Another option is to work at a consultancy where you hop aboard a new customer project every 3-6 months. Approach every customer as an opportunity to do some resume-driven development and pick a bunch of untested new technologies to experiment with. Be sure to do at least a couple of presentations to tell everyone about the hottest new things you are doing to bring value to the customers. Leave the project once it slowly starts sinking and then just keep hopping from customer to customer. You will be far away once the sea water starts coming through the windows and the non-technical people directing these projects will never figure out what you did.
I have seen that this is one of the most efficient ways to advance your career especially in larger consultancy companies with hundreds or thousands of different customers.
Tuco is a wanted man, Blondie brings him in and gets the reward money. Then just as Tuco is about to hang, Blondie shoots the rope and they both escape to another state ... where Tuco is also a wanted man.
Government contracting is the pathological case for that: if they haven’t been allowed to hire civil servants, they have no choice but to use a handful of big companies. The shortage of in-house expertise makes it hard to know if the work is being planned or performed correctly so a common strategy is to hire one company to oversee the work of another company. Unfortunately, since there are only a few companies in the space and job hopping is the best path for a raise or to avoid layoffs when contracts turn over, it’s rare for anyone to be very critical of past or future coworkers.
I built this for personal use, but maybe someone else also finds it useful.
It's a Firefox add-on that arranges YouTube video tabs based on the runtime of the video. I often hoard many YouTube tabs and at some point I want to either watch the shortest ones or play something lengthy so I can do household chores while listening to the video. This makes finding the correct video from tens of different tabs so much easier. There is one known major bug: if a video is playing, the sorting doesn't work.
There is an older version published for Microsoft Edge, but Edge Add-ons started rejecting the updates based on unclear reasons (something along the lines of "no value for user" ???). When reaching for support through email, I only get responses from people who don't understand English and just copy-paste the exact same unclear rejection report and close the ticket.
Chrome Web Store has a publishing fee and outright rejects me paying it, probably because I live in Switzerland and my credit card is from a Finnish bank.
This is mostly to deter malicious behavior because it makes it unprofitable for bad actors to publish malware by spamming the store with dumb apps that are only life-support systems for their little packages of joy.
It's a high enough bar to trip up a lot of bad actors, but low enough that it's a simple annoyance for most of us.
But yeah, reason 4,590,234,761 why people who misbehave make things more expensive/difficult/time-consuming for the rest of us.
Interesting $5 one time is high enough bar for Chrome extensions store, but $5/mo. is not for bots on certain blue social media. Not disputing facts, just... weird.
Apples and oranges. Google bills you directly, Twitter/X bills indirectly through platforms who do not provide sufficient transparency to prevent repeat abuse.
Last I checked Twitter/X had no way to prevent you from signing up again after a ban if you paid via Apple Pay, as an example.
If I spend a few hours of my time developing a Chrome extension for free, and publish it on the store, then users get to use it for free, but if Google wants $5 then suddenly I am investing both time and money into something where I will never get any reward.
Somehow, donating time for the benefit of others, or money for the benefit of others is fine, but as soon as I'm donating both, it feels like it's not worth it.
How is that message obnoxious? It is a well thought-out message which clearly demonstrates the user's good technical knowledge and passion for the topic.
I can't believe how soft the general consensus on Internet discussion has become. We will never get anything done if people consider this level of mild and sensible criticism obnoxious.
A lot of the subsequent recent ones are, I wasn't really talking about the original ones. Various randoms are brigading the bug in the misguided belief that it will achieve anything.
This ad overlay shows such a fundamental lack of understanding on what Firefox was built on that the people who greenlighted this need to go immediately.
They are completely out of their depth and not fit for their job.
The people who greenlighted this were the people who ousted those who built Firefox. The current crop of "leaders" have a vision that does not include Firefox being the best browser it can be.
Trust me, they're politically aware of what they are doing, and are only gauging outrage now. Give it some time and they'll figure out how to leverage the outrage, as they did before.
Never let a good crisis go to waste, and all that.
There would have been a cost to keeping him as well. There is a significant percentage of tech workers who are gay or trans, which would have reduced the hiring pool available to Mozilla.
> There would have been a cost to keeping him as well. There is a significant percentage of tech workers who are gay or trans, which would have reduced the hiring pool available to Mozilla.
Having the best pool of workers in the world aren't going to make a difference[1] if they are working for power-mongers who use outrage to achieve a coup.
The reverse is not true - having fewer skilled workers to choose from can be irrelevant when they are working for someone who is focused on goals that are aligned to the user.
IOW, there's no point in having the absolute best and the brightest people employed by self-serving schemers who wanted to use firefox as a vehicle for their political/virtuous ambitions.
There might be, however, a point in having "only" the 90% best people employed towards making firefox better.
[1] And, it looks like it didn't make a difference.
Jeff Bezos donated more than Eich in 2018 to Cory Gardner, who is anti-equal marriage, anti-LGBT+ discrimination laws, and against same-sex adoption. It's interesting we don't hold the same standard to Bezos, or speculate that Bezos' donation affected his hiring pool.
It's not interesting at all. Exactly who was going to fire Bezos from Amazon?
Also, I know this is the internet, but disapproving of one person doesn't mean that you're promoting another random person that wasn't even part of the conversation. If you want to bring Bezos in, at a minimum you're required to find a single person, living or dead, who thinks that Bezos's donations were fine but Eich's were terrible.
Boards pressure people like Bezos to step down all the time, often due to public scrutiny.
I know no one is promoting Bezos. I'm just saying it's ridiculous how Bezos gets to white-wash incidents like this while causing untold harm to society, while Eich legitimately was furthering good causes in good ways and a single personal superficial detail prevented him from continuing to do that.
> Yes, because Brave is the model of ethics! Oh, wait a sec...
Short answer:
Well, compared to FF and the fine article that we are commenting on ... yes, it's certainly a model that FF could adopt!
Long answer: I don't see ads in Brave. I don't recall even installing any third parties to block ads. As far as the adtech space goes, Brave is indeed more ethical than FF (or Chrome, or Edge).
Now if you are of the view that, ethically, blocking ads is a bad thing, then I'm afraid we cannot actually discuss this any further, because there are very few arguments that will get me to change my mind about blocking advertisements, not least of which is the ad under discussion, i.e. "FULL-SCREEN-IN-YOUR-FACE-COVER-EVERYTHING-AND-STOP-THE-USER-FROM-DOING-ANYTHING-UNTIL-THE-AD-IS-DISMISSED" type of ad.
Social media companies are in a constant tug-of-war against the end users when it comes to controlling what the users see. The ideal is that the user has absolutely no control over on what they see and the social media company can fully dictate content. That is what makes the money.
Allowing users to freely query content in their own websites is completely antithetical to what they are trying to do. YouTube is also very aggressive in preventing scraping and limiting the usage of the official API. Which is quite ironic considering the history of the company.
Google: appeared open to start things off, then went whole hog on the MS embrace-and-extend philosophy, aiming to crush the life out of the entire web.
I have seen that this is one of the most efficient ways to advance your career especially in larger consultancy companies with hundreds or thousands of different customers.