Tag Archives: at-work

Go Language Tops List of In-Demand Software Skills

Post Syndicated from Tekla S. Perry original https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/tech-careers/go-language-tops-list-of-indemand-software-skills

Engineers love Python, JavaScript, and Java. Employers, on the other hand, shine their light on Go.

That’s the takeaway of the Hottest Coding Languages section of job site Hired’s annual State of Software Engineers report. Engineers experienced with Go received an average of 9.2 interview requests, making it the most in-demand language. Worldwide, Go’s popularity among employers was followed by Scala and Ruby. That’s not great news for engineers, who ranked Ruby number one in least loved languages, followed by PHP and Objective-C.

There are regional differences in employer interest. In the San Francisco Bay Area and Toronto, Scala rules; in London, it’s TypeScript. A roundup of regional favorites, along with the worldwide rankings, is in the chart below.

(To compile its data, Hired reviewed 400,000 interview requests from 10,000 companies made to 98,000 job seekers throughout 2019.)

PCIe® 5.0 SerDes Test and Analysis

Post Syndicated from IEEE Spectrum Recent Content full text original https://spectrum.ieee.org/whitepaper/pcle_5_serdes_test_and_analysis

PCIe 5.0 operates at 32 GT/s with NRZ signaling, a huge challenge. With 36 dB of loss, CTLE and DFE at the receiver coordinate with Transmitter FFE—called “link training”—to open eye diagrams 10 mV. This paper describes the technology and guides you through the crucial SerDes tests 

Time to Update the Software Engineer Stereotype

Post Syndicated from Tekla S. Perry original https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/tech-careers/time-to-update-the-software-engineer-stereotype

According to a survey of 1600 software engineers conducted by job search site Hired as part of its annual State of Software Engineers report, a number of stereotypes about software engineers are just plain wrong.

First, they aren’t all rolling into the office around noon and coding late into the night. In fact, 66 percent of software engineers, according to Hired, are larks, not owls, preferring to get up early and finish work early rather than sleeping in and working late. If forced to choose, 53 percent would work from home every day, and 47 percent would come into an office every day, the Hired survey indicated. (But, at least in Silicon Valley, most don’t have to choose on a permanent basis, and mix and match depending on the project, the day, or the season.)

The increasingly healthy foods and beverages made available  by high tech companies appear to be luring engineers away from the coffee machine; according to the Hired survey 40 percent of software engineers drink just one cup of coffee a day, and only 2 percent ever drink Soylent—that would-be trend never did really catch on.

Finally, Hired asked engineers what kind of music they listen to through their ubiquitous noise-cancelling headphones. Electronic/dance beats came out on top, followed by rock and then classical.

Keysight Wave Giveaway 2020

Post Syndicated from IEEE Spectrum Recent Content full text original https://spectrum.ieee.org/whitepaper/keysight_wave_giveaway_2020

Join us for Wave 2020, a unique Keysight event featuring >100 test gear giveaways and tips & tricks designed to make you an engineering legend. Enter for your chance to win Keysight equipment, including oscilloscopes, power analyzers, digital multimeters, vector network analyzers, and more. You won’t want to miss a minute of this event – or your chance to score free test gear.

RF Test Gear Giveaway

Software Engineering Salaries Jump, Demand for AR/VR Expertise Skyrockets

Post Syndicated from Tekla S. Perry original https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/tech-careers/software-engineering-salaries-jump-demand-for-arvr-expertise-skyrockets

It’s a good time to be an engineer specializing in augmented reality or virtual reality. That’s the conclusion of the latest report by job site Hired, which just released its annual state of software engineers report. To compile its data, Hired reviewed 400,000 interview requests from 10,000 companies made to 98,000 job seekers throughout 2019.

Demand for AR and VR engineers, in the form of job postings on Hired’s site, was 1400 percent higher in 2019 than in 2018. Salaries for engineers in these specialties climbed into the $135,000 to $150,000 range, at least in the largest U.S. tech hubs. Demand for gaming engineers and computer vision engineers is also on the upswing; both climbed 146 percent in 2019.

Meanwhile, demand for Blockchain expertise, a shooting star in 2018 with 517 percent greater demand than in the previous year, slowed dramatically, increasing only 9 percent.

What are these developers getting paid? Hired took a look at salaries in the San Francisco Bay Area, New York, Toronto, and London. Salaries climbed across the board, with London showing the most growth at 13 percent year over year, Toronto and New York following at 7 percent, and the already high San Francisco Bay Area salaries growing a not-too-shabby 6 percent. In spite of the growth in demand, AR/VR engineering salaries for most regions have yet to make it into the top ten among engineering specialties. But stay tuned for a change in the rankings next year.


