There are people even worse who take a certificate-type course at Harvard/MIT and put it as their last education on LinkedIn. Who knows what their resume looks like, but I always think it is the biggest joke.

I know several successful people who have done the Harvard Extension School, and all of them clearly show they went to the extension school and not actually Harvard. All of them would probably be decidedly less successful, or would have had more barriers come their way, if they were trying to pass across what they did as actually Harvard.

It isn't that hard to just follow the decorum.

I honestly don't see how it's blurring lines. If it is, it is slight at best and can be explained simply.

My only programming jobs were contracts and the difference, especially legally, is a far cry from what Apple and others are doing. I also fail to see the logic of saying a W2 contract is not as good as direct hire yet contract to direct is somehow equal to direct. The contract and contract to hire are both the same thing, same job, same process to get in, same pay from the same company, with the same unemployment compensation with one minor difference.

I don't understand the extension school comparison. You pay money to get into extension courses, which has no prerequisite aside from a desire to do it. This comparison minimizes the work and base knowledge you need to get a contracting gig like I described. The logical equivalent is walking into Apple and Apple taking all comers, which is obviously not happening.

Clearly, I and many others are so pathologically dishonest that we plan to take advantage of ignorant hiring managers. We are willing to risk being fired, fined, and imprisoned for falsifying information on resumes, but at least we can all assume the HR detective squad will take five years to figure it out, so there is plenty of time to plant our scum in a new place before we find ourselves in a legal cross hairs.

Please don't confuse ignorance with malice, lest we confuse life with a Beavis and Butthead movie.

This is wrong.

The process to become a W2 contract worker is likely a phone screen and an in-person interview or thereabouts.

The process to become a former W2 contractor that is now a full-time hire is the initial phone screen and in-person, along with several months (3-12) of demonstrated proficiency.

That is absolutely significant.

That's like saying a programming bootcamp and cs degree are the same thing. You can't convince people of a fire in the room no matter how hard you try.

I have a question that is a shot in the dark, maybe someone can help me. My partner in a big btree project didnt get the part done she was suposed to so now im trying to do her part real quick before due date (tomorrow).

In this picture, on line 55 i make an empty string.
on line 62 I add to this empty string if it is a certain letter
on line 65, I am doing a snapshot print out 200 iterations in, and as we can see from the console output on the left, tempHolder version 1.5 does have letters in it.
On line 70, all the sudden tempHolder has lost all its *****ng values, magically

I know this is a long shot but does anyone know wtf is going on here?



Fwiw I'm just throwing random tests in partners code to find out where the problem is. So dont judge me

edit: also, any and all immediate feedback would be a godsend so dont be shy to guess here xD

edit: i added System.out.println(tempHolder.length()); to line 71 and it said 5028 but there is nothing there ........
maybe there is a max size for strings in java or some weird thing going on here?

Could you quote several prominent cases on the subject? I'd love to expand my knowledge.

Thru some testing I found that even if I use a string builder, as soon as the length of the string is 4096 it will no longer show up as having any value, just a bunch of white spaces. 4096 obv is the standard block size for a hard drive. Maybe it is a setting in eclipse that is creating this behavior?

edit: found the problem, had to do with eclipse. fixed by doing preferences->run/debug->console->fixed-width->some integer

If there is anything to be learned from tech unicorns (other than women can defraud and kill people to make billions on paper just as easily as men) is that a great PR machine can convince anyone that laws are kinda guidelines and that you're not running an international criminal enterprise.

ETA: Oyah, this is great too if it fits your circumstances.

Welcome to java programming

Yes. When we talk about people's tenure with our company we only count from their hire date not their contractor time.

There are no prominent cases that are analogous to what you're describing because it does not happen. Pretty much no lawyer will be stupid enough to advise firing someone for another reason and make up a poor pretext of the sort you're talking about. Presumably, they are going to use the actual reason instead. Here are some cases (for public agencies I think) that went to court:

http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/empl226.html

Note how egregious the lying is in some cases, yet sometimes the employee won or at least went to court to fight it. There's absolutely nothing subtle here about the lying in any of the cases. Also note not one mention of resume - resumes are marketing documents that are by their nature a limited view of the applicant, not intended to answer specific questions - every single case here was based on lying on the job application which asked specific questions. Because resume is not a formal document and is not something that's treated uniformly from one applicant to another, it's going to be impossible for you to prove that others are treated similarly.

Here's some other commentary:

http://www.mofo.com/resources/public...tary-june-2008

Don't forget that they are talking about cases where people are actually lying, seriously, on a job application. Not someone neglecting to mention something that wasn't asked for on a resume. And at least one thing people are talking about here is whether the misrepresentation is related to the employee's capacity in some ways. You're going to have a really hard time proving in court that someone whose work has been satisfactory for years is actually no good to you now that you know that he forgot to mention TEKsystems was the intermediary in one of the contracts on the resume, when you did not explicitly ask for the information at the time. If you're going to catch it, you need your own job application form with a question like, was this a contract position, then specify the client and the contracting firm.

Cool. Thanks.

Neither of those are pertinent despite what you may think. (You seem to get way off course in a lot of business related topics through just poor thinking.)

