Interesting Links for 08-10-2014

[andrewducker]

• RoomAlive turns your whole living room into one big interactive gaming environment
  (tags: Microsoft augmentedreality technology games )
• One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025
  (tags: jobs technology computers )
• Common mistakes that parents with good intentions make
  (tags: parenting children )
• FactCheck: is the voting system

Comments

[bart_calendar]

I've always found the Why You Want To Work For This Company question to be complete bullshit. "Because you pay money for work, dipshit!"

That said, I've found a response to the question that has gotten me a fair number of freelance jobs: "Because I think I can help you make a lot more money than you are now which means you'll be able to pay me for a long time to come. I want to benefit from making you rich."

[andrewducker]

Yeah. And when you're dealing with a small company, or have direct access to someone sensible, that can work really well.

It's when you're dealing with an HR department that's focussed on "team player" or some kind of idiocy about caring about the company that you're fucked.

(I had no real idea what my current company did before I applied there. I wanted to work with computers, for someone who had resources. That was it.)

[bart_calendar]

Yep. This is why I only offer my freelance services to start ups or companies with less than five people working for them.

Most of the companies I work for have this staff:

1. Owner

2. Me to write shit.

3. Rome Girl to monitor their social media and proofread what I write.

4. A graphic designer.

5. Someone who can put my words and the designer's stuff on the web.

6. An accountant to process our paychecks.

7. Someone who understands the anlaytics we get so they can tell me and the designer what type of split tests to create.

[naath]

What do these companies actually *do*? And who *does* it (the owner?)? Or else why are you not in the "Owner" position of a company that produces words and pictures that people want to look at since you are good at producing words?

[drplokta]

That FactCheck on the voting system misses an important point. The system is less rigged in favour of Labour than it appears to be, because Tory voters will still turn out even in constituencies where the Tory has no chance of winning, while Labour voters are less likely to bother in Tory safe seats. That means that on the same share of the national vote, Labour will get more seats, even without the system being rigged or biassed in any way, as more of their votes are in constituencies where they actually matter.

[apostle_of_eris]

There are also no real numbers on the difference in size of various districts.
(No, I'm not going to bother Googling it, but) As I understand it, the districts are a hodge podge of historical quirks with no relation to current population size. (see also "British Constitution") Although we're currently at a historic high in abuse, I'll still take the American system of periodic adjustments to keep districts nearly the same population.

[drplokta]

You understand wrong. That used to be the case, two centuries ago. Now, the apolitical Boundary Commission frequently redraws constituency boundaries, or even abolishes whole constituencies, to keep them more or less the same size.

[apostle_of_eris]

oh
thanks

[channelpenguin]

The job interview one maybe applies to ultra large companies. But I have NEVER been interviewed by HR for a technical position. They maybe have a chat later, when all the other stages have been got through.

I never lie (though I'll cast things in their best light, obviously) - and I am not going to start now. Given I am generally interviewed by the people I will be directly working with/for, it would be just a way for us all to be miserable.

[philmophlegm]

HR and recruitment are two completely different skill sets. No company should have HR people doing interviews. I used to be involved in recruitment at my former employer (Big 4 Accountancy firm) - first interviews, partner interviews* and running assessment centres for graduates

[philmophlegm]

Never heard of Mike Rowe, but he's 100% right about "follow your passion". I've given talks to sixth formers on this subject (in fact I'm doing another one to a girls' grammar school in Plymouth next month). Some kids have never been told otherwise. They genuinely believe that they get to choose exactly the life they want simply because it's their "passion

[andrewducker]

Yeah. I have no problem with people choosing to follow their passion. But I want them to do it with their eyes open, understanding the implications and sacrifices they will have to make along the way.

[alitheapipkin]

Yeah, I spent years working in environmental research because I'm passionate about the issues but all I achieved was making myself miserable. A job I am good at which is still important but not something I'm personally highly driven by, allows me much more emotional energy to get satisfaction from other things in life which aren't as hopeless as working in climate change.

Having said which, I was never motivated enough to move to London so maybe I just never had enough passion in the first place!

[woodpijn]

Scott Adams (Dilbert) reckons passion is an effect rather than a cause of success. So if you talk to successful people, they're usually passionate about the thing they succeeded in, but it doesn't follow that you'll succeed if you follow the thing you're currently passionate about.