If Spotify started charging $15 instead of $9.99 I wouldn't care, I would still pay. They are simply the best music streaming service out there IMO.
I payed for Google Music for a bit a while ago and I hated it and switch to Spotify. The experience was awful. I'm also pretty sure that Google Music rips audio from Youtube in certain cases which makes the audio quality terrible.
> I payed for Google Music for a bit a while ago and I hated it and switch to Spotify.
It's always so interesting how people can have similar experiences but come out with completely different perspectives. For me, the Google Play Radio feature is the most important thing they have. It's like a Pandora that doesn't play you the same three songs over and over. When I would try and use the radio feature on Spotify it would play music that was not even close to the original other than it maybe being in the "alternative" category.
Spotify eventually makes great recommendations. The Daily Mixes (I think there's always 6) consistently deliver music I enjoy while maintaining a much better "genre theme" than anything I ever heard from Pandora.
I say eventually, because it's conditional on you using the service to seek out a variety of music you enjoy, and also on providing feedback via thumbsup/add-to-library actions. Try this for a month and you'll get good recommendations that continue improving over time.
I also tried Google Music for a while before leaving it. They enticed me by offering to host all my MP3s, so I could stream my entire collection to any of my devices.
Later I found out they would use user uploads in their catalog (when legally able), so it sounds more likely that someone uploaded a bad copy that was shared, rather than Google ripping music from youtube.
I'm from BC, so it was actually a decrease in the cost of living. Seattle had cheaper consumer goods, cheaper gas, less taxes and cheaper housing. SF is a bit more expensive, but houses cost about the same as Vancouver while rent is higher.
This is problem with flex time. Companies love to advertise flex time, but when you come in at 7am and leave at 3, you get tons of looks and even the odd comment.
I recently had a chat with my direct supervisor. I told him I would like to start working flex time 8AM to 4PM and cut my lunch break to 30 minutes, eventually working 8AM to 4:30PM. He had a talk with his boss, gave me the O.K., I requested it in a written e-mail.
Since then, I come in at 08:00AM every morning, I get two and a half hours of productive work until people start coming in and the meetings start. Then I eat lunch and work for 3 more hours and I head for home. I never care about the looks I get from other people because I CMA.
What I want to say is that, as long as you have a Cover Your Ass document, you shouldn't care about how others negotiated their position.
I also requested extra days instead of a pay increase. Should I feel bad about that also?
This. Whenever I tell people to get stuff in writing to cover themselves, they think I'm just being a stickler and that doing so would just set a bad mood in the working relationship. But I've never found this to be true. Just be professional in negotiations and make everything crystal clear, because you can be sure that anything fuzzy or muddy is coming back in your face later, one way or another.
Also this:
> I also requested extra days instead of a pay increase.
If your extra days are paid (I'm assuming they are given the latter part) then it may well be a smarter deal fiscally even without the pay increase, particularly if your marginal tax is high.
You're extracting more value by working less, freeing your time up to do other things. Those other things may well end up netting you more money over time (working on your own company, for instance.) As well, depending on where you live and work, you may also end up paying a different tax rate on holiday pay over regular pay. If so you may be able to accrue those holidays and eventually receive a lump sum payout that is in effect "cheaper" than regular pay. The difference can be significant, particularly if your income is in the upper brackets.
This happened to me in my first job. I'm definitely a night-owl, but I was tired of coming in at 10-11 and leaving after dark, after everyone else including my boss had left, so I decided to change my routine and get up early and get to work by ~7-8. This worked great for about a week, until my boss started complaining about me leaving so early. So I switched back to my old routine of coming in really, really late, after everyone else did, and then leaving late after everyone else (but only barely, I'd just wait until everyone else was gone and then take off), but still only working 8 hours (maybe). Suddenly I was seen as a "hard worker" again.
Complaining might be a strong word, but I would definitely have a pithy comeback ready at the first sign of criticism, eg. "Ok, Mr. StartsAtEleven…", "early to bed, early to rise..", etc.
