Things that were not immediately obvious to me

I guess we’ve got an election coming up, so it’s time to make some predictions. Here are mine:

• GOP gains 60+ seats in the House.
• Dems hold the Senate 51/49 or 50/50 w/ Biden.

The longer-term future is, naturally, harder to predict. I think that Obama could undergo a truly epic meltdown, for at least two reasons:

• I think he’s an ideologue who will prove unwilling to “triangulate”. The majority of the electorate is not only unhappy with his policies, they’re unhappy that their unhappiness is being ignored. Two more years of attempts to force through unpopular policies (using executive branch powers, e.g., the EPA cooking up its own version of cap-n-trade) could result in a 2012 wave that dwarfs 2010.
• A lot of Obama’s personal popularity seems based on his “first-class temperament”. The thing is, it’s easy to appear cool and poised when you’re winning, and when the winds are at your back. I don’t believe that Obama is someone who’s been told “no” a whole lot in his life, and I don’t think he’s going to handle it well if and when a hostile Congress does just that.

We shall see what we shall see.

Compare and contrast.

Tradition is underrated. Tradition is the impulse to keep doing things the way they’ve been done in the past, and to reject deviations from that pattern. It comes in for a lot of criticism these days; it is fashionable to question tradition, and to put its proponents on the defensive. This is foolish; tradition is essential to the existence of society, let alone civilization.

Continue reading →

From Politico (emphasis added):

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”

How do you know when your party is in trouble? When the boss, the head man, the top dog, the big cheese, the head honcho, the POTUS, is addressing small fundraisers.

(Not entirely fair, but I just couldn’t help myself.)

A few quick thoughts on resumes (for s/w people). This comes from a guy who has had to read them and reflects my experiences. YMMV.

• The hiring manager has certainly read dozens, and possibly hundreds, of resumes by the time he sees yours.
• Reading resumes isn’t his main job — it’s a distraction from his main job. By the time he gets to yours, he hates reading resumes.
• He has two basic questions: “Can you solve his problem?” and “Are you an insufferable jerk?” If your resume says “Yes!” and “No!” clearly and succinctly, you’ll get an interview.
• Resumes that clearly say “No!” or “Yes!” are quickly rejected, but without malice.
• Resumes that pussyfoot around, saying neither “Yes” nor “No”, especially resumes that do so at great length, inspire actual rage.
• No one really cares what you did 10 years ago.
• A resume is not an opportunity to tell the world how great you are. Remember: the hiring manager is already in a bad mood. Taking up his time with irrelevant self-congratulation isn’t going to make him like you.
• You know how many relevant projects you need to get an interview? One. One project on which you employed relevant skills to produce observable results.
• Don’t say you “contributed” (or employ any similar language). Say what you did. (Wrote code, drew pictures, animated skeletons, designed wireframes, whatever.)
• One page. If you can’t make a case for an interview in one page, it’s hopeless.

In short: The guy reading your resume wants to find someone who can do the job, and who isn’t going to be a hassle to deal with. A resume is a structured way to argue that it’s likely enough that you meet the requirements that an interview is merited. If you’re a legitimately good fit, that’s not a high bar. If you’re not a good fit, you’re not going to get the job anyway, so why not be brief?

In reference to the Chilean mine rescue, which is a great story, consider this item:

Since Aug. 22, when a narrow bore hole broke through to their refuge and the miners stunned the world with a note, scrawled in red pen, disclosing their survival, their families have been exposed in ways they never imagined. Miners had to describe their physical and mental health in minute detail with teams of doctors and psychologists. In some cases, when both wives and lovers claimed the same man, everyone involved had to face the consequences.

I guess this is one of those good news/bad news situations.

For those of you interested in the dizzy ways of New Media, I should mention that I first read the above-quoted paragraph in a story at this url:

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_chile_mine_collapse

However, subsequent edits have removed all trace of it. A very similar story to the original (which retains the paragraph) appears here:

• http://cbs4denver.com/national/chile.mine.rescue.2.1957258.html

(Unfortunately, the secondary source spoils the joke with the lurid page title: “Chilean Miners’ Rescue Imminent, Wives And Lovers In Jealous Struggle”. It’s more amusing to stumble over the thing in the middle of an otherwise straightforward story.)