California Is Still Top Spot for U.S. Tech Jobs

Post Syndicated from Tekla S. Perry original https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/tech-careers/california-top-spot-tech-jobs

Where are all the U.S. tech jobs? California, of course, and the region shows no sign of losing its dominance, according to a study by job search firm Dice. Dice analyzed 6 million 2019 job postings in the United States in a database provided by Burning Glass Technologies, which aggregated data from employer sites, job boards, and staffing agencies.

While pundits regularly predict that California’s congestion and high cost of housing will drive new regions to take over as the next Silicon Valley, the Dice analysis indicated that California won’t be losing its crown anytime soon.

What’s the Hottest Job in Tech?

Post Syndicated from Tekla S. Perry original https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/tech-careers/whats-the-hottest-job-in-tech

What’s the hottest job in tech? It depends on how you look at it. If you count job openings, the most in-demand tech professional is the software developer, according to tech recruiting firm Dice. If you’re aiming for the fastest-growing tech role, point your arrow at data engineer, the firm’s research shows. And if you’re zooming in on specific tech skills, SQL is most in demand while Kubernetes is fastest growing.

Go to Market with 400G

Post Syndicated from IEEE Spectrum Recent Content full text original https://spectrum.ieee.org/whitepaper/your_guide_to_the_lastest_in_four_hundred_g_standards

The path to 400G is paved with evolving standards for intra data center, metro, and long haul.

Order Keysight’s poster, Go to Market with 400G, for a handy reference guide on:

  • Electrical and direct detection optical standards
  • Coherent optical standards
  • Channel operating margin (COM) parameter definitions
  • And more

Go ahead, paper your office wall with the latest 400G specs and standards.

400 G

Most IBM Employees Happy About CEO Change, Blind Survey Says

Post Syndicated from Tekla S. Perry original https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/tech-careers/most-ibm-employees-happy-about-ceo-change-blind-survey-says

IBM CEO Ginni Rometty will leave the post in April, the company announced last week. Rometty will be replaced by Arvind Krishna, a senior vice president who runs the company’s cloud computing business. Krishna’s technical chops seem sure to excite the company’s engineers. Krishna, with bachelor’s and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering, joined IBM in 1990 and spent years in the company’s technical ranks before moving into management, co-authoring 15 patents along the way. Most recently, he led IBMs efforts in artificial intelligence and quantum computing as well as cloud. Rometty, who holds a bachelor’s in computer science and electrical engineering, joined IBM as a systems analyst in 1981, before moving into sales and marketing posts about a decade later.

Former employees, posting in the Facebook group “Watching IBM,” didn’t mince words about their joy in Rometty’s departure. Their reaction is not surprising, given that she ran the Big Blue as it laid off wave after wave of engineers—including many who had spent most of their careers at the company.

But what do current employees think?

Blind, the company that provides anonymous social networks for employees within specific workplaces, surveyed its current pool of 4100 verified IBM employees to find out. Of the 105 who responded, the vast majority—66.7 percent—think that Krishna will have a positive impact as the new CEO of IBM. Only 5.7 percent of respondents predicted a negative impact, while 27.6 percent remained neutral.

One respondent to the Blind survey said, “I believe Arvind Krishna will be a net positive, and will focus on making IBM about tech again rather than marketing hype.

By contrast, only 28.6 percent of the respondents indicated that Rometty had a positive impact during her tenure as CEO, with 71.4 percent indicating that was not the case. Of Rometty, another survey respondent said, “She thrived in the ‘tardy, bureaucratic mess’ so couldn’t see why it was killing the company’s future.

And, though Rometty was the first woman to head the company, a move celebrated as a crack in the glass ceiling, 96.2 percent of respondents to Blind’s survey do not believe her departure will negatively impact diversity and inclusion efforts at the company.

The Ethics of Dissent in the Workplace

Post Syndicated from G. Pascal Zachary original https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/tech-careers/ethics-engineers-dissent-workplace

THE ENGINEER’S PLACEA few years ago, while teaching an undergraduate class on the history of nuclear weapons, an electrical engineering student of mine made an unexpected decision. Having learned in class about the costs and benefits of the role of engineers in the creation of nuclear weapons, the student decided to avoid altogether work on classified military technologies. 

There was only one problem with my student’s decision. Lockheed Martin, the large military contractor, had already hired him. Expecting him to graduate in a couple of months, the company assigned him to work on new “classified” routers for computer networks. The devices essentially allowed the system to spy on data traffic. As a final step before starting his job, my student was supposed to undergo a security investigation. Only days before interviews began with his family and friends, my student told the company to cancel the inquiry.  

