance for a risk/spend calculation is the real topic.
The problem is that we can't accurately calculate the probability of a cyber event and the cost impact of that event. So the company is stuck waiting for an attack on themselves or one of their cohorts so they can adjust.
It’s genuinely interesting how poorly companies perform when you gauge their ability to cost out a successful attack. Pre-attack, many seem to make an economic decision not to mitigate it. Post attack, the fifth CISO in four years gets fired, the CEO vows to do better and the cycle repeats all over…
>No company should ever spend more mitigating a risk than the potential cost they could incur from the risk.
I've heard hospital administrators make this argument after I've warned them about their security infrastructure being vulnerable to ransomware. I'm not convinced.
>No company should ever spend more mitigating a risk than the potential cost they could incur from the risk.
basically you summed up the opening scene from the FightClub. The human life cost H millions, so until it is going to kill N such that N * H >= cost of the fix ...
I'm in Information Security at a large enterprise. We look for this kind certification, but it isn't required. Not having it though will lead to further scrutiny (lots more questions to answer). I would recommend getting it if you can, particularly if you are offering a service that is hosting the customer's data and/or is managing some part of their IT operations.
Bolstering the recommendation is the fact that the proliferation of supply chain attacks recently is adding pressure for companies to perform more thorough diligence on their vendors. The certification helps check all the boxes.
> If you won't trust the voting public enough to give them the whole truth and instead treat them like blubbering fools, how can you--with a straight face--pretend that their ability to pick leaders or vote on actual issues is a correct way to run a country?
Mr. Politician replies, "I trust the individuals that voted for me. They're smart. Its the public in general that can't be trusted."
I agree with your sentiment. I was 51 when I last applied for a job at a new company. Initially I was getting very little interest in my resume. Then I cut out the first 10 years of my career from my resume (and LinkedIn), and downgraded the oldest position listed from a Senior Lead to just a developer -- essentially making me appear 40 instead of 50. Within a couple of weeks I started getting responses.
And it is not like my work from 1990-2000 wasn't valuable. I worked on a complex large scale analytics system in the early 90's and migrated to large scale web-based applications in the later half of the decade. I'm proud of that work and have some interesting lessons and stories from that time period, but they are telltale of my age and were working against me.
From the perspective of someone who has been on the hiring side, I see this a bit differently.
Senior developer positions are more common now, in part from title inflation but also the rise of more complex online interactions and businesses. By cutting the senior bit out of your resume, you no longer look overqualified for the more numerous junior / "regular" developer positions.
While your work from the 90's is likely very interesting, for many companies the soft skills and lessons learned will be more applicable to whatever role they have available, best included as a summary.
I promise that most hiring managers aren't going to read a 10 page resume, or even a 4 page one. 9 times out of 10, they just want to answer a simple question: should the team take time to find out more about this candidate? If the first page of your resume doesn't answer that, it likely won't make the cut.
On a final note, "30 years experience" really isn't a great sign. I have indeed worked with the type of person who has basically had the same experience over and over for 30 years, not growing, learning new technical or leadership skills, etc. That is totally fine for many positions, but it is mark against them for many others.
I was told it's unusual to include more than ten years of work history on your resume in most fields. So I stop at ten years now and don't include dates on my degrees, and I haven't had any trouble. It helps that I've somewhat deliberately kept learning new things at every job (otherwise I get bored!).
And of course it's BS that this is necessary. But until the entire culture shifts I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and then telling people how old I am after I've signed the offer.
Ageism is real. It's not some sour grapes of under-performers who let their skills decline, or move or think at a dotard pace. It's essentially "We don't want anyone old because old = bad, new = good."
I think it is a lot about under-performers that want to hang onto their "years of experience" as a selling point and being angry that there is not much of a market for "years of experience" only.
Maybe they were not under-performers 10-15 or 20 years ago, but if someone gives 20 pages of resume and most of it happened in 90's I would not be interested. Because it is quite easy to see such person is hanging onto his past performance like Al Bundy to his 4 touchdowns in high school.
If someone would be 50yrs old or even 60 but his last couple of years are taking most of resume and they did interesting work at that age I would be curious to talk to such person.
It is not that they would need to have latest frameworks or libraries listed on the CV. It is more about if they did meaningful work in last year and not that they did meaningful work 20 years ago and now they are just hanging around doing whatever.
So my resume concentrates on the last five years, with the prior 30+ being mere bullet items, in the event you want to ask. You are correct that no one really cares about what you have done outside the last five years.
This is also true. Definitely can't slack off on the couch with a hand in their pants. Even someone with little experience can become perpetually stuck starting at the beginning of their career in low performance if they don't push themselves towards excellence. Slacking off at any point leads to a downward spiral of decay.
