The Agile style user stories that often lack technical details because the author doesn't know enough about the technical details means the developer is the one actually writing the requirements (usually as they are doing the work).

This seems a little inconsistent to me.

Is it really their fault if the industry says they are qualified and gives them a job when they are incompetent?

You'd be better off pair programming everything and forgoing code reviews.

Sometimes I think the people that come up with this shit are sociopaths.

It's possible he is right, but it is also possible that these traits aren't trainable, and without that, you may not have a population sufficient enough to sustain his ideal.

- being presented under-cooked ideas so you do the thinking for them.

- too many ideas (which can lead to the first) with an inability to focus

There is a feedback loop for the first where people don't dive too deeply into their idea because they know they'll get a lot of criticism.

The second can be bad because the idea or its implementation is never polished.

That market comparison is fraught with conditions and often only follows ill-defined job titles.

If you take a look at one of these postings - https://jobs.netflix.com/jobs/292552236 - you'll note that the way it's written, there aren't any exceptional job requirements here. It's hard to see why the salary range has such a high ceiling.

Obviously in the interview, they could have much higher requirements, but we don't know that unless someone from Netflix chimes in.

For example,

>You have knowledge of various regulations and controls (SOX, PCI, CCPA, GDPR, etc)

how much is knowledge of each of those worth towards the final salary? Pricing each of those would add more fidelity to the market's signals, but companies often don't do that. Same with technical skills or knowledge of individual products: how much is AWS knowledge worth at the beginner, intermediate, and expert levels to a job that needs AWS knowledge?

This is like buying a publicly traded stock (not yolo'ing) with roughly 80% of the company information not available to you. That information is there for a reason because it promotes market efficiency. It allows you to more easily compare two companies that do similar work.

This is what is meant by honesty, but the job market hides this information. And the job market is often dishonest because it does not price these things, because it is hiding information from applicants, because that gives an advantage to employers. An extremely wide salary range here only serves that goal.

And on the employee side, it would mean that I can go learn AWS to a certain level, and I know that skill would contribute $X amount to the final salary that I can ask for. I don't have to play games trying to sell my skills for more than they're worth.

But say you don’t want to forge one for just any company because that might not be legal. You could make your own company with a site and make offer letters that way.

This pricing scheme punishes people trying to be honest about their skill set. Otherwise why stop at the average? Just max it out and ask for $700k. Another $300k/yr won't break Netflix's bank and everyone else is getting rich that they won't care to call you out either.

This just rings hollow to me. We lost the fights for database portability, cloud portability, payments/billing portability, and other individual SaaS lock-in. I don't see why it'll be different this time around.

You can't trust companies to self-regulate.

That sounds tedious like commenting every line of code. You might have to do this if the code is hard to read and maintain though. Most of the time the why is "because feature X demands that it change".

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer squashed merges because lots of small commits are also annoying to switch between and if I'm diving into git history, I'm investigating and have some extra time to understand everything instead of relying on commit messages.

Secondarily, why should the author continue to fix things like this when they don't benefit, but others responsible are also not facing any consequences?

Finland has something different than that though and it sounds like it's harder to fire people.