Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

rick_chasey

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

I think some Youtube channels are very good, much better than a lot of the dross on TV.

There are but there is a helluva lot of shyte.
The average 8 to 18 year old kid is drawn to it like moths to a lamp.

You think TV is any better? Have a flick through all the sky channels.

This is all just moral panic like there was about TV back in the day, and before that radio, etc.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

I think some Youtube channels are very good, much better than a lot of the dross on TV.

There are but there is a helluva lot of shyte.
The average 8 to 18 year old kid is drawn to it like moths to a lamp.

You think TV is any better? Have a flick through all the sky channels.

This is all just moral panic like there was about TV back in the day, and before that radio, etc.

I wouldn't know, I don't have Sky.

focuszing723

How do people decide what design of tattoo to have? Bar laser surgery, or disguising it with another travesty, the doodle is there for life.

masjer

I understand people getting tattoos, to feel like an individual in an overpopulated world.
They are so common now, that by not having one, I’m feeling more like an individual.

focuszing723

masjer said:

I understand people getting tattoos, to feel like an individual in an overpopulated world.
They are so common now, that by not having one, I’m feeling more like an individual.

Yep, that's a fair point.

orraloon

In Shappsie mode, I advocate that all #toryscum members have a mandatory 'I Voted Hi-Risk' or 'I voted Haziest' tattoo permanently displayed so that we all know who did it.

pinno

orraloon said:

In Shappsie mode, I advocate that all #toryscum members have a mandatory 'I Voted Hi-Risk' or 'I voted Haziest' tattoo permanently displayed so that we all know who did it.

Not 'TNUC' on their foreheads to remind themselves every time they look in the mirror?

rick_chasey

Constantly blown away by how consistently smart, capable, hard working, and reasonable, top talent coming out of non-developed countries are, and how plainly what's holding these countries back is not lack of ability.

West doesn't know how lucky they are they can attract them.

If you can get your clients to overcome their prejudices (harder work than you'd think), holy moly, they get some good people.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Constantly blown away by how consistently smart, capable, hard working, and reasonable, top talent coming out of non-developed countries are, and how plainly what's holding these countries back is not lack of ability.

West doesn't know how lucky they are they can attract them.

If you can get your clients to overcome their prejudices (harder work than you'd think), holy moly, they get some good people.

So where are you recruiting from in this respect? (He asks, from an industry with shocking diversity because the Russell Group will do, that constantly asks itself why all the people emerging from the production line look and sound the same).

rick_chasey

All sorts. What made me think of that is I’ve met an astonishing number of good candidates from Nigeria and Zimbabwe. Often they come out of the presidential advisor circles or lead various international NGOs

One Zimbabwean guy was a doctor turned investment guy. I asked why the career change and he said he realised when he was a doctor people were more concerned with and spent more time asking about how to protect their wealth (given the dire situation) than about their health, so he figured he’d help more people by getting into investment.

Guy was incredible. Lad’s doing quite well now ✌🏻✌🏻

First.Aspect

Wonder if we basically don't pay well enough. We take STEM graduates, PhD's and early career scientists and engineers and pay them in the £30-£40k range for another few years until they are useful. They can't train anywhere outside of Europe, and there's no culture of patent protection in many parts of the developed world, so it's a catch 22.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

Wonder if we basically don't pay well enough. We take STEM graduates, PhD's and early career scientists and engineers and pay them in the £30-£40k range for another few years until they are useful. They can't train anywhere outside of Europe, and there's no culture of patent protection in many parts of the developed world, so it's a catch 22.

Totally. If any Brit was as good as they were they'd be snapped up long ago.

Can also often make a bigger impact in a big Western company.

But these top guys, they can make orders of magnitude more if they make it in the West. Even being mediocre is pretty lucrative in the right industry.

rick_chasey

Did have a US client bin off the best candidate by miles in the process because his first name was Jihad.

Said he couldn’t make it work in HQ. Appalling.

focuszing723

Right. The Yanks have been to the Moon with astronauts, they've even driven a little bugy thing on it, stuck in flags n $h1t. So why the flippedy fook are they p1ss1n about with tests n stuff with unmanned mission to the Moon? They've done it... Mmmnm, or have they?

Jezyboy

First.Aspect said:

Wonder if we basically don't pay well enough. We take STEM graduates, PhD's and early career scientists and engineers and pay them in the £30-£40k range for another few years until they are useful. They can't train anywhere outside of Europe, and there's no culture of patent protection in many parts of the developed world, so it's a catch 22.

30-40 for a few years isn't particularly poor for STEM grads though, with the exception of a few edge cases.

rjsterry

Seems quite reasonable to me as a starting point.

