> In any case, enforcing age based job restrictions remotely is not feasible and I would thank the individual and encourage them to reach out to you when they turned 18.
I mean, I wouldn't consider it if I hadn't worked with his dad for 5 years. It's not like I'm actually hiring, but yeah.
I was aware of those 3 rules, and was really looking for the citation on 3 earlier. I was thinking about paying him, I can afford a few hours of minimum wage, and if I think I can't I can always stop it, but even then I'm not 100% certain what I'd need to do for that. Do I actually need to file for incorporation of some kind? at this point I'd probably just go sole proprietorship if I have to. Then I'd guess I'd need to either have him do a 1099 or W2 of which I might need to contract out to a HR company to deal with some of it, especially because of the across state lines stuff. I honestly only vaguely remember my employment around his age.
I just want to ensure I don't somehow end up with them owning half the startup if it ever goes somewhere by virtue of a later lawsuit.
right, but what if it is open source code? even though it's something the startup would use.
Also it's not clear to me if a minor can actually contribute to an open source project legally as they have to be able to accept a contract legally I would think.
I think even if you thought the question should have been asked... you should have waited a day (or longer) and given someone else a chance to answer the question. Then you could have accepted their answer, or written your own if it wasn't good enough.
I can see that, but doesn't that point out an interesting flaw in this social site achievement model?
Specifically:
1) There is a question that is trivial to some, but non-trivial to others.
2) I have a carefully-crafted answer to that question (trivial though it may be to some).
3) I need to wait to provide my careful answer, because if I do it too soon, I'll be seen as self-serving.
This is inefficient!
Storage is cheap, so what does it matter to anyone if there is a concise, correct answer that they find trivial? If something is not useful to me, but useful to others, it doesn't harm me ...
... unless it adds noise to the signal, i.e. corrupts search terms.
However, I explicitly chose to improve the search terms w.r.t. this topic.
It's really more that it seems to be self serving, because you weren't really asking a real question. The StackExchange model isn't really a Wiki, or a blog, or whatever. If you want to write user friendly documentation there are lots of ways to outlet that. SE is about people who have real problems that are really searching for some help, IMO, or maybe the just want to learn something they didn't know about (e.g. what's your favorite editor might get answers that included editor's and reasons you'd never heard of).
I do think this adds noise to signal, because what people who answer questions are there for is to help people who need it. You didn't, and thus it seems more self serving.
I do think this adds noise to signal, because what people who answer questions are there for is to help people who need it. You didn't, and thus it seems more self serving.
This is interesting. When I said it didn't add noise, I was specifically thinking of question-askers. I didn't consider question answerers.
On the other hand, with a very specific title, people who are just browsing should be able to make a snap decision about whether to read further. Also, it takes much more effort to compose a good answer, than to quickly validate an existing answer.
Consider, that once an answer is there, it's there for all time. We don't know how many people searched for this in the past, but gave up due to poor results. We don't know how many people this will help in the future.
Why wait until they ask the question? When I was learning Lisp, I just used "(+ foo 1)" to increment a number. It was a while before I realized that I could just "(incf foo)". So, in that sense it's a genuine question on my part, just time-delayed from a past self.
Part of good teaching is anticipating what questions will be asked, and answering them before-hand.
What bugs me here is that I've created something. I've organized information -- decreased entropy in the universe. I did all that, but now other people want to bury that information that took energy to create, and that could be useful for all future time.
I'm perfectly okay with someone saying: "this is trivial to me". What I don't like is that someone can say: "this is universally trivial, for all users", let's bury it.
Corrupting search terms can be seen as adding entropy, while improving the likelihood that information will be found is a public service. Picking good search terms is key to the long-term survival of an idea.
sigh I usually only click on other peoples questions if I think I know how to answer it. That's like 70% there's another 20% which might be curiosity, and maybe 5% other reasons. (This is all not including Unix SE where I read stuff to see if it needs retagging or editing or some other form of moderation.)