Then he chose to look elsewhere for work and on graduation he found a job he says will bring his work as an EE in closer alignment with his personal values.

My student’s journey isn’t unusual. For complex reasons, more EEs are shunning jobs that don’t square with their values, or are openly prodding their employers to adopt practices more in line with their preferences. 

One cause of the new restiveness among EEs is generational. Some younger engineers, especially in computing fields, explicitly follow a dictum made popular by Google’s founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin. They once bluntly declared, “Don’t Be Evil” and incorporated the slogan into Google’s corporate code (in 2018 the company dropped the language from the preface to its code of conduct but the wording remains in the document). 

The strong market for engineers also creates more room for dissent, since for many getting another job is relatively easy. Besides, some younger engineers fear becoming trapped in what amounts to a secret career, losing job mobility and earning power.

Another factor: engineering curriculums at universities, including my own at Arizona State University, put more emphasis on ethics, values and “sustainable” practices than in the past. 

As a result of these forces, more EEs are breaking with the field’s traditional allegiance to management by dissenting to their bosses internally or, more dramatically, publicly airing “honest disagreements” with management.

In June 2018, Microsoft employees critical of a contract between the company and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wrote to Satya Nadella, the company’s chief, accusing him and other Microsoft executives of “abdicating” ethical responsibility. In October, of this year, employees of Microsoft’s GitHub unit lodged the same protests over a GitHub contract with ICE. 

Last year Google employees revolted over the company’s plans to design a censored version of its search engine for the Chinese market codenamed “Project Dragonfly.” Reportedly more than a thousand Google employees signed a public letter of complaint, and the company dropped the project. 

Not all dissenters are liberals. In 2017, a Google software engineer named James Damore stirred controversy by internally circulating a memo complaining that “an ideological echo chamber” prevented “some ideas” about diversity from being “honestly discussed.” Among those, Damore insisted, was the possibility that the low number of women in technical positions at Google was the result biological differences and not gender stereotyping. When Damore’s memo went public (and viral), Google fired him. 

No matter the source or political complexion, some rebel engineers choose to move on. While working at Google, Tristan Harris claimed the company purposely designed systems that promote digital addictions, or intense cravings to remain online. In 2013, he shared with coworkers a presentation entitled, “A Call to Minimize Distraction & Respect Users’ Attention.” Harris suggested that Google, Apple and Facebook should “feel an enormous responsibility” to make sure humanity doesn’t spend its days immersed in digital experiences. Tens of thousands of Google employees reportedly viewed the presentation, and debated internally the company’s responsibilities towards society. 

Harris no longer works at Google and now, as the director of an advocacy group named Center for Humane Technology, actively campaigns against the power of “big tech” to colonize the minds of its users. 

Dissent doesn’t only occur within the ranks of “big tech” companies. Earlier this year, an engineer at Boeing, Curtis Ewbank, filed a formal “whistleblower” complaint against his employer. In the complaint, according to the Seattle Times newspaper, Ewbank claims that Boeing blocked safety improvements in the company’s now-grounded 737 Max airplane in order to reduce costs. The 737 Max has crashed twice in recent years, killing hundreds. Promised fixes to the airplane haven’t yet come, and in October Boeing stripped its chief executive of his chairman title over the continuing controversy. 

The dissenting impulse among EEs is closely tied to attitudes towards professionalization. Engineers are sometimes caught between twin ideals—between the independence and self-governance afforded, say, physicians and lawyers, and the view advanced by many corporate employers that engineers are employees who must follower orders, so that those who resist management dictates are guilty of insubordination and disloyalty. 

The tension between independence and obligations to employers has shaped the rise of engineering as a profession.  In a path breaking study first published in 1971, Revolt of the Engineers: Social Responsibility and the American Engineering Professionhistorian Edwin Layton recounted of the political activities of engineers in the 1920s and 1930s. In a preface to the book in 1986, Layton expressed the hope that engineers can ultimately become a “loyal opposition” within American business, neither uncritically following management nor instinctively dismissive of the justifiable demands of large corporate employers. 

Describing his vision of an engineering field poised between autonomy and obligation, Layton wrote, “We need social mechanisms that will enable engineers to function as a ‘loyal opposition.’ Any such measures must recognize not only the right and duty of all citizens to defend the public interest but also the legitimate loyalties necessary to the functioning of our complex modern society. This will involve distinguishing between legitimate action in the public interest and the betrayal of the truth of colleagues and employers.”