First.Aspect

Jezyboy said:

First.Aspect said:

Wonder if we basically don't pay well enough. We take STEM graduates, PhD's and early career scientists and engineers and pay them in the £30-£40k range for another few years until they are useful. They can't train anywhere outside of Europe, and there's no culture of patent protection in many parts of the developed world, so it's a catch 22.

30-40 for a few years isn't particularly poor for STEM grads though, with the exception of a few edge cases.

Agree, ish. Not sure its enough to persuade me to move here from abroad though. The carrot at the end of the stick is also fine - nudging towards 70 on qualification after 4-5 years, sometimes higher, followed by quite quick progression thereafter.

But that's a decade long stick that the carrot is attached to.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

Jezyboy said:

First.Aspect said:

Wonder if we basically don't pay well enough. We take STEM graduates, PhD's and early career scientists and engineers and pay them in the £30-£40k range for another few years until they are useful. They can't train anywhere outside of Europe, and there's no culture of patent protection in many parts of the developed world, so it's a catch 22.

30-40 for a few years isn't particularly poor for STEM grads though, with the exception of a few edge cases.

Agree, ish. Not sure its enough to persuade me to move here from abroad though. The carrot at the end of the stick is also fine - nudging towards 70 on qualification after 4-5 years, sometimes higher, followed by quite quick progression thereafter.

But that's a decade long stick that the carrot is attached to.

Most people consider the career earnings not the existing salary.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Jezyboy said:

First.Aspect said:

Wonder if we basically don't pay well enough. We take STEM graduates, PhD's and early career scientists and engineers and pay them in the £30-£40k range for another few years until they are useful. They can't train anywhere outside of Europe, and there's no culture of patent protection in many parts of the developed world, so it's a catch 22.

30-40 for a few years isn't particularly poor for STEM grads though, with the exception of a few edge cases.

Agree, ish. Not sure its enough to persuade me to move here from abroad though. The carrot at the end of the stick is also fine - nudging towards 70 on qualification after 4-5 years, sometimes higher, followed by quite quick progression thereafter.

But that's a decade long stick that the carrot is attached to.

Most people consider the career earnings not the existing salary.

Interesting.

Would help if our governing body didn't make the prerequisite a UK degree or a request for others to be considered equivalent. Wasn't even a given that my Canadian PhD would count. Really sends the wrong message.

rick_chasey

Most people stay in the same industry and do similar roles so career earnings don't need to be considered - the focus on the short term pay handles the long term pay, if that make sense.

But if you are moving people between countries and industries you need to map that out.

But take me for example - I turned down a chance to add 60% to my comp last year because I have an opportunity to build a business which could, if it goes right, pay 3-5x that.

That's a rational decision, no? Albeit an optimistic and riskier one.

Pross

Depends on whether your current salary allows you to live comfortably enough to take the long term view really. I'm at the other end these days, my driver isn't the money going into my account each month, it's doing something that I'll enjoy (or at least not dislike) and that will give me the work / life balance I want whilst still having enough to live at the standard I'm happy with. I had a chance to go somewhere with an increase of 40-50% on 'comp' but dropped out after two rounds of interviews as I decided I didn't want the stresses that would inevitably go with that sort of increase but I also realised I'm reaching a stage in my life where I'm lucky enough to make that choice.

First.Aspect

Time to have a plan b if it goes tit's up really helps.

focuszing723

focuszing723 said:

Right. The Yanks have been to the Moon with astronauts, they've even driven a little bugy thing on it, stuck in flags n $h1t. So why the flippedy fook are they p1ss1n about with tests n stuff with unmanned mission to the Moon? They've done it... Mmmnm, or have they?

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1560323870418149382?cxt=HHwWjICx7eGSmsacrAAAA

Yeah, but you've done it already...Mmmmm.

rjsterry

Half a century ago. Things have changed.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

Half a century ago. Things have changed.

Technology has moved on, it should be easier. My phone has more computing power than NASA did back in the day. I'm sure they'll do it but I won't be impressed.

First.Aspect

The furthest forward part of a bike is the brake/shift lever, and these aren't aerodynamically optimised and watt saving.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

The furthest forward part of a bike is the brake/shift lever, and these aren't aerodynamically optimised and watt saving.

Hard to aero optimise hands?

Jezyboy

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

Half a century ago. Things have changed.

Technology has moved on, it should be easier. My phone has more computing power than NASA did back in the day. I'm sure they'll do it but I won't be impressed.

Meh, something very difficult can be made easier, but still be very difficult.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

Half a century ago. Things have changed.

Technology has moved on, it should be easier. My phone has more computing power than NASA did back in the day. I'm sure they'll do it but I won't be impressed.

I'm not sure computing power was the main hurdle the first time around.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

The furthest forward part of a bike is the brake/shift lever, and these aren't aerodynamically optimised and watt saving.

Hard to aero optimise hands?

Aero gloves, with golf ball surfaces and webbed fingers.

There are big marketing opportunities here.