I mean this to me is just paranoid thinking. Presumably, someone wants to fire you, most of the time, there's probably a good reason. Why do you think they can't just use that reason instead? The vast majority of reasons to fire someone are completely valid. Why would they invent some weak-ass reason related to the incompletness of your resume? Every resume is incomplete. And blatantly making stuff up regarding why you want an employee gone opens you up to a massive legal liability and the possibility of contradicting paper trails everywhere. If you're open and truthful, there generally is no reason to worry about these kinds of black swan events. This whole thing seems kind of conspiratorial. Also:

Do you now see how wrong you were about this? People are going to court over situations where they are completely legitimately fired for lying on their job applications to get a job. And you got the bar wrong - from their perspective, "having a reasonable case" is not enough - they must think that their case is so strong that it's very unlikely that someone will sue over this.

And Mihkel, you also do this weird thing where you make up stuff and then ask other people to prove that you're wrong, as though others' failure to demonstrate conclusively that you're wrong is strong evidence in favor of your arguments. How about you bring up any instance of HR doing this? Why would they do this? If they want to fire someone, either they can use the actual reason they want to fire or if that reason is difficult to prove from a legal perspective, they can just give you generous severance and have you agree to terminate employment mutually (the latter is pretty easy for most white-collar type employees). This is all totally standard practice. Like in what kind of universe do you think HR keeps resume discrepancy as some kind of dirt on their employees and use it as a trump card to get out situations where they desperately want to get rid of someone but can't? The whole point of all these inane HR procedures is to establish consistency - the moment you fail to act on something, you lose consistency and open yourself to a liability.

I see you claiming that no one will fire someone for a misdemeanor crime of fraud. That is totally nuts. I see you claiming that there is a bunch of case law about the subject, yet are unable to provide any.

Not really much to add.

You tend to digress on marginal subjects where you make weird assumptions and then create an entire edifice of behavior based on faulty underpinnings. (Previously you mentioned inventing a better offense than misdemeanor fraud where you are the victim.) Honestly, I don't think there is any benefit to continuing this "discussion". Virtually everyone agrees there is a material difference between independent contractors hired for <whatever> and employees of that company. There are specific laws that cover this sort of fraud and I'm saying that engaging in this sort of fraud is a pretty dumb idea. (There is a decent and conflicting body of case law that covers resume fraud as a defense for a variety of wrongdoing while the employee is employed even.)

Do you see how wrong you are?

This is pretty ironic. Please quote where I claimed this.

Mihkel - this is what you wrote initially. Whenever they feel like it. Doesn't even matter whether it's legit or not. That's what you wrote. "Whenever" here implies that they can choose not to act on it until later. "Doesn't matter if its legit" implies that this may not be actual legitimate reason why they want you gone. Now are you saying if HR is seriously concerned that what you did with your resume is a misdemeanor, they may choose to terminate employment exactly for that reason? That doesn't at all square with where you were going with this initially.

First of all, this is not a misdemeanor and second, I specifically said you could absolutely be fired for this:

Like most resumes don't even say "this thing in bold was the employer" and "this other thing is title/role." Resumes are going to look like this:

Apple
Contractor
- blah blah blah
- blah blah blah

You're saying this is criminal where as

Apple (Via TEKsystems)
Contractor (W2 employee @ TEKsystems)
- blah blah blah
- blah blah blah

this is all kosher? Is there some kind of law in terms of exactly which information should appear where and in what text format? This is why there are job applications and you're asked to fill out information even when everything is in your resume anyway. It doesn't seem to me that you have strong understanding of relevant law or how the law is applied or why HR does what they do and what standard practices look like.

So we're developing these angular widgets which will be hosted in a central place, but can be embedded into an html page by any edge system scattered throughout our enterprise. It's all wired up on the client(browser) side. All the browser knows is its hosting a bunch of JS from another domain.

Im looking for a way for whitelisted applications using them to identify and verify themselves. Something like Oath, but more lightweight. Ideally it could be generated with a few lines of Java or JavaScript and a shared key/secret which lives on the application server.

Any ideas?

Shh we're busy arguing about resumes

What about having both of them generate a key in the same format (number, number, string, number, string)[52a4z for example]. Compare the string format... if its the same then its assumed to be a legit request for that resource. You can use Math.random() to generate pseudo random strings in the correct format.

Math.random().toString(36).substring(2) is my jam

But then how do you decode that on the other end to know it's legit?

As long as you have complex requirements for this psuedo random string, then all you need to verify is that it conforms to the correct format, limited range of values, etc that you've set in the key generator. Let's say you're generating a hexadecimal key. You might check that every value in the string falls within the hexadecimal alphabet. If it does, you assume its a legit request for that resource.

Just spent about 4 hours pulling out my hair trying to figure out why yo couldn't find my generator.

Turns out at least on a Mac, when you upgrade node/npm, it moves your global stuff to a new location. So there's still symlinks in your old system (global) files location. And npm actively looks at those *before* the new symlinks. Awesome.

Then another 30 minutes because yo broke their flow from version 1.6 to 1.7.1.