Dissent is a matter of personal choice, of course, but choosing when to speak out, how and why, need not happen in isolation. Professional organizations often have their own codes of ethics for “professional activities.” This includes IEEE, which is currently accepting comments on proposed changes to its code of ethics until 10 April 2020.

Codes of ethics are viewed by some cynics as irrelevant, a kind of wishy “boilerplate” that many practitioners ignore. That’s an unfortunate reputation because, broadly viewed across medicine, law, finance and other professions, these codes tend to promote some common practices.

First, ethical approaches should allow for honest criticism of a professional’s work. Professionals should also acknowledge and correct errors. Codes also tend to encourage reflection on the societal implications of a professional’s actions. Finally, professionals should be protected, if not supported, when they publicly complain about unaddressed problems that may cause widespread harm.

While disclosure sounds straight-forward and logical, what to disclose, when and to whom sometimes sparks bitter debates. Like many ethical and professional challenges, unbending rules often don’t work well in the “real” world. Flexibility, however, can easily spawn inconsistencies that then raise doubts about the fairness of rules designed to address these challenges. The only certainty in the new age of engineering dissent: more complicated challenges are likely to arise.

Circumstances and situations bear heavily on choices no matter how technically-objective or logically clear they may seem to be at first. In the end, a sensible engineer ought to seek to balance the needs of his or her primary organization (whether a formal employers or a shorter-term contractor) with the dictates of personal conscience, values and preferences. 

Easier said than done!

Do You Work in Tech? Seattle May Be the Best City for You

Post Syndicated from Tekla S. Perry original https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/tech-careers/tech-jobs-career-best-us-city-seattle-boston-austin

Where is the best place for tech professionals in the United States? Personal finance website provider WalletHub tried to answer that question by looking at the 100 largest metro areas. By its analysis, Seattle, Boston, and Austin came out on top, while Florida metros dominated the bottom 10.

That’s very different from Indeed’s recent study of smaller tech hotspots, which put Huntsville, Ala., at the top, and from SpareFoot’s rankings that gave top honors to San Antonio, Texas. That’s because the WalletHub analysis merged an extremely broad range of factors. The data crunched included the usual variables—like share of job postings in tech, STEM employment growth, and annual median tech wages—but added not so common factors, including number of tech meetups per capita, family friendliness, singles-friendliness, invention patents per capita, quality of engineering universities, and R&D spending.

It grouped these factors into three categories: opportunities, STEM-friendliness, and quality of life, and ranked each metro in each category.

Hardware-in-the-Loop Testing for Power Electronics Control Design

Post Syndicated from IEEE Spectrum Recent Content full text original https://spectrum.ieee.org/whitepaper/hardward_in_the_loop_testing_for_power_electronics_control_design

Learn the key considerations and get practical tips for conducting power electronics control hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testing using Simulink® and Speedgoat real-time target machines.

Download this white paper to learn how to:

  • Select appropriate model fidelity
  • Account for processor and I/O latency
  • Choose between CPU and FPGA for real-time simulation
  • Consider power HIL

Engineering a Repairable World

Post Syndicated from Kevin O’Reilly original https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/education/engineering-a-repairable-world

This is a guest post. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent positions of 
IEEE Spectrum
 or the IEEE.

We are surrounded by digital electronics that are getting harder and harder to fix.

As manufacturers have built and sold us more and more devices, they have constructed barriers to fixing them. Schematics and repair diagrams, once widely distributed, are now considered proprietary. Software locks prevent the repair of devices small and large, from tablets to tractors, including coffee makers

This trend is worrying engineers, many of whom tinkered with their broken stuff as children. As a former engineer myself, I met countless colleagues who were able to point to repair as the start of their interest in the field. 

Repair is an important source of instruction and inspiration. And if we lose our ability to fix our devices, an important pipeline of young minds into the engineering world could be forced shut.

Once those young minds do decide to become engineers, the impact of the technology they design and build has consequences on real people’s lives. When a Nebraska farmer is unable to fix a broken fertilizer spreader, for example, his crop, and therefore his livelihood, can hang in balance. 

That’s why we need to view repair, not only as an entryway to the field, but also as an essential or even ethical element of sustainable design and engineering.

A New Generation of Tinkerers

Surya Raghavendran’s story demonstrates the power of repair to inspire. When Surya was in the 9th grade, he dropped his iPhone 5c and cracked the screen. He paid US$120 for a screen replacement at an Apple store, but a faulty part prevented his screen from working for long.

Surya could have brought the phone back to the Apple store, but not wanting his parents to think he was being careless with the phone, he decided to fix it himself. He watched DIY YouTube videos and bought the parts and tools necessary to complete the repair. Before long, he had mastered the process and started his own business repairing his classmates’ broken screens for about half the price that the Apple store charged him.

