First, way to go! You've chosen to be vulnerable, and that is a great first step.
Second, get a therapist. It may seem expensive, and not helpful at first, but as I'm sure you already felt in writing this post, just talking about your thoughts and issues really does help.
Third, it's NEVER too late. I'm 42 and learning and growing daily. I've had to change a lot in the last decade to remain 1) relevant, and 2) in the loop.
I've had to learn to network again, because my original network of friends and colleagues dried up. It's possible, and after you start with a therapist, it'll be easier and more rewarding than ever before.
Finally, and I can't stress this enough, get out and do service for others. Soup kitchens, shoveling snow, cutting grass, whatever you can do. It will give you an immediate jolt of worth, and make the world a better place for all involved.
I wish you luck friend. If you need more talking, let me know utahcon [at] utahcon dot com
Recognizing and being willing to admit to others that you have an issue is a big barrier to mental healthcare though. People who won't do that don't see a psychiatrist. So OP has taken an important first step that is really difficult for some, and maybe was for him. Certainly he should keep the momentum going though.
You wake up and realize you've been in a car crash. Best thing to do would be try to reach for immediate help, not to focus on or be thankful that you gained consciousness. There is a time and place.
This is still broken. looks like footnote.cc brings you to footnote.cc/sign-up with a signup page but your link about goes to footnote.cc/signup which has no signup page blocking viewing.
To me this comes down to legal. If the person has been documented as a problem, corrective actions have been documented, and whatever you have as an HR dept says it's ok to fire the guy, fire him. If you feel guilty, then offer him a portion of his potential vesting, and explain that he was shit, but you don't want to leave him empty handed.
Is the timing great? No. That's why it must be well documented the behavior your penalizing. He will almost certainly come back to sue you for wrongful termination if there is no documentation (and you have any value to your shares).
You'll have a good chance of getting "we can't pay that, sorry, see you" back. Then if you actually want that job you'll have to walk it back and negotiate down. Not always possible, so it may not be the greatest idea to start at x2.
If they don't counteroffer then they don't want you. This is a negotiation. The starting offer is about anchoring. Neither side should expect the starting offer to be accepted immediately. If it is accepted then one side didn't anchor properly and lost the negotiation. Start with a number you think is too high but still leaves room for the company to negotiate down to an acceptable number for you. I usually don't go for double my target but others might. I usually start out at 150% of my target.
> I usually don't go for double my target but others might. I usually start out at 150% of my target.
150% is far more reasonable than 200%. Let's say you won't take below 100k, Co. won't take above 120k, you offer 150k. From the Co.'s perspective, that's 25% difference, it's worth negotiating. If you offer 200k, that's 66% off what you'll take. Co.'s probably thinking, okay, this guy will take 160 maybe 140 but no way they'll really think they can negotiate down to 120.
At bigger companies there aren't incentives to spend tons of time negotiating a candidate down to the top of your acceptable range, so even if they think they can get you down 80k you're out.
You don't counteroffer a candidate you can't afford. And I think you understand intuitively 200% is too much, which is why you go 150%.
Yeah, I should've expanded the comment more. 150% is more reasonable. A crazy high initial request is not a request, it's just "I want you to say your price first". It almost doesn't matter if you say 200% or "50 bazillion, your turn now". It's not that they don't want you, the hiring people may just assume you're not serious and not counteroffer at all - then it's up to you to come back and update your own offer.
So why not skip that step and start more reasonable?
It's definitely acqui-hire, too. That makes sense! Thanks for the perspective. I'm just wondering what arguments to bring to these types of conversations.
This reminded me of a 30 Rock episode in which Jack Donaghy applies insights from negotiating with his nanny to negotiations with the cable company acquiring NBC.[1] Basically, if you're vital for the acquisition to succeed, you have (some) leverage.
If your 2nd best option is a job making 200k.. and you ask for 800k and they just say no? Well, being cocky just lost you 200k (you could have asked for 400k).
I don't want to be cheeky with them, but at the same time I expect something more than industry standard. The problem is that I have never worked as an employee before and salary negotiations are new territory for me.
No equity of our company but I will get some RSU's and since they are a public company they are limited how much they can hand out and the majority will be in cash and some of it combined with a earn-out.
