Out of curiosity, what skills or experience are your recruiters optimizing for while reviewing resumes?
Having a decade of experience and nearly 100% match with a fullstack job description (even down to microservices/event-driven systems) and getting a rejection without even a screening call means I either presented myself poorly or there's something else they're looking for that might not be advertised (or emphasized). In either of those situations, I would appreciate even a hint so I could improve my odds in the future, because rejections are getting tiring.
> So we've mostly solved trivial non-problems if/not regressions?
This. I get called a Luddite because I rant about the vastness of useless tech, but I love tech. I simply think most of what people focus on is useless and that "the immediacy to which I can do anything" now is actually very psychologically harmful.
Which ones? Eich donated like $1000 to a political group that (I would hope) most of us disagree with, but Eich != Mozilla, and he was removed because of the backlash
Riseup is absolutely with Mozilla's mission statement, though, and all things considered pretty good:
"Riseup provides online communication tools for people and groups working on liberatory social change. We are a project to create democratic alternatives and practice self-determination by controlling our own secure means of communications."
They have an actual anarcho-communist star in their logo and their website features revolutionary imagery and policy statements like "all labor is valued equally" and "the means of production should be placed in the hands of the people".[0]
I'm sure it's a fine organization if you subscribe to their views. I do not, and I'd rather not fund them, directly or indirectly.
I don't share their views, but I'm thrilled that their project exists and very happy with Mozilla donating to help improve their email client security, since it's a major player in the pro-privacy ecosystem. If I had to agree with the philosophical beliefs of everyone I gave money to, I'd starve.
If I donate to a FOSS project, I want the money to go into the development of their software and not turn into some proxy funding of other projects and organizations - especially not ones I disagree with. In fact, I think that's a pretty reasonable expectation.
I did not know about riseup (or Mozilla funding them) and parent provided insightful information about them. Given the funding structure of Mozilla, I could see this being a red flag for donations for some organizations/individuals.
The Riseup Collective is an autonomous body based in Seattle with collective members world wide. Our purpose is to aid in the creation of a free society, a world with freedom from want and freedom of expression, a world without oppression or hierarchy, where power is shared equally. We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression
>> We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression
Donations go to Mozilla "the non-profit organization" rather than Mozilla "the corporation".
Mozilla (the corporation) has the typical/bad corporate structures and ridiculous executive compensations. Mozilla (the corporation) had the layoffs. Mozilla (the corporation) bought Pocket with money that comes from deals with search engines.
That being said, though...
> Donate to smaller developers of software you use, it'll go a lot further, and they'll probably put it to better use!
... is still a great point.
(Updated this because "Mozilla, Org" and "Mozilla, Inc" were inaccurate)
I think the Mozilla Foundation is starting to look a lot like a sinecure employer for friends of friends in the non-profit biz.
Here are a few seemingly similar titles listed on their leadership page[0]:
VP, Advocacy
Director, Digital Engagement
Director, Communications
VP, Global Programs
Director, Partnerships
Director, Events and Training
Interim Director, Leadership Programs
The Mozilla Foundation controls and owns the Mozilla Corporation, and the executive structure looks more or less the same. Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance, and she runs both.
Owns, yes. That is radically different from "funds", though.
Not going to dispute anything about executive structure or Baker's compensation and (mis)management, but a lot of people here are acting like donations either go directly to the corporation or funnel to it through the actual recipient of the donations, but there isn't really any evidence being presented.
'Tied' in relational contexts is generally used to describe a correlation, relation, connection, or a consistency between events in the English language. It can—but does not have to—describe a contractual relationship, and it does not generally describe one except in very specific and obvious cases, e.g. what one would expect to be true: "bonuses are tied to performance milestones."
> Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance
No reasonable person would assume that a person's comp structure from Company would be contractually bound to increase as Company's performance decreases. At which point, the interpretation of "tied" would swing towards generally accepted usage, i.e. "there's a potential relationship between these two things."
ameister14 suggested "associated with" would've worked better, and that's true. But "tied" isn't technically wrong.
That's malarkey. Tied is not exclusively used to imply a "contractual relationship," and that's (if anything) a minority-usage of the idiom of tied to/with.
I think you probably should have used 'associated with' instead of 'tied to' as when discussing remuneration contractual ties is not a minority usage of the idiom.
I'm not Kick, but while you're correct that "associated with" would've been better for clarity, no reasonable person would assume that "inversely tied" describes a contractually mandated drop in performance for an increase in pay (my other comment here links to dictionary.com and thesaurus.com, both good references for this discussion). Couple that with the generally accepted usage of 'tied' and the usage by Kick was correct, if perhaps ambiguous to a narrow population.
Kick's usage is correct except within the business world and especially financial and executive populations, which, while admittedly narrow, are what we were discussing. When you say that an executive's pay is tied to the company's performance, within these communities it's generally understood that this is a contractual relationship.
ex. "John's salary is tied to performance - if the company is valued at over 100 billion, he'll get another 5% stock" etc.
or "bonuses are tied to performance milestones"
If you are simply observing that an executives pay rises while performance falls, associated is a clearer term.
That still doesn't answer why should I donate to Mozilla the non-profit? What do they do with my donations? According to another post they don't use them to fund Firefox or presumably any project run by the corporation side.
As I see it if I wanted my donations to go to political or other activism there's more direct and better organizations to donate to with less middle management involved.
* supporting a diverse group of fellows working on key internet issues [looking at them they all focus on advocacy and social issues rather than working on things like Firefox]
* connecting open Internet leaders at events like MozFest
* publishing critical research in the Internet Health Report
* rallying citizens around advocacy issues that connect the wellbeing of the Internet directly to everyday life.
Or in other words, exactly as the HN comment said, none of it goes to corporation projects but rather privacy and social advocacy.
edit: I'm guessing the Foundation actually takes money from the Corporation to fund itself since the financial statement seems to cover both, anyone know if that's the case?
> There are so many nice little touches in Rust that having nothing to do with it's "safe + low-level" USP.
Exactly this. I generally get met with skepticism when talking about Rust for web dev, because so many people say "you don't need that performance" (which is itself pretty arguable if one cares at all about energy footprint), but it isn't just the performance that makes Rust such an attractive option.
Having a decade of experience and nearly 100% match with a fullstack job description (even down to microservices/event-driven systems) and getting a rejection without even a screening call means I either presented myself poorly or there's something else they're looking for that might not be advertised (or emphasized). In either of those situations, I would appreciate even a hint so I could improve my odds in the future, because rejections are getting tiring.