Former staff eng current manager here. When I was programming it was really common for me to steer 1:1s with my manager to personal topics. We talked about the city we lived in, projects we were working on, etc. I felt like it was more important to create a relationship with them than to talk about daily activities. That way, when I had larger initiatives I wanted to accomplish or things I wanted done that needed participation outside our group I would bring them to the 1:1.
Now that I'm a manager I see that everyone brings a unique sensibility to these meetings. The employee's work style, emotional temperament, ambition, project, and team dynamics all come together to form what they want to talk about. In general I try to have the employee run the meeting. It's their time to get information about what's going on in the company or give me feedback on how the team / project is progressing. As other's have stated, your manager shouldn't be leading a lot of the conversation unless they're delivering feedback on how you can improve.
I mean, I'm not even sure if it's legal to own aquatic marine mammals of that size, but I can see how that relationship would be meaningful.
I'd probably start with some marine biology classes. Then maybe you could find an internship or job at a large aquarium. After that you'd need to forge relationships with handlers and suppliers. Start reaching out and asking "hypothetical questions" about sourcing "for the aquarium" ;)
While you're trying to make the deal you'll need to setup a space for your new friend. You'll probably need a source for fish in bulk and maybe a free water source. Municipal water would be expensive.
It's basically a resume, but I had fun doing the interactions and color theming. I was aiming for simplicity as much as possible while keeping people reading.
These days it's a security concern to allow any random site to iFrame your property due to clickjacking. This is why you see X-Frame-Options headers blocking / whitelisting who can iFrame sites.
IMHO paying for password storage solutions is the best way to get security. A robust solution will need updates, fixes, and improvements. The team building those will be paid somehow. Paying customers assure that ad networks and other nefarious actors cannot incentivize weak security practices.
Sure. We could all evangelize some esoteric command line FOSS system, but the general public NEEDS secure password management
What "security" could you possibly get from password storage with subscription and automatic updates that you can ignore the risks involved?
You are giving a centralized 3rd party identifying information about you because of the subscription, control over your passwords because of the updates and you have to believe and trust it's never going to deny you access even without payment, issue an update to steal those passwords or be hacked by someone who does the same or hacks you through it. Oh, and they can do all the surveillance capitalism business models since they have access to the websites you visit.
Banks have an absurd number of regulations, and for good reason. Are you suggesting password managers should be regulated similarly. I'm sure that "small" fee would increase very quickly
What a jumbled illogical mess of an argument. The author confuses free speech, monopolistic tendencies, and censorship but doesn't make a solid point about any of them. Instead, they skip from one topic to another without real evidence or thought.
Basically, I think he's saying that Google and Youtube have altered their search algorithms to bias towards progressive values and demote (rank lower) non-progressive posts.
Also, he's saying people have had their accounts cancelled because their accounts were flagged as "hate speech" (even if it wasn't) and that doing so, was biased.
Also, some companies are aggressively forcing their employees to subscribe and support certain political ideas. I won't name names, but I've also felt this at one place I worked. Here's how it works. Managers engage their subordinates on political matters, asking them "what they think". And if you don't agree with their views, you may be negatively sanctioned, in the future (this is implied, not specifically spelled out).
I felt like that at my previous job(startup) everyone was very progressive and if you disagreed with any progressive ideologies you would be socially shunned.
Being rather moderate (which is a republican in my state and I am slightly left of them) and a skeptic you would only be ostracized for thinking anything but what Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren preaches. No one likes someone who questions everything because they see politics as akin to faith.
This propensity to ostracize people only pushes them further away from center because they will only discuss things with people who won't shame them and of course that will be online.
Now I work at a financial firm and we have a lot of liberals and republicans and they are all willing to speak their mind because politics here has nothing to do with who your friends are.
There's a reason for this: Lifezette and similar are a shill media company of political operative Laura Ingraham, which operate under the aegis of doing legitimate reporting.
This is about as reputable as something you would find on the Huffington Post or Drudge Report.
Now that I'm a manager I see that everyone brings a unique sensibility to these meetings. The employee's work style, emotional temperament, ambition, project, and team dynamics all come together to form what they want to talk about. In general I try to have the employee run the meeting. It's their time to get information about what's going on in the company or give me feedback on how the team / project is progressing. As other's have stated, your manager shouldn't be leading a lot of the conversation unless they're delivering feedback on how you can improve.