In my experience, the problems given to juniors are often open ended “improve this” or “fix this” type projects, but smaller scope or lower priority things that more senior devs would just never get to.
I will say though, needing to socialize across other teams to understand the problem and drive the correct solution does strike me as more mid/senior level work.
In my experience, those are the worst sorts of jobs to give juniors if you want actually throughout though. They need direction, releasable pieces, etc. they don’t know how to break something apart into small, releasable parts yet. That’s a major thing more experienced devs can teach them.
At the risk of sounding like a LinkedIn post, it seems clear that the difference between General von Hammerstein and CharlieDigital is whether they have a fixed vs. growth mindset about their potential team.
My experience has been that aptitude can be developed. In the context of "low experience" (generally junior engineers), the ones that succeed are the ones that put the work in to learn and get better.
But I can appreciate Hammerstein's perspective, especially if there isn't an added nuance of Carol Dweck's "fixed" vs "growth" mindset. A high drive, low aptitude individual -- seen through a fixed mindset lens -- is indeed dangerous!
"A high drive, low aptitude individual", even if they have the best mindset in the world, shouldn't be placed in a sensitive position. As even a small chance of messing up with 'high drive' will really cause a lot of issues.
In the Bay Area I’m also easily able to order alcohol on all the big delivery services, but they all seem pretty consistent about scanning your ID for age verification before they drop it off.
I'm trying to say that .of(null) and .empty() semantically the same, which is why it throws NPE to force explicit empty. ofNullable is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don’t understand. Why would the suppliers change the recipe to _add_ sesame? Is it not just that they accepted the “may contain sesame” label instead of removing (or proving the lack of) sesame?
Because apparently that doesn't count and they still have to prevent cross-contamination.
>Some companies include statements on labels that say a food “may contain” a certain product or that the food is “produced in a facility” that also uses certain allergens. However, such statements are voluntary, not required, according to the FDA, and they do not absolve the company of requirements to prevent cross-contamination.
Basically the options are redo your production process so that there are no traces of sesame or add enough to put it on the ingredients list.
You aren't allowed to put things on the ingredients list which aren't actually in the food, and the new regulation doesn't let they say that there _might_ be sesame.
There's two conflicting laws here - one says you MUST label if you have allergens (this one allows the "may or may not contain the devil's seeds") and another says you cannot imply or state your product has something it does not have (this appears to be the one banning "may or may not").
"May contain x" is not part of the ingredients list, though. An ingredient is something intentionally in the product. The warning is just telling you that there's a chance that x accidentally got in.
They're made in the same bakery that other goods that have sesame and other seeds and nuts. You can't guarantee there won't be any so add the tiniest amount for labeling purposes... yes it could be more expensive not to.
Of course this is the exact opposite of what TFA had to say.
That's kind of weird. I see "may contain" all the time for other allergens and it's pretty accurate - it's a crapshoot whether or not I get an allergy (it seems m&m's warning is very accurate, whereas my local deli it's more of a cya statement). If I don't see "may contain" it's also safe to eat.
There must be something different about sesame and it's role in the food pipeline that makes it harder to deal with compared to other common allergens.
I think the permissible "may contain" is the "this product was produced in a facility that also handles tree nuts" kind of warning, which is not technically an ingredient.
You could add a homeopathically-diluted 1/2^256 fraction of sesame essential oil. At that point, the FDA would likely never accept the claim that it isn't an ingredient; and yet there literally won't be any in there to hurt anyone.
That's odd. The EU is usually more strict than the USA on food standards, and indeed sesame had to be labelled at least as far back as 2004. But the "may contain" or "produced in a facility that handles" labelling still seems to be allowed.
> Why would the suppliers change the recipe to _add_ sesame?
Control and consistency.
If you don't measure an ingredient, you are at the mercy of a zillion different things for how much of that ingredient is present and your consistency is terrible. In addition, people who are only weakly allergic to said ingredient can never be sure if there is too much of it. People who go into anaphylaxis have to avoid your stuff altogether, anyhow.
If, however, you measure the ingredient, now the amount is precisely controlled. People who are only weakly allergic can test and now know from that point on that they are okay (or not).
The people who are jumping up and down are the people who are strongly allergic. They expected the adopted law to cause manufacturers to have to pristine clean their lines when, in reality, the precise opposite occurred--the manufacturers added the ingredient and made their lines "dirtier".
> If the ingredients don’t include sesame, companies must take steps to prevent the foods from coming in contact with any sesame, known as cross-contamination.
> Food industry experts said the new requirements aren’t simple or practical.
> Some companies include statements on labels that say a food “may contain” a certain product or that the food is “produced in a facility” that also uses certain allergens. However, such statements are voluntary, not required, according to the FDA, and they do not absolve the company of requirements to prevent cross-contamination.
> Instead, some companies have taken a different approach. Officials at Olive Garden said that starting this week, the chain is adding “a minimal amount of sesame flour” to the company’s famous breadsticks “due to the potential for cross-contamination at the bakery.”
They aren't saying they unfortunately _have_ fuck-you money, they're saying they unfortunately relate to wanting to have a small social circle and not have to "deal with it" anymore
FWIW, I read it that way. It's not a sequence of "finish the game of social success" coming after "finishing the game of financial success", it's a complete replacement of which game the author/commenter wishes to finish.
I will say though, needing to socialize across other teams to understand the problem and drive the correct solution does strike me as more mid/senior level work.