| ▲ | tasuki 4 hours ago |
| > I've worked for 35ish companies It seems they were correct not to invest in your skills. I've worked for six companies over almost 20 years. The majority invested in my skills, and I hope that investment has paid off for them! |
|
| ▲ | dspillett 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I've worked for five companies, on the same products (well, variations there-of over time), for 25 years, due to take-overs (I nearly left ~10 years ago due to management numskullery, but a timely buy-out of the bit I worked for fixed my problems while the rest of the company died off). Hanging around for a while (a long while) doesn't necessarily mean dedication worth investing in, it could just be that I have a shocking lack of ambition :) |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | ojbyrne 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Perhaps the lack of investment in their skills was the cause for the commenter’s job hopping, not the effect. |
| |
| ▲ | shagie 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Consider the rate of job hopping that would be evident on that resume. I'm not sure how many companies would be willing to invest in sending a FTE who stays somewhere for likely less than a year to a conference or say "Ok, you an spend 20% of your time improving your skills." What is more likely with the 35 number is that these are multiple simultaneous contracts. When working as a contractor you're fixing that problem or that project. The company isn't going to have you around for longer than a month after it's been fixed and documented. There's no reason to spend company resources on training a person any more than there's reason for you to pay a plumber to be reading "learn to be an electrician in 10 days" while they're supposed to be working on fixing the sink or doing the plumbing for new construction. | |
| ▲ | kjksf 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's all so vague. "lack of investment in their skill". You just spent $250k and 5 years in college learning stuff. You get hired to do a job for money. What "investment" do you expect company to do? Give me number of weeks and amount of dollars per year and tell me how it stacks against $250k and 5 years that you just spent? If you want to learn on the job, shouldn't YOU be paying the company for teaching you, like you pay college to teach you? | | |
| ▲ | mixmastamyk an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Continuing education is recognized and required in many fields. | |
| ▲ | rafterydj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This argument falls apart if you consider what field we're talking about. At what point would going to school for 5 years give you the whole education you actually needed? Does learning C in 1995-2000 prepare you for Rust in 2026? No, and it shouldn't, but work needs done, so _yes_ there is a dollar amount of value for educating your workforce that has already been vetted and already knows the context for your business goals. Asking what that number is completely misses the point. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Actually I found that if you have a pretty good understanding of the core parts of the C standard (e.g. the idea of the abstract machine, storage durations, unspecified vs undefined behavior, etc.) and working experience with the language, Rust is then quite natural. To first approximation, Rust basically makes lifetime management/ownership semantics that would be "good practice" in C into mandatory parts of the type system. | | |
| ▲ | rafterydj an hour ago | parent [-] | | I agree - I was mostly trying to think of an example against OP's rather facetious attitude towards the time and effort required to maintain engineering performance. In my experience, a lot of the Rust fighting with the borrow checker is really just enforcing better quality code I should've been writing anyway. |
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | If all you got out of a Computer Science undergrad program was "learning C" you were severely shortchanged. An 8-week bootcamp could have done that. | | |
| ▲ | rafterydj an hour ago | parent [-] | | Point still stands. You're going to take up the mantle for suggesting a computer science degree from 2000 completely qualifies someone for work in 2026? No further education needed? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | oblio 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If you include consulting that could easily be 10 companies a year... |
| |
| ▲ | lsaferite 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why would a company you are consulting for invest in training you up exactly? They are paying a consultant with the expectation that they are bringing the knowledge. | | |
| ▲ | 21asdffdsa12 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Eh, consultants are brought in not for the knowledge or advice! Management already knows what todo and where to go- they just want somebody external sanctify the decision! |
| |
| ▲ | tasuki 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Could easily be, yes. And they'd be right not to invest in OP's skills. (To explicitly state the obvious: I'm not saying OP's a bad person for doing this, just saying the employers were right not to invest in them...) |
|
