you're right - it's kinda funny that boot camps are promoted because "university is a terrible way to learn programming", but they then try and sell boot camps as an effective way to learn the framework de jour.
Maybe if you finished an undergrad you'd be well equipped to stay on top of an ever-changing tech landscape?
well all those courses that aren't comp sci are still part of a degree, still require learning skills and still promote university-level thinking and production.
I think bootcamps actually demand a far higher rate of output and often at a very high level within specializations. The problem is I don't want to hire someone who can crank out bleeding edge framework code 20 hrs/day for 6 months.
From what I've seen, most people treat the university as a prerequisite to getting a decent job. Only a very small percentage actually treat all classes in a serious way. Most just skate by in a majority of classes that they deem to be filler.
As someone who dropped out of college after the first two years (before specializing in a degree), I'm not sure "university-level thinking and production" is actually meaningful.
It isn’t. It’s like transfer learning generally, despite decades of research trying to find it there’s no real evidence for it. Learning Latin barely makes you better at learning Italian, never mind reasoning. People learn what they’ve been taught and overwhelmingly don’t generalize.
University level work in physics, literature and chemistry are so different as to have basically no overlap. University level is as meaningful as high school level in a world where Calclulus II tells you the course covered calculus and is otherwise uninformative.
what you are arguing is the captured surplus under the supply curve. We can assume that demand is essentially inelastic for a relatively large price range (hence the introduction of rent control) so the extracted value is the area under a curve that changes rapidly over the short term, or a less volatile curve that shifts out 7% every year. I don't see how either of you can be confident in the expected future actuals.
you didn't have to make that response before the law, as a hot market that drove up rates by 15% could be addressed shortly. If you loose the option to make quick upward decisions and any downward movement is essentially irreversible, game theory suggests you'll try to minimize how much increase you leave on the table.
Downward movement isn't irreversible, it's rate of reverse is capped. And the rate limit is pegged to inflation. And roughly equivalent with expected average stock market returns [1].
Anyone else remember CD Now? Human-curated lists based on "if you like this you might like". Because they were actual people who loved and knew music they worked. Amazon wrecked that too.
Very good point. The best developer I ever worked with said to me one time "I'm thoroughly unemployable", meaning his skills, motivations and long term goals did not match what-so-ever with those of a employee developer.
He was a great resource but hiring him permanently would be a terrible mistake for all parties.
I've worked with some like that, they're easily bored and will work well as tech-cofounders, the ones who can rewrite the entire code stack in a weekend.
What about focus on direct referrals who have worked with a current employee? The highest signaling characteristic I've ever found is someone who was recommended by a former coworker; there's a transitive relationship that seems to capture both the technical skills and a comfortable fit.
I realize this doesn't scale to the rapid growth of some companies, but most of us need a more modest supply of talent vs. giant pools of people.
This is a good question because all the manufacturers are totally integrated; It's really hard to determine "where a car is made" because of parts and sub-assembly.
That said, several of the car sites tally up the origin of the parts and assembly and calculate the percentage (likely on a value-added basis) to determine "domestic content":
Maybe I don't understand what this is measuring but wouldn't Teslas be close to all-American? They even make the battery cells in the same site as the rest of the car I think. They don't show up anywhere on that list.
Well first a Tacoma is actually a truck; even Honda states the ridgeline is not intended to compete with traditional trucks, is not built for towing and uses a unibody construction.
Tacomas are expensive, the dealers don't deal and they hold their resale value. The new (2019) Tacoma trades heavily on it's reputation IMO, without really adding much new over the past 3-4 years. It's a real off-road vehicle though, if that's important to you.
In this format/size I'd suggest you take a look at the new Ranger. It's nothing fancy but much more affordable. It's pretty much the polar opposite of the Ridgeline.
Maybe if you finished an undergrad you'd be well equipped to stay on top of an ever-changing tech landscape?