The tons of looks and odd comments bug the shit out of me. Being an engineer, my job is to produce, period. Don't worry about where it happens, just know that every time you pick up the phone and promise something that doesn't exist to someone else, the fact that it suddenly, magically, exists for you to show them is because people like me are plugging away around the clock. Dev work isn't 9-5. It's 24/7 and whenever the light bulb goes off.
well.. yes and no. you aren't developing in a vacuum unless you're the only dev in the company, and even in that case you'd have some coordination to do.
drives me nuts when I need to run something by a dev and he's gone at 2 pm and I need to wait till he gets into the beer-induced code rage mode at 10 pm and even then he might be on slack or maybe not :)
Just wondering what would you do if you need to run something by a Dev at, say, 5PM. Or 7. Or 10 in the night?
Or at 2am, when Asia woke up to a big change-request/bug/whatever?
It my case, things went beyond odd looks. You're technically obeying the company policy, so they can't punish you officially, but there are lots of ways to punish you unofficially for violating an unwritten social convention. In my case, suddenly I wasn't trusted with working on anything more complicated than the most basic bug fix.
Most companies I've dealt with had some sort of "core hours" policy in place.
Typically 8am - 4pm unless your job requires you to work with ppl in different time zones on a regular bases.
Anything outside of that would require your manager's approval. 7-3 is typically not a major issue with the exception that you'll stay later if need be for meetings/P1s (although that's a different can of worms) etc.
I thought the idea behind core hours was supposed to be less than 8 hours, as it's time everyone is guaranteed to be there, with wiggle at the beginning and the end, not just 'these are your hours'.
Like at a previous job, core hours was 10:00am to 4:00pm. Some people came in at 7:30am and left at 4:00pm, some people didn't get in until 10:00am and left at 6:30pm. But from 10 to 4, everyone was supposed to be there.
you're right. I should've went with 9-4 vs. 8-4. 10-4 is pretty generous, I personally never encountered a company with core hours officially starting after 9. That's not to say that I haven't encountered individuals showing up around 10 on a regular basis :)
Maybe I'm just insanely lucky, but having worked with a "biased-early" schedule for a number of tech companies in and out of Silicon Valley, I've not once witnessed looks or comments about when I go home. Now, if someone's strolling in at 11AM and leaving at 4PM (which I have seen often), they shouldn't be surprised if that behavior raises a few eyebrows.
That's not a problem with flex time, it's a problem with company culture. Flex time works where I work. We have people who come in early and leave early and we have people we regularly come it around lunch and stay until the lights go out.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the start up world these days, due to a lot of clashing ego's. But I can respect Jason for telling it straight.
I don't think anything should be "shamed", just because it's not something you agree with. Allow people to operate however they want, it's a free country after all.
Yes, which would be fine if other people weren't involved and didn't have to suffer the consequences, especially children that have absolutely zero control over their situation. But, it's pretty dangerous territory to actually advocate in favor of neglecting one's children/spouse. You don't get do-overs with your children/spouse, and they can be harmed in ways that may not manifest themselves until later.
Having said that: if you don't have a spouse/children, then go for it.
There is a business model behind it but Layers itself will always be free and we'll be here to support it! We've been in the WP game since '09 and have zero intention of going anywhere anytime soon :)
Its the "Forever" part that makes me not want to use it as much, because I'm afraid of actually liking it and coming to depend on it, and then it going away. I'd much rather just pay some modest amount and know that I'm contributing to a viable business than hope that the owners have a business plan that works with "Free Forever"
I can assure you that in the WP industry paid for themes is not a guarantee for success. We know, we've been there with Obox Themes. We have a business plan that we are confident will keep Layers around for a VERY long time.
Asked the same question myself. P5 to Processing. The differences give you an insight to the advantages.
"... you're not limited to your drawing canvas, you can think of your whole browser page as your sketch! For this, p5.js has addon libraries that make it easy to interact with other HTML5 objects, including text, input, video, webcam, and sound. ..." ~ https://github.com/lmccart/p5.js#how-is-this-different-than-...
The differences b/w P5 and ProcessingJS isn't enough if P5 isn't as stable or compatible.
If Spotify started charging $15 instead of $9.99 I wouldn't care, I would still pay. They are simply the best music streaming service out there IMO.
I payed for Google Music for a bit a while ago and I hated it and switch to Spotify. The experience was awful. I'm also pretty sure that Google Music rips audio from Youtube in certain cases which makes the audio quality terrible.