It works the same way here in the UK. Some companies ask your previous salary, and sometimes check your references, and sometimes your previous employer will disclose what your salary was. If it turns out you lied nothing bad happens, but you've just given your new employer a reason to dismiss you.
The main problem with the UK system is that it means that if you were underpaid before you're likely to continue to be underpaid in your next role (if you accept a low salary again). For that reason when I'm hiring I've stopped asking for someone's previous salary, and just ask them what they want instead. If it's in the right ballpark everyone's happy. If they lowball themselves I ask why and usually get "That's x% more than I'm on now.", which leads to a conversation about how they're underpaid and should be asking for more. If they ask for too much then I just don't hire them because I can't afford them.
There's a new law coming in where companies have to disclose salary bands now, which at least means people will understand the bottom end. That's going to make the salary negotiation part of hiring a lot easier.
> For that reason when I'm hiring I've stopped asking for someone's previous salary, and just ask them what they want instead.
Why don't you post what you're paying in the job ad/offer? Some people even skip ads without a salary or a salary range because of all the uncertainty. As a potential employee somewhere, you've obviously already calculated a range or a fixed number - so why ask the employee?
eIDAS is also a bad thing for privacy in my opinion because it's going to make it much easier for websites you request identification online. I believe identification should remain a barrier, the same way you don't ID yourself at every physical store you enter. eIDAS doesn't mandate this but it does prepare the technological foundations to do that online.
And it doesn't have much to do with PKI breaking, though it's nice that tangential link was removed, it's indeed good that that attempt was called out.
Removing the most objectionable content doesn't make it a good thing though.
And again this is a big business lobby championed by Thierry Breton. This is not something the voters asked for, it's something the industry wants.
When I read these kind of articles I'm always curious to see the professional background of the author. Not to criticize, but to see if he/she's talking about something he/she saw in scale or not.
Because if you're working with a very small code base then I may even understand sentences like "I am against unit tests in general". I've never met people who work (or worked) in very large companies being against, at least, unit test.
Where hundred/thousands of people touch the same code .. not having unit tests, in the long term, is a suicide.
I worked at a large company where we didn't unit test. We should have. I worked on embedded SW and HW projects for office multi function printers.
Due to poor planning / management, unit tests often weren't done. Bad decisions by others ended up biting me! I got pulled into a project to do a big refactor because somehow I was considered the DSP expert and a predecessor picked a lame DSP for the new version of the product. No unit tests meant I was pretty screwed.
I think you're being slightly disingenuous there with the "still in university" dismissal. That CV is a lot more impressive than many people I've worked with in the "real world".
Meaningful search (above top-3) is still not free. Which is honest and fair, but that worked pretty well in GReader and I'd consider it a regression. I still use it daily.
reply