3 ms·

Well, above all, you value experience. Seriously, the degree to which age discrimination is an accepted reality in tech today is a great failing, and one that

Well, above all, you value experience. Seriously, the degree to which age discrimination is an accepted reality in tech today is a great failing, and one that has enormous hidden costs over time. Sadly I know a number of extremely talented older engineers who have been discarded like trash only to be constantly rejected in their search for new employment, until some of them just give up. It's remarkably ignorant and short-sighted of employers who practice this kind of discrimination.

1_2__4 9y ago
It's not short sighted. Most upper management in those sorts of companies isn't there for any kind of a long haul. They win if they can impress the VCs with what they shipped in the last few months, doesn't matter if none of it works, services are crashing and customers are unhappy. Imagine if organizations like NASA only recognized accomplishments like "added a button to such-and-such dashboard." It's laziness mixed with incompetence mixed with the simple reality that too many companies consider it a competitive advantage that they're completely fucked up in their process and procedure but manage to somehow churn out something anyway. And if you're not hitting your targets, why, move the target! Imagine how much easier NASA's job would be if they could say the moon shot was a success even though they only got something into orbit because we redefined what a moon shot was.
- Retric 9y ago
  > isn't there for any kind of a long haul That's a 'reasonable' cause for being short sighted, but it still means they are short sighted.
- nonbel 9y ago
  >"And if you're not hitting your targets, why, move the target! Imagine how much easier NASA's job would be if they could say the moon shot was a success even though they only got something into orbit because we redefined what a moon shot was." This is the way in biomed: >'When scientists finished the first draft of the human genome, in 2001, and again when they had the final version in 2003, no one lied, exactly. FAQs from the National Institutes of Health refer to the sequence’s “essential completion,” and to the question, “Is the human genome completely sequenced?” they answer, “Yes,” with the caveat — that it’s “as complete as it can be” given available technology.' https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/20/human-genome-not-fully-sequenced/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/20/human-genome-not-fully-s...

1_2__4 9y ago

It's not short sighted. Most upper management in those sorts of companies isn't there for any kind of a long haul. They win if they can impress the VCs with what they shipped in the last few months, doesn't matter if none of it works, services are crashing and customers are unhappy. Imagine if organizations like NASA only recognized accomplishments like "added a button to such-and-such dashboard." It's laziness mixed with incompetence mixed with the simple reality that too many companies consider it a competitive advantage that they're completely fucked up in their process and procedure but manage to somehow churn out something anyway. And if you're not hitting your targets, why, move the target! Imagine how much easier NASA's job would be if they could say the moon shot was a success even though they only got something into orbit because we redefined what a moon shot was.

Retric 9y ago
> isn't there for any kind of a long haul That's a 'reasonable' cause for being short sighted, but it still means they are short sighted.
nonbel 9y ago
>"And if you're not hitting your targets, why, move the target! Imagine how much easier NASA's job would be if they could say the moon shot was a success even though they only got something into orbit because we redefined what a moon shot was." This is the way in biomed: >'When scientists finished the first draft of the human genome, in 2001, and again when they had the final version in 2003, no one lied, exactly. FAQs from the National Institutes of Health refer to the sequence’s “essential completion,” and to the question, “Is the human genome completely sequenced?” they answer, “Yes,” with the caveat — that it’s “as complete as it can be” given available technology.' https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/20/human-genome-not-fully-sequenced/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/20/human-genome-not-fully-s...