Repair allowed Surya to fix his phone and become an entrepreneur in high school. But more than that, it sparked an interest in engineering, which he now studies at the University of Wisconsin.

Stories like Surya’s are now at risk, with many manufacturers, including Apple, refusing to provide the public with the parts, tools, and information needed to repair their devices. Luckily, because Apple has a large user base and makes a limited number of phone models, there is enough of a community to troubleshoot iPhone problems, create instructions to fix them, and even find third-party replacement parts. Users of Android phones, with hundreds of phone models, aren’t so lucky.

To ensure that future Suryas can get their start, we need manufacturers to provide the public with the essential elements of repair. Right to Repair reforms would mandate this, helping to create a tech space friendly to curiosity and learning. But the impact of today’s restrictive repair environment goes beyond our students.

Right to Repair in the Cornfield

Across the heartland of America, farmers are similarly throwing up their hands in frustration. Despite their years of practical experience, they are increasingly unable to fix much of their equipment, threatening their ability to hit razor-thin planting and harvesting windows.

Again, know-how is not the problem—the rise of software in agricultural equipment is preventing repair. Functions that used to have an analog equivalent are now controlled by a central computing system. This provides some conveniences to farmers, such as adjusting certain settings that used to require getting out of the cabin, now with controls at their fingertips.

But along with this change came a significant number of points of failure. Settings that used to be determined by the turn of a valve now use controllers, software, wiring, sensors, and actuators. If any one of those goes down, a whole function is lost. When that happens, farmers are out of luck—only original-equipment manufacturers have access to the diagnostic software required to identify the issue preventing the device from operating correctly. Without these diagnostic tools or other repair information, there is often nothing that a farmer can do to fix the problem on the spot.

Instead, farmers have to take their machine into a dealership. This exposes them to high costs and wait times that the manufacturer’s repair monopoly enables.

Jared Wilson, a Nebraska farmer, talked about one such incident with Nathan Proctor, U.S. PIRG’s Right to Repair campaign director. Shortly after loading up his John Deere fertilizer spreader, a problem developed. The machine was unable to create the hydraulic pressure needed to work properly.

Jared remembers hauling the machine into his dealer, where it sat full of fertilizer for 32 days. He said he called daily and spoke with the manager in person twice. In the time that he could have fertilized 10,000 hectares of land, the dealer found and fixed a mechanical valve that failed. This was the kind of problem that Jared said he could have fixed himself. 

Teaching Repairability

When creating equipment for farmers like Jared, engineers start with the problem that needs to be solved. Jared is not able to spread enough fertilizer fast enough, so engineers design a machine that can solve this problem at scale.

But the problem of fixing the device itself can often be overlooked. That’s why iFixit, the self-proclaimed online repair manual for everything, has teamed up with 80 universities around the world to instill the importance of repairability.

Over the course of a term, students in the program take electronic gadgets apart, identify common problems, and build repair guides that are then included in iFixit’s database. This allows them to acquire hands-on experience with everything from home appliances to the latest laptop.

Beyond technical writing and hands-on repair experience, students get exposure to how design decisions impact the lifespan of a given device. The use of adhesives, for example, might allow a cell phone to be a few millimeters thinner than one using traditional fasteners, but it presents real problems for repair and recycling. Is a slightly sleeker device really worth reducing its lifespan or making end-of-lifecycle processing more difficult and less effective?

These are the exact questions that iFixit wants engineering students to be asking. Indeed, they are topics we all should be thinking about.

Right to Repair and the Rest of Us

Despite the best efforts of the iFixit’s technical-writing project, our society is in danger of losing its ability to repair things. Many view the technology we use in our daily lives as almost magical based on the incredible feats they can perform. But this attitude scares lots of us away from opening our devices to fix them when they break.

This ‘fixophobia’ might help convince consumers to pay premium prices for repair or trust the manufacturers pushing upgrades to fixable devices. But at the most basic level, we have lost the agency that should come with ownership. When we buy something, we should have the right to keep it running for as long as we desire.

Due in part to this mentality, many of us now see our devices as disposable. Americans discard roughly 416,000 cell phones every single day. This is one reason that electronic waste is the fastest growing part of our waste stream. Only about 25 percent of materials comprising this e-waste gets recovered in the United States—the rest likely ends up in landfills, where it leaches toxic chemicals into our environment.

The more devices we toss, the more new devices we need to make, which stresses our limited natural resources. Manufacturing a single iPhone 6 requires 295 pounds of raw material. You don’t need to be an environmental engineer to see that we can’t continue this trend forever.

