Well, we already got examples with companies implementing the "take as much PTO as you like" benefit, the counterintuitive result is that employees tend to take as much or less days off than what they had before in fixed amount, without QoL improvements.
The thing is, the fact that something is possible doesn't mean that people will feel comfortable doing it. Cultural norms, management style or habits aren't easy to change.
I live and work in France, where you legally have 5 weeks of PTO. The 5th week has been introduced 40 years ago. And yet, it's still hard for a lot of HR departments to make sure that employees properly take all of their PTO each year.
Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, left unsupervised with goals to reach, it seems that most people tend to overwork themselves rather than laze off.
So, you think the French networking infrastructure builds and maintains itself? Companies tend to only build infrastructures in very populated areas where it will quickly turn to profit. French government and collectivities have to incentivize, legalize and pay for them to properly cover the territory. (and to this day there are still a few zones where internet is only available through satellite).
It is almost already the case. However, there is a loophole. To avoid crashing starting businesses, the current tax is on profits, not on revenues. What big internet companies like Google and Apple do is splitting their companies in several entities. One entity is making the revenues. The other is "administrative services". The administrative one, located in a low-tax country, bills (highly) the one that makes the revenues. So the revenues are made in rich european countries, but the profits are made in the low-tax ones. (The example is oversimplified, but you get the idea). This is clearly cheating, but it's legal. Europe didn't manage to close the loophole because of the countries who profit from it. And no single cheated country has yet acted because the US backs this behavior.
This lacks data. We'd need to know the efficiency, life expectancy and energy production cost of the cells in order to know if this is really interesting.
If you need more energy to produce the cells than the amount they'll provide throughout their lifetime, it's not worth it.
Sure, it looks cool, but it's too soon to publicize.
I tried hyper v2 recently, took some time to fiddle with plugins and config everything to my liking. It was usable, though missing the ability to launch different shells in different tabs (I'm a windows user, so being able to have a git bash tab, a cmd tab, a powershell tab, a wsl tab, etc. is kind of a must).
This morning I was prompted to upgrade to hyper v3, I clicked yes, it refreshed. All my plugins and configs were gone. No prior warnings, no suggested upgrade path, just full wipeout. I uninstalled hyper and went back to cmder.
Clickbaity title but I think the article makes a good point and we should invest time and thinking into expanding the capabilities of our fw instead of iterating over things that have been done to death.
So, basically, your company is part school, part loan agency. The loan business is offering to students a loan which covers scholarship in the school + 10k, and then bets on the job market for interests at 2 years terms.
This way to put it is sure less appealing than "we pay you to learn" but closer to the actual business model.
Looks like you could have partnered with an existing program (or several) for the teaching part, and only run the lending/revenue sharing. What pushed you towards handling the school yourselves? More confidence in the results? Difference in the legal/financial stuff due to the business structure? PR value? Taste for teaching? Bit of all that? Something else?
I think we would put it more like staffing platform + a trainee/school program. But we combined them because we saw a gap in the market. Pure schools need to make money on the school portion (they have to have high gross profit per student). A lot of schools hover around 50% gross profit per student. So we thought, if are able to integrate vertically (and have both school and staffing platform), we can finance the school portion extremely aggressively (and scale really really fast), and meanwhile actually turn a profit on the staffing platform side. That's the business model reason.
The second reason is that we think that by paying people to finish tasks, assignments, and learning material, we can actually incentivize completion in a much cheaper way than employing a lot of supervisors. So not only are we able to grow faster because of our integration (like above), we can be more efficient at producing students. I think if we weren't trying to scale extremely fast and sustainably we would probably focus on the training portion.
Agreed that it looks more like an investment plan than a loan, especially with the funds being unlocked gradually upon completion of assignments and courses attendance.
My point was that if you strip out the marketing "good intentions" part (not saying that the good intention aren't there), then this looks like a financial product of sort. Which made me wonder why bother combining the financial part with the school. But I got the answer about that.
Note that I'm not in the US, so I can't really get a feel of how risky this is for the student. Is 40k/y a common starting salary for a beginner or is it usually higher? 15% is due when you get to 40k salary, so that would leave you at 34k/y. Is that comfortable, or is that 6k loss hard to absorb?
The thing is, considering the current state of web development, "front-end/back-end/full stack" labels just don't hold up. Knowing cache strategies, all the subtleties of consuming full blown services, orchestrating computing distribution, etc. used to be deemed "back-end" because the webserver did it. Now with service workers, background workers, fetch api, indexedb and many new browser apis and frameworks, you can run all that in a browser. Does that make it in fact "front-end stuff" ? And all the complex tooling to set to do efficient SSR/code splitting, with all this transpiling and bundling, forcing you to understand http, resource and module loading, file system, componentized architecture... Is it more "backendy"?
I recently interviewed for a "full stack" job, first thing I did was asking what they imagined the daily tasks to be. Turned out, it was mostly about dealing with stuff involving data and request flow orchestration spanning on both services and browser, and wiring up some react components to handle the data flow / rendering. The "UI" components are handled by a team of specialists in UI/UX/semantics/accessibility/animation... So what should the job be called ? Client-server app developer? Glue developer? Backend guy who knows the browser as an app platform? Developer of all the stuff you can't see on screen?
I've seen other companies using "full stack" for other meanings. "UI guy who knows how to deploy", "service guy who knows enough to diagnose and patch the front when UI guy has higher priorities", "guy who make templates render data", "guy who will be able to perform maintenance tasks accross all the layers while specialists handle the features"...
So for me, the true problem is that we are collectively bad at describing what we do, and give to non-tech people some umbrella terms that spread more confusion.
a decade or so ago, we had designers who did html and css, and back-end developers who nudged the html into templates and did all the rest.
i used to be a classic back-end developer.
nowadays i am happy to code front-end, because my work hasn't really changed, it's just that many things that i used to do in the back-end are now done in the browser. i am still working with designers who do html and css, and i am still nudging the html into templates.
the one reason i don't like working with css is because most decisions to be made around it are design decisions, which, not having any experience in design are decisions i feel unqualified to make so i dread making them.
I live and work in France, where you legally have 5 weeks of PTO. The 5th week has been introduced 40 years ago. And yet, it's still hard for a lot of HR departments to make sure that employees properly take all of their PTO each year. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, left unsupervised with goals to reach, it seems that most people tend to overwork themselves rather than laze off.