So imagine if everyone did what you did and now 50% of question askers really don't need an answer, they're just trying to add yet another source of "documentation*. If the noise ratio was that high I wouldn't bother.
I've answered my own questions many times on SO site's... but I don't think that you should ask a question you know the answer to when you ask.
I do not think SO is a wiki for programming question. I feel it's a place for people to go for help when they have a problem.
Given I occasionally ask questions I could have looked up, so it helps other people, and occasionally I end up answering my own question (by looking it up), after I've given others a chance to provide an answer.
It just feels like abusing the system by asking a question you know the answer to. That will stay unanswered for 2 days (since that's how long it takes before you can accept your own answer). At the very least he should have given other people a chance to answer, instead of rep whoring.
As soon as a site adds rep, there come the accusations of rep whoring. I don't care about my SO rep, as long as it's not libellous or something. I don't need a job, I don't want a job. I want (in this specific case) to teach.
What if people don't know they have a problem?
If SO becomes a standard destination (and it appears to be from watching the devs around me), then what is not on SO / accessible to Google might as well not exist.
Re: the letting others answer. Let them edit my post instead, if they think there's a problem with it.
Idk about you but my blogs return quite quickly on google if you search for something I wrote about. This seems like a more appropriate outlet for this kind of thing. Of course if the dev's around you have forgotten how to search... well I doubt they are worth what they're paid.
You need enough rep to edit a post, but really the question isn't the problem. It's the fact that you didn't actually need an answer.
I'd much rather have a SO question as a search result than a blog post.
Blogs are often littered with other information, have weird color schemes, don't always have proper code display, aren't editable by somebody who finds an error, sometimes have spam etc etc
I'd much rather have excellent documentation, and less crappy defaults so I don't have to ask so many questions, or do as much search, or blog as many "how to's", but we can't all get our wishes.
I think it is a wiki for programming questions, and Joel and Jeff repeatedly said so on the SO podcast. The fact that you think it is somehow "unfair" to get reputation that easy illustrates Jabavus point: SO has become less about being information source and more about being a game.
'Postgre' is improper always. You should either say 'Postgres' or 'Post gres que el'. There is a Factoid on the Postrgres site about proper pronunciation, and there have even been discussions about just going back to the name 'Postgres' which was the original name of the project.
I'm not sure 4 is in the right order, considering you didn't name anyone/anything. I would put kernel dev's above framework devs. 0 and 1 are equal in my mind. Basically you should be able to give names for up to your #8 if you can't name person/company/project it should probably be lower.
I would order 0 1 (etc), 2, 3, 5, 8, 4, 7, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14 (comma placement is explicit where I find those levels equivalent)
Yeah, I was thinking kernel dev's would be the people who work on operating systems in #4. I didn't say "Linux devs" because I didn't want to include people who wrote some weird GTK/KDE apps used by one person to be included.
But kernel dev's would have been better terminology.
Tim Berners-Lee is maybe 3, or maybe category for people who "got lucky once and are now famous". Or maybe there should a separate category called "semantic web specialists". That may or may not be the same category as "Don Quixote, and other windmill tilters"
I mean, I wouldn't consider it if I hadn't worked with his dad for 5 years. It's not like I'm actually hiring, but yeah.
I was aware of those 3 rules, and was really looking for the citation on 3 earlier. I was thinking about paying him, I can afford a few hours of minimum wage, and if I think I can't I can always stop it, but even then I'm not 100% certain what I'd need to do for that. Do I actually need to file for incorporation of some kind? at this point I'd probably just go sole proprietorship if I have to. Then I'd guess I'd need to either have him do a 1099 or W2 of which I might need to contract out to a HR company to deal with some of it, especially because of the across state lines stuff. I honestly only vaguely remember my employment around his age.
I just want to ensure I don't somehow end up with them owning half the startup if it ever goes somewhere by virtue of a later lawsuit.