These practices have brought us to a crossroads: We can either continue on this path of unsustainable consumption and manufacturer reliance, or we can forge a new path towards a greener, more independent society.

I want to live in a world where we are conscious of the environmental impact of what we design, build and consume, where we make things that last, fix them when they break, and design them to be modularly upgraded, where we empower people to explore how their devices work, identify weaknesses, and develop ways to improve them, where access to information encourages dialogue so that innovations come from every corner of our society.

Who better to create this world than engineers? 

More than 100 engineering professors have started by signing this letter calling for Right to Repair reforms. Join us in creating this world by signing today.

There’s a lot we need to fix. We can start by ditching repair restrictions and enacting the Right to Repair. 

Kevin O’Reilly is a legislative advocate with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG).

Tech Professions Dominate Rankings of Best Jobs in the U.S.

Post Syndicated from Tekla S. Perry original https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/tech-careers/tech-professions-dominate-rankings-of-best-jobs-in-the-us

What makes a job nearly perfect? It’s a combination of salary, demand (the number empty posts waiting to be filled), and job satisfaction, according to job search firm Glassdoor, which this week released a list of the best jobs in America for 2020.

Using median base salaries reported on Glassdoor in 2019, the number of U.S. job openings as of 18 December 2019, and the overall job satisfaction rating (on a scale of 1 to 5) reported by employees in those jobs, the company put front-end engineer in the number one spot, followed by Java developer and data scientist. That’s a switch previous trends; data scientist held the number one spot on Glassdoor’s top jobs list for the four previous years.

In fact, you don’t hit a non-tech job until the 8th ranking, where speech language pathologist claims the spot, boosted by astronomical demand [see table].

2020’s Top Jobs

RankJobMedian Base SalaryJob SatisfactionJob Openings
1Front End Engineer*$105,2403.913,122
2Java Developer*$83,5893.916,136
3Data Scientist*$107,8014.06,542
4Product Manager*$117,7133.812,173
5Devops Engineer*$107,3103.96,603
6Data Engineer*$102,4723.96,941
7Software Engineer*$105,5633.650,438
8Speech Language Pathologist$71,8673.829,167
9Strategy Manager$133,0674.33,515
10Business Development Manager$78,4804.06,560

*Tech job  Source: Glassdoor

Tech jobs are among the highest paying, however, with seven of the top ten median salaries [see table].

2020’s Top Jobs by Salary

RankJobMedian Base Salary
1Strategy Manager$133,067
2Finance Manager$120,644
3Design Manager*$120,549
4Product manager*$117,713
5Cloud Engineer*$110,600
6Physician Assistant$109,585
7Data Scientist*$107,801
8Dev Ops engineer*$107,310
9Software Engineer*$105,563
10Front End Engineer*$105,240

*Tech job  Source: Glassdoor

Tech jobs, however, aren’t the most satisfying, according to Glassdoor’s rankings. Top honors in that category go to corporate recruiter posts, followed by strategy manager. The only tech jobs to make the top ten rankings in job satisfaction were Salesforce Developer and Data Scientist; two other “most satisfying” job categories included a mix of technical and non-technical professionals [see table].

2020’s Top Jobs by Satisfaction

Satisfaction Score (out of 5)
1Corporate Recruiter4.4
2Strategy Manager4.3
3Salesforce Developer*4.2
3Customer Success Manager4.2
3Product Designer°4.2
7HR Manager4.1
7Design Manager°4.1
9Data Scientist*4.0
9Business Development Manager4.0
9Accounting Manager4.0

*Tech job  °Job category includes some tech professions Source: Glassdoor

A complete list of the 50 top jobs is available on Glassdoor.

Your Guide to Sprinting Across the 5G Finish Line First.

Post Syndicated from IEEE Spectrum Recent Content full text original https://spectrum.ieee.org/whitepaper/your-guide-to-sprinting-across-the-5g-finish-line-first

5G introduces test challenges related to massive MIMO, mmWave frequencies, and over-the-air (OTA) test. Successfully overcoming these challenges is the only way to reach 5G commercialization before the competition.

In Keysight’s latest eBook, Making 5G Work, you will learn:

  • 5 strategies to accelerate 5G designs
  • 4 insights to ace conformance testing
  • 3 ways to speed up carrier acceptance test for your device
  • 4 techniques that reduce 5G manufacturing test times and costs

Back To The Elusive Future

Post Syndicated from Robert W. Lucky original https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/back-to-the-elusive-future

In the January issue, Spectrum’s editors make every effort to bring the coming year’s important technologies to your attention. Some we get right, others less so. Twelve years ago, IEEE Fellow, Marconi Prize winner, and beloved Spectrum columnist Robert W. Lucky wrote about the difficulty of predicting the technological future. We’ve reprinted his wise words here.

