Blackcap Blog

Published at 22:05 on 23 September 2015

Looking back, I can see how on one recent interview I didn’t get an obvious sub-question I should have, and how for the job I did land, the only reason I survived the whole interview process so well is that it was mostly done in the form of at-home questions, some of which I was battling the early symptoms of interview burnout on.

So what happened today was the first question (which I answered fairly well) pushed me over the edge and it was all downhill from there. Given that, it would have only gotten worse had I persevered. Ending it early was the best option.

I’m apparently in the minority in thinking this option is best. Most of the “experts” advise persevering. But really, perseverance is not always a virtue. No one thing is; life isn’t that simple. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Knowing how to recognize futility and give up is also a virtue (in moderation, of course, excessive lack of perseverance also a bad thing).

How it can be “good” to exhibit to a prospective employer that you’ll value some silly formality about “perseverance” even when it costs them money and your effort produces nothing but frustration escapes me. Me, I’d want an employee to quit a pointless task (and communicate this, of course) as soon as it became clear to him the task was probably pointless.

Published at 15:12 on 23 September 2015

Had an interview today at a highly regarded company where I was very qualified for the job being hired for and where I would have probably really enjoyed working.

Alas, as luck would have it today is also a very down day intellectually for me. I completely drew a blank at a very easy and obvious problem. Twenty  minutes were allocated for solving it, meaning I should have been able to do it in about half the time*, based on my normal track record for such things, but I couldn’t even get close to a good solution.

* Update: Try one minute. That’s how long it took to solve the problem now that I’ve decompressed from that nightmare.

What is one to do when such a thing happens? Answer: cordially end the interview early. It is utterly pointless to go on: I have never, simply never, ever gotten a job anytime I’ve stumbled even moderately during an interview — and I really stumbled big this time. Going on just for the sake of going on is: a) profoundly unpleasant, b) a waste of my time, and c) a waste of their time.

So that is precisely what I did.

It’s one of the big headaches with hiring someone: you’re trying to decide whether to spend a lot of money on someone, based on a very tiny sampling of who they are. And it’s a statistical fact of life that tiny samples can be highly unrepresentative samples. Just the way it is.

The silver lining is I already have a firm, written job offer. So I’ll just accept that one. Problem solved.

It’s interesting to speculate as to why it happened. Perhaps it was some subconscious desire to move away from the typical startup environment. I do tend to crave change, and the culture of what I call “mandatory fun” (part of many startups these days) at my last job was starting to get to me. The other job — which I will now accept — is at an established firm and is something of a counterpoint. Yet there were some extremely desirable things about the place where I just bombed (I mean, if it was obvious I didn’t want to be there, I would have just rebuffed their interview and signed with the other place already).

Or maybe it was some desire for stability and an answer. If this interview had gone well, it would have created an uncertainty stage for me. I’d be on a camping trip (which I don’t want to blow off, I’ve been camping far too little this year), out of email and phone contact, stalling a sure thing, in the hopes an unsure thing would materialize. This way I have my sure thing before I leave.

Or maybe it was just “interview burnout.” Interviews are hard for me (I’m a very introverted person) and furthermore I’ve had a lot of them recently, so interviewing itself has become something of the sort of rut I depise.

Realistically, I will never know, and further analysis will produce little or no information of real value to me. Moreover, both the missed opportunity and the one being taken are what I call “generic tech jobs”, which I view mainly as medium-term holding patterns until I can get something that really engages my passions. That means something to do with botany or advocating ecological sustainability. Such a thing is going to be a long-term enough process that I’d be broke before I found something if I insisted on such a job or nothing; hence the need for a holding pattern.

Time to get on with life.

Published at 09:46 on 21 September 2015

Just in case there was any lingering doubt that Net2Source was the worst sort of sleaze outfit:

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:36:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Atul Mishra <atul.mishra@net2source.com>
To: xxxxx@xxx.com
Subject: Opportunity for Apple Macintosh OSX

Hope you are doing well,
My name is Atul and I'm a Resource Executive  at Net2Source. We
have a requirement with our direct client for Apple Macintosh
OSX. If you’re interested please share me your updated resume
along with your expected pay rate and availability.
 
Job title:             Apple Macintosh OSX
Location:              Rye, NY
Duration:              Long Term

Published at 09:38 on 21 September 2015

I’ve been wondering that, since I’ve been using it to null out noise sources, yet I had long forgotten what the pattern of such antennas is.

I couldn’t just use the antenna itself plus noise to find out because I live in town and there’s potential noise sources all around. I couldn’t use the antenna plus signals because the ionosphere compromises the source-directionality of signals that pass through it, and it’s an HF-only antenna. (I suppose I could have spent most of the day delving into the physics of it, and coming up with the answer, but that would have taken most of the day and I just wanted a quick answer.)

Checking on-line wasn’t very helpful. I found articles claiming that both the null and the lobes were “in the plane of the loop”! Part of the issue, I think, is that there are different geometries of loop antennas. What one would tend to think of as the “plane” of a large, flat, air-core loop is perpendicular to what one would tend to think for a compact, multi-turn ferrite loop stick antenna.

A simple experiment with one of my old tube radios (which have a large, flat air-core loop antenna for the medium-wave broadcast band) and KVI’s signal on 570 KHz povided the answer: for “flat” loop antennas with a large diameter and low number of turns, the null is along the plane the loop exists in. It was pretty definitive: when I got the radio aligned so I had difficulty hearing KVI, its back (on which the loop is mounted) was aligned directly on a line running from KVI’s Vashon Island transmitter to me.

So there you have it.

Note that the while the peaks of a loop antenna are very broad, the nulls are by contrast very sharp. I’ve noticed this when nulling out interference; a slight bump on the HF loop antenna (changing its position by mere inches) often makes a significant difference.

Published at 12:59 on 18 September 2015

I bought one of these used for $10 at the Puyallup Hamfest last March, and it’s been a great addition to my lineup of receivers. I use it to monitor a couple local ham repeaters from the main living room so I won’t miss a call if I’m not in the radio room. For that purpose, it’s a steal of a deal at $10.

It is over 20 years old. Which means:

• Don’t assume one you see for sale works. I looked at two at the Hamfest, plugging in and trying both. Good idea, as the one I passed on had some glitches.
• No trunking; that technology was in its infancy a quarter-century ago.
• No digital modes like P25. Same story as above.
• “Only” 40 memory channels in 2 banks, not hundreds in dozens of banks.
• No tone or digital squelch, carrier squelch only. Not a terribly big deal, as carrier squelch will still work in such situations.
• “Wide band” FM only; it way predates the recent narrowbanding mandate. Not a big deal, just turn up the volume to compensate. Plus the ham repeaters I monitor still all use wide band.

It’s not all bad news, though. It has some nice features:

• A simple user interface. It doesn’t have many features, and there’s basically a dedicated key or control for each one. I didn’t need to use a manual to figure out how to use it; it’s that self-explanatory.
• A built-in power supply, a big plus if you leave it powered on for extended periods (as one tends to do with a scanner).
• A nice bright vacuum-fluorescent display that’s easy to read in dim conditions.
• Decent audio. I can easily hear it anywhere in the main part of the house.

It’s a scanner, not a general-purpose communications receiver. There’s no tuning knob or S-meter. It receives FM only in most of its range, and AM only in the air bands. Not a big deal for me, as I bought it to scan FM, and it works just fine for this purpose.

I even sometimes eavesdrop on the local police and fire services with it, because I’m in one of those areas that’s never adopted either trunking or digital technology for its public service communications.

All in all, if you can live with their limitations, those old scanners can, as mentioned earlier, be a steal of a deal.

Published at 11:26 on 18 September 2015

What part of “Seattle area” don’t you understand, moron?

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:48:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vishwajeet Singh <vishwajeet.singh@nlbservices.com>
To: xxxxx@xxx.com
Subject: Urgent Opening_ Cassandra _ Charlotte NC _ Full Time

My Name is Vishwa Singh and I'm a Resource Professional at Next Level
Business Services, Inc.

Published at 11:50 on 17 September 2015

I expected Fed’s decision to leave interest rates as-is:

1. There have been at best only limited signs of inflation. By contrast, there have in the last year been deflationary periods in the consumer price index.
2. Inflation is easy to control (raise interest rates). Deflation is very difficult to control (you can’t cut rates to zero or below, because banks make money by lending money at a higher rate than they pay savers, which means a negative rate on deposits, which savers can beat by stuffing their money in a mattress and earning 0% interest). So rulers of any sort, central bankers included, tend to be more willing to risk inflation than deflation; it’s one of the reasons they never target zero inflation. Instead, they target a low inflation rate, just to err on the safe side of not having deflation.
3. Some inflation is actually a good thing, as by making money lose value over time it punishes people who would stuff their money in a mattress as opposed to investing it in the economy, thus encouraging investment.
4. Recent signs the bubble in China might be ready to pop. The Fed doesn’t want to be the straw that broke the camel’s back and caused a severe recession.

That final one provides a key to their near-term plans. The Fed is doubtless waiting to see if the China jitters blow over before making any decision on a rate hike.

They don’t want to flatly admit it, of course, because that would be admitting the problems in China are real and serious (as they are) which might itself provoke a recession. But they alluded to it by burying a revealing phrase in their press release:

To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain this target range, the Committee will assess progress–both realized and expected–toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments [emphasis added]. The Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen some further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term.

And if the Associated Press’s economic pundits are correct, this is in itself somewhat unusual (and thus particularly revealing):

It’s extremely rare for Fed officials in their statement to highlight the risks posed by foreign economies. This means that they’re carefully monitoring the aftershocks from a slowdown in China and other emerging markets, in addition to struggles by Europe to increase economic growth.

 

Published at 08:45 on 17 September 2015

Ah, more insurance company spam. Memo to all who read this: Never buy insurance from Aflac. Their customer service record is doubtless as poor as Farmers’; sleaze in one part of a firm’s operations almost always indicates sleaze in the other parts.

From: "CareerBuilder.com" <careerbuilder@recruit.careerbuilder.com>
To: xxxxx@xxx.com
Reply-to: careerbuilder@recruit.careerbuilder.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:03:19 -0400
Subject: In Response to Your Resume…

We saw your resume on CareerBuilder.com and are interested in
talking with you about a job opportunity. Are you looking for a
career that allows you to manage your time and schedule so you
can balance work and fun? Or a career with the potential for
unlimited income based on your personal performance? If so, a
sales career with Aflac may be right for you.

Published at 08:30 on 17 September 2015

Yet another douchebag who can’t read my clearly-stated geographic limits.

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:31:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vik Smith <vik@globalsyst.com>
To: xxxxx@xxx.com
Subject: Requirement: Software developer in Orange County / Los Angeles (SoCal)
 or San Jose / San Francisco Bay Area (C2H/FULL TIME)

09/16/15 6:25 PM
Greetings,
My name is Vik and I'm an IT recruiter at Global Systems LLC.
Our records show that you are an experienced IT professional
with experience in Software Developer. This experience is
relevant to one of my current openings.
 
We are currently looking for Software Developer. This is with
our direct client.  It is located in Orange County / Los Angeles
(SoCal) or San Jose / San Francisco Bay Area.

Published at 10:20 on 16 September 2015

Is amply illustrated by this article.

First, there is the equating of Trump (who has no political experience whatsoever, and who engages in largely fact-free xenophobic rhetoric) with Sanders and Corbyn (both of whom have decades of experience and whose policy proposals, though on one side of the political spectrum, are generally fact-based and definitely do refrain from stoking the flames of ethnic bigotry).

Second, there is a complete lack of investigation into any of the Establishment’s many failings, and how those (and not mere New Media attention) might be playing a role in the popularity of all three.

Trump, whatever his failings, is a free trade skeptic, and most of the free trade agreements pushed by that same Establishment consensus have failed to live up to their promises. Take NAFTA: it was supposed to reduce illegal immigration. Its skeptics pointed out that illegal immigration would probably increase. In this real-world experiment, it was the skeptics’ prediction and not the Establishment’s that was proven correct.

Both Sanders and Corbyn opposed the Iraq War fiasco. This was so self-evidently a blunder that outside the English-speaking world, even some prominent conservative leaders (such as Jacques Chirac) opposed it. As did some prominent centrists, like Senator Byrd (who was I believe the only Senator who had also been in office when LBJ pulled the Gulf of Tonkin snow job on Congress and led the nation into the Vietnam War based on lies).

Meanwhile, both the “New” Democrats and the “New” Labourites decided to be “practical” and “realistic” by supporting the war.

At the time, the best the Establishment could manage was : “Oh, isn’t this interesting: the anti-war crowd is playing the national security card by saying that going to war will end up actually undermining it; there’s a controversy about which course is best for national security. Let’s present both sides as equally plausible — even though the preponderance of evidence favors the skeptics — because, heavens, we wouldn’t want to be accused of ‘bias’ or anything.”

And then there’s the financial deregulation that paved the way for the Great Recession, something else that the self-professed “responsible” “New” Democrats and Labourites united with conservatives to enact over the opposition of the left wings of both their parties.

If the Establishment wants answers as to why it is getting less and less respect, it would be better served by taking a good long look in the mirror rather than playing pin-the-blame-on-the-Internet and sermonizing about ignorant peasants.