If the feature isn't something on your roadmap, and it is important to you, or important enough for them to contribute brue code themselves, then politely say, "not on our roadmap" and close the issue.
The only argument I have here (sadly in favor of FB) is with "safeguard people against clone sites". While I did give my data to FB, I didn't approve that transfer to another site/system. That is the only place I could possibly see some legal foot hold.
What happens when FB builds a shadow instagram profile of you based on your FB account? That already happens. FB clones their own data for other projects no different than what you might fear happening if this data were cloned to a third party. The cat is out of the bag already but FB wants to pretend they are the only ones with the right to abuse.
It's impossible to control information once been created. The longer it's existed and the more locations you can see it make that spread exponentially more likely.
Wehether we make that spread of informationlegal or not does little to affect whether it happens.
There are two things that might help. First, don't share as much information. Once it's no longer limited to you or your close group of friends which hopefully won't share it along with your name, it's mostly out of your control. Second, put limits (laws) on what information companies are able to synthesize about you, and how long they can retain it. If there's less information created about you (or it's ephemeral, created and destroyed as needed), and if they need to clean out older data, there's less to be shared or stolen.
“It’s hard to enforce the rule of law” is not a good reason to abandon it entirely. Data privacy laws make data privacy better even without being 100% infallible.
We should be both practicing good data hygiene and using legal tools to combat those who abuse data privacy.
> “It’s hard to enforce the rule of law” is not a good reason to abandon it entirely.
I didn't?
> We should be both practicing good data hygiene and using legal tools to combat those who abuse data privacy.
That's what I said. The first thing is data hygiene, the second is legal requirements. The difference I think is that the legal requirements should be on the actual creation and retention of the data, not just who owns it, who it can be shared with, etc.
As soon as PII information over a certain age is radioactive and linked to a fine per person, all of a sudden there'll be a lot less giant repositories of PII to worry about.
We’re hiring a mid-level software engineer to work on our Android mobile application. This app is the way that tens of thousands of people control their smart Pura fragrance diffuser. From controlling the smart diffuser hardware, to managing fragrance subscriptions, your code will be making a meaningful difference in how people interact with our product.
You’ll be working in a cross-functional team of talented people from across the world where everybody can participate in the solution and make an impact on the product we deliver to customers. Ideally you’ll have worked on Android applications before, but if you’re well-versed in Kotlin or Java and have a curious mind, you’ll pick things up no problem. We believe nobody starts any role as an expert. We want to find motivated people who want to do their best work rather than finding someone who has done it before. As a progressive company, we love to learn new skills, grow, and have fun. Therefore we’re not afraid of adopting new technologies that could help us increase our development speed and deliver the best experience to our customers.
Send resumes to bear@pura.co and I will get you in the pipeline!
My mother got me to listen to the directors commentary of SG-1 and there are real gems in there.
For example, how the early seasons had a 1,2,3 use of the phasers. Zap 'em once, and they are incapacitated, twice and they are dead, and 3... cleans up the mess... They abandoned it later because it was "too convenient".
Also, take notice of the giant wrench that appears from time to time in the background scenes in the base.
Also, there are so many callbacks and references in every episode, you really can spend hours or days drawing lines through story elements to see how long running some jokes are in the later parts of the series.
And then in "Wormhole Extreme" with the 'fake sg1 program' they had a problem that the stun guns lefts loads of badguys on the ground for a romantic scene
Director: We've already established that one shot stuns, and two shots kills. Nick just shot everybody twice.
Martin: So, three shots disintegrates them!
Director: OK, you know what? I'm going to pretend you didn't say that, because that is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say.
They dropped the third shot feature after the second season
> For example, how the early seasons had a 1,2,3 use of the phasers. Zap 'em once, and they are incapacitated, twice and they are dead, and 3... cleans up the mess... They abandoned it later because it was "too convenient".
Not only because of that. Actors didn't like the design since the prop for Zats looked like penis.
I always found how they make fun of some of the early bonehead decisions in the show to be hilarious. Also just how Richard Dean Anderson was just having fun and not necessarily taking anything seriously especially towards the end
I think RDA took that a little too far at the end actually. I remember it coming across as disappointing or lazy, like he was just phoning it for the cheque.