Why are we engineers so bad at making predictions?

In countless panel discussions on the future of technology, I’m not sure I ever got anything right. As I look back on technological progress, I experience first retrospective surprise, then surprise that I’m surprised, because it all crept up on me when I wasn’t looking. How can something like Google feel so inevitable and yet be impossible to predict?

I’m filled with wonder at all that we engineers have accomplished, and I take great communal pride in how we’ve changed the world in so many ways. Decades ago I never dreamed we would have satellite navigation, computers in our pockets, the Internet, cellphones, or robots that would explore Mars. How did all this happen, and what are we doing for our next trick?

The software pioneer Alan Kay has said that the best way to predict the future is to invent it, and that’s what we’ve been busy doing. The public understands that we’re creating the future, but they think that we know what we’re doing and that there’s a master plan in there somewhere. However, the world evolves haphazardly, bumbling along in unforeseen directions. Some seemingly great inventions just don’t take hold, while overlooked innovations proliferate, and still others are used in unpredicted ways.

When I joined Bell Labs, so many years ago, there were two great development projects under way that together were to shape the future—the Picturephone and the millimeter waveguide. The waveguide was an empty pipe, about 5 centimeters in diameter, that would carry across the country the 6-megahertz analog signals from those ubiquitous Picturephones.

Needless to say, this was an alternative future that never happened. Our technological landscape is littered with such failed bets. For decades engineers would say that the future of communications was video telephony. Now that we can have it for free, not many people even want it.

The millimeter waveguide never happened either. Out of the blue, optical fiber came along, and that was that. Oh, and analog didn’t last. Gordon Moore made his observation about integrated-circuit progress in the midst of this period, but of course we had a hard time believing it.

Analog switching overstayed its tenure because engineers didn’t quite believe the irresistible economics of Moore’s Law. Most engineers used the Internet in the early years and knew it was growing at an exponential rate. But, no, it would never grow up to be a big, reliable, commercial network.

The irony at Bell Labs is that we had some of the finest engineers in the world then, working on things like the integrated circuit and the Internet—in other words, engineers who were responsible for many of the innovations that upset the very future they and their associates had been working on. This is the way the future often evolves: Looking back, you say, “We should have known” or “We knew, but we didn’t believe.” And at the same time we were ignoring the exponential trends that were all around us, we hyped glamorous technologies like artificial intelligence and neural networks.

Yogi Berra, who should probably be in the National Academy of Sciences as well as the National Baseball Hall of Fame, once said, “It’s tough making predictions, especially about the future.” We aren’t even good at making predictions about the present, let alone the future.

Journalists are sometimes better than engineers about seeing the latent future embedded in the present. I often read articles telling me that there is a trend where a lot of people are doing this or that. I raise my eyebrows in mild surprise. I didn’t realize a lot of people were doing this or that. Perhaps something is afoot, and an amorphous social network is unconsciously shaping the future of technology.

Well, we’ve made a lot of misguided predictions in the past. But we’ve learned from those mistakes. Now we know. The future lies in quantum computers. And electronics will be a thing of the past, since we’ll be using optical processing. All this is just right around the corner. 

Reprinted from IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 45, September 2008.

Top Tech 2020

Post Syndicated from IEEE Spectrum Recent Content full text original https://spectrum.ieee.org/static/top-tech-2020

special report banner

The Return of the Lithium-Metal Battery

XNRGI nears commercialization of its porous silicon lithium-metal battery

Boeing’s Autonomous Fighter Jet Will Fly Over the Australian Outback

Robotic aircraft will accompany human-piloted planes, adding firepower and thwarting enemy attacks

Your Next Salad Will Be Grown by a Robot

California startup FarmWise says robotics and machine learning will make crops tastier and healthier

Bon Voyage for the Autonomous Ship Mayflower

The team behind the unmanned, solar- and wind-powered Mayflower races to launch it in time for the 400th anniversary of its namesake’s journey

Facebook AI Launches Its Deepfake Detection Challenge

At the NeurIPS conference, Facebook asks researchers to build tools to spot deepfake videos

4 Missions Will Search the Martian Atmosphere and Soil for Signs of Life

ExoMars 2020, Mars 2020, HX-1, and Hope will look for biology’s signature

U.S. Consumers Might Get Their First Taste of Transgenic Fish This Year

AquaBounty’s salmon is the world’s first bioengineered animal approved for human consumption

No Job Is Too Small for Compact Geostationary Satellites

Astranis and GapSat will launch GEO smallsats in 2020 to fill gaps in satellite coverage

Caltech’s Brain-Controlled Exoskeleton Will Help Paraplegics Walk

The exoskeleton’s neural connections will enable people with spinal cord injuries to balance and walk without crutches

10 Tantalizing Tech Milestones to Look for in 2020

Bionic limbs, electric planes,  nuclear fusion, and more

Will China Attain Exascale Supercomputing in 2020?

The U.S., China, Japan, and the EU are all striving to hit the next big milestone in supercomputing, but only China has claimed it will do so this year

Panasonic’s Cloud Analytics Will Give Cars a Guardian Angel

Ice 200 meters ahead: The Cirrus system will give drivers individualized warnings

Machine Learning Engineers Win Silicon Valley’s Salary Race, But Top Salaries Drop Since Last Year

Post Syndicated from Tekla S. Perry original https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/tech-careers/machine-learning-engineers-win-silicon-valleys-salary-race-but-top-salaries-drop-since-last-year

In a year-end review of Silicon Valley’s tech job activity for 2019, job-search firm Indeed found that machine learning engineers are commanding the highest salaries (averaging $172,792, up from $159,230 in 2018 and $149,519 in 2017), software engineers in general are in highest demand, and Amazon has been on the biggest hiring spree.

That’s a bit of a change from last year, when product development engineers claimed the highest salaries in Indeed’s database, at $173,570. It’s also different from 2017, when the big earners were directors of product management, with average salaries of $186,766.

The decline in top salary may reflect a slight softening in demand for tech professionals overall—Indeed’s researchers noted a 3.8 percent decrease in technology jobs listed on the site between October 2018 and October 2019.

Amazon, Walmart, and Apple posted the most Silicon Valley job openings on Indeed from January through October of this year. These three companies also claimed the top three positions in 2018, when Walmart stepped up its Silicon Valley hiring (though they shuffled positions slightly). Walmart ranked 13th in hiring in the region in 2017. Cisco, which was number three in 2017, slipped to fourth this year.

Indeed’s 2019 top 20 lists, below.

Highest-paying jobs in Silicon Valley

(ranked by average annual salary)

1Machine learning engineer ($172,792)Director of product management ($186,766)Product development engineer ($173,570)
2Principal software engineer ($169,268)Senior reliability engineer ($181,100)Director of product management ($173,556)
3Platform engineer ($154,801)Application security engineer ($173,903)Data warehouse architect ($169,836)
4Senior software engineer ($142,794)Principal software engineer ($165,487)DevOps manager ($166,448)
5Software architect ($142,372)Senior solution architect ($164,584)Senior architect ($161,124)
6Senior system engineer ($141,013)Software engineering manager ($162,115)Principal software engineer ($160,326)
7Senior product manager ($134,547)Software architect ($159,642)Senior solutions architect ($158,329)
8Cloud engineer ($132,852)Machine learning engineer ($159,230)Principal Java developer ($156,402)
9iOS developer ($131,979)User experience architect ($155,394)Senior software architect ($154,944)
10Development operations engineer ($128,495)Platform engineer ($155,075)Platform engineer ($154,739)
11Back end developer ($127,088)Data warehouse architect ($154,950)Senior SQL developer ($154,161)
12Firmware engineer ($124,190)Director of information technology ($152,331)Senior C developer ($152,903)
13Android developer ($124,024)Senior back end developer ($151,313)Machine learning engineer ($149,519)
14Software test engineer ($123,531)Senior software architect ($150,970)Software engineering manager ($148,937)
15Data engineer ($120,281)Salesforce developer ($150,923)Software architect ($148,171)
16Full-stack developer ($119,954)Ruby developer ($149,944)Cloud engineer ($146,900)
17Data scientist ($118,887)Server engineer ($149,435)Senior product manager ($146,277)
18Front end developer ($118,768)Python developer ($149,331)DevOps engineer ($146,222)
19Mobile developer ($114,560)Senior software engineer ($148,098)Senior back end developer $144,306)
20Software engineer ($112,969)NAJavaScript developer ($142,185)

Source: Indeed

Most In-Demand Tech Jobs in Silicon Valley (ranked by share of job openings)

1Software engineerSoftware test engineerSoftware engineer
2Senior software engineerSenior product managerFront end developer
3Product managerQuality assurance engineerFull stack developer
4Software architectTechnical program managerProduct manager
5Full stack developerMachine learning engineerDevelopment operations engineer
6Front end developerCloud engineerSoftware architect
7Senior product managerPrincipal software engineerJava developer
8Data scientistFirmware engineerSoftware test engineer
9Development operations engineerSoftware engineering managerