Sometimes I let people explain something I already know because they either explain it better or add more detail. Even a well described reminder is useful and interesting if told well.
Sometimes though it's not useful and it's them explaining poorly or, even worse, pointless simplification. They'll get interrupted fast if either of those is the case.
... when that question of should I leave becomes repetitive enough then the answer is usually then yes but not yet. The not yet part is really the warning that you need to prepare to leave or prepare to change.
If you have doubts about staying then you also have no doubt that something is wrong.
But honestly, if you can't pick up the basics of factorio in a few minutes you're less qualified than the nine-year-olds and sixty-year-olds I've taught programming to. No background in programming or software development at all. That's a very low standard.
And yes, I've used factorio in those lessons as a tool. It's great for teaching refactoring in a visual way with no code at all. I usually set a class homework project involving the factorio demo. It works well.
It's really not that hard to play factorio.
Ok. With all that said and even with all those happy experiences I still wouldn't use factorio for interviews because I think leetcode and similar are also bad approaches. Same with algorithm questions. They're out as well.
what a fucked up assumption that every should understand the game. what if i don't like games. never played one but also never had any issues with calculus. well i can say it's a f** up thing dum people needs gaming to learn maths.
I've moved on from gamification and thoroughly removed all such interventions from everything. I found the extrinsic nature of the mechanisms wasn't helping and were creating a distraction in and of themselves.
Metrics are generally overrated in my view. The ones that matter really matter but the rest are just noise that slows and obfuscates.
I think the usual retort is that at any moment and for any inexplicable reason your entire infrastructure can be deleted for some reason you barely know let alone comprehend. This seems to be the case for apps at least.
I neither support nor deny this belief but it's an increasingly common impression.
I'd be interested in the backstory to this. (Like everyone else I guess)
Seems like I dodged a bullet. I was looking at this a few months ago. Decided to play with love2d instead. Did a few projects in it. Then I got into unreal engine. A further distraction via cryengine used up the remainder of my time. I was about to get into the machinery in September.
Wow. Godot was to be October. So yeah. Bring that forwards.
That EULA is likely a bad idea in general. It's also most likely against the law in some jurisdictions. The backstory would be of interest mainly for probably avoiding these Devs in future if there wasn't a good reason for the debacle. Sour taste all round.
The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs. Difficult doesn't imply impossible however. One countering argument is that the more people there are the more taxation there is to support social programs. The truth therefore is that immigration has both good and bad aspects so there's a balancing point: Fully open or fully closed borders are likely a bad idea in general.
"Social programs" here being things like education and health. "Minor" things like that...
> The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs
The counter argument is that in an aging Country like mine, less immigration is killing social programs (caregivers are mostly immigrants here) and entire economic sectors (like catering and hospitality) because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job, but the trumpets both left and right shout that the other party is not doing enough to create new jobs and people lament that they can't find one.
We can call it the Schrödinger job that's both nowhere to be found by employers and yet highly prized among the population.
I believe Schrödinger would be very surprised to see that his experiment can be applied to social phenomenon and not only to quantum mechanics.
> because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job at a price employers want to pay
> Fixed it for you
I like people who assume without knowing like anybody else, but that's not the point.
These are jobs that usually pay above average salaries, people simply don't want to work on the evening (restaurants serve dinners, you know...) or in the weekend (restaurants work the most when people do not work or are on holiday etc. etc.)
So they both want the money and the time.
Long story short: they don't want to do the job, which is legit, but can't at the same time complain that there are no jobs IMO.
> There is never a labour shortage, only a shortage at a particular wage rate
There are limits though, over a certain threshold it becomes nonsensical, at some point it's better to kill the job sector entirely and call it a day.
If a waiter wants the same salary of a CEO, probably she/he's shooting too high...
Or they imagine that restaurants should be for billionaires only, that would shrink the number of available jobs to the bare minimum and skyrocket the skills needed to actually do the job.
Schrodinger at work here too.
p.s.: in my Country collective negotiation is the norm, one cannot easily pay radically different salaries for the same job. On the flip side once hired it's not as easy as in other Countries to be fired, it is actually pretty difficult to fire someone.
>> These are jobs that usually pay above average salaries, people simply don't want to work on the evening (restaurants serve dinners, you know...)
People will do all sorts of unsavoury jobs if the pay is high enough. Plenty of people work night shifts in various jobs.
>> There are limits though, over a certain threshold it becomes nonsensical, at some point it's better to kill the job sector entirely and call it a day.
This we can agree on.
------ Update due to the posting too fast rules ----
If I offered to pay you $10,000/night as a waiter in a restaurant, I guess you would take the job. I would.
If I offered you $1/night, you probably wouldn't.
Hopefully, somewhere between those two points is a number that will get people to work and be profitable for the restaurant owner. I'm not sure why people think supply and demand applies to other goods but not labour.
> People will do all sorts of unsavoury jobs if the pay is high enough. Plenty of people work night shifts in various jobs.
One would think...
Problem is that people that are willing to do that are not that many as you imagine.
Maybe where you come from people would kill themselves for money, but not here.
You know who would do almost anything to get a job and become better integrated with society while also feeling better about themselves?
Immigrants.
> If I offered to pay you $10,000/night as a waiter in a restaurant, I guess you would take the job. I would.
Surprise, I would not.
My best friends have restaurants and pubs, if I ever wanted to do that job I would already do that.
But it's not my job, it's not what I am good at and if someone gave me $10,000 night to do that job I would feel like a fraud. Also I would imagine that if you pay me that much, one that is actually good at the job is being paid at least 2x that amount, because I really suck at that!
People have consciences, believe it or not not everyone is a money-slut.
I'm much better off doing my job, which is what I really like to do.
But back on topic: if you offer a waiter 2,000 euros / month + tips (it's a very good salary in Italy) and they stop coming at work after a few days "because I wanted to go to the beach with my friends" there's something different going on, which is not "not enough money".
Besides: there are many psychological studies that point out that people would accept lower salaries for more meaningful jobs or better work/life balance and that they work more willingly if it's a favor to someone (even if it's people they do not know) and/or for free than for a paid position, where they feel like they are only doing it for the money but don't really wanna do that. So they prefer to say no to the money and don't do the thing at all.
Correlations have been found.
For example, I would push someone on a wheelchair for free, but if they offered me money to do it, I would politely refuse with an excuse, because it's not something I wanna do for money (not that I do not like money in general, it's that I do not want to do it as a job, paying someone it's exactly that: hiring the person for the job)
>But back on topic: if you offer a waiter 2,000 euros / month + tips
This is poverty wages. That waiter would never be able to afford a home and family of his own. The waiter would find time to go to the beach around his work schedule if he was properly compensated.
> Yes, I find it surprising. Seems to not compute.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
I have to guess that you're slave to the money, I'm not.
I really don't care about them , as long my life is not in danger.
> This is poverty wages
LOL
American, right?
Average salaries in Europe are not much higher than that
Italy: €1.740
Spain: €1.800
Portugal: €1.1160
UK: €2.200
And these numbers are after taxes (which are quite high for US standards here, but also they really are not if you wanna define yourself a decent developed Country). So the employer is spending almost 2x, which is not bad per se if you ask me, but that's still something to consider.
> . The waiter would find time to go to the beach around his work schedule if he was properly compensated.
Restaurants are closed usually at least one day/week and 2-3 weeks off-season (it depends on the geography for some it's August for others it's fall/winter).
It's just that most of them close during the week and people want to go to the beach with friends and/or family on weekends.
But then again, you don't complain that there is no job if you don't want to do any job you're cut for and are not qualified for well paid, highly skilled jobs.
Please, if you wanna discuss things, can you at least learn the bare minimum to actually have a conversation that is not entirely based on your prejudices and stereotypes?
Perhaps you could open a restaurant and pay people as much as they want to live a comfortable life. If you could do that and stay in business I would be most impressed.
Won't be able to stay in business without workers. If workers cannot live comfortably on their wages, they'll choose another job that provides those wages.
Most people earn what they can, and live off it as best they can. If that means single bedroom apartment with 10 family members eating beans and rice, then that is what it is.
People on HN tend to be out of touch with how lower income people actually live.
In my own life over the course of twenty years I went from: living in a tent with 3 others for a year, to a one bedroom apartment with a roommate in the living room, to an apartment with just my wife, to buying a house and starting a family, to then buying a house with a pool and sending my kids to decent schools.
The point is that rice and beans is temporary. As a worker, I continued to work towards better employment that provided the life I required. The vast majority of folks I knew along the way did the same. All 4 of the folks in that original tent with me are comfortably middle class nowadays.
If there are more job openings than there are workers to fill them, then it doesn't matter what wages anyone is willing to pay, surely some of those jobs are going to go un-filled?
There are lots of people for whom logic, and logical consistency, are non-priorities. If they are anti-immigrant* and emotional, assume that they're trying to articulate their emotions - not get an 'A' on their Public Policy 401 term paper, nor favorably impress people with quite different priorities and educational backgrounds from their own.
*Of course, their anti-immigrant "beliefs" may learned from demagoguery they've been exposed to, which was a good-enough emotional match for their economic & social pain & insecurity.
Three paragraphs and you dismiss it with a sentence. Since you're criticising I think you could have done better.
The asking questions approach is a great way to dig out the weeds especially when someone's thinking appears to be a mess. Especially if you think they are somehow malicious or have a less than positive intent.
But water freezes and gets bigger. It's inflationary!
So in real terms they're paying people less AND company exec bonuses are well beyond reasonable. Yet any argument towards a pay rise on that minimum wage is seen as inflationary.
Sometimes though it's not useful and it's them explaining poorly or, even worse, pointless simplification. They'll get interrupted fast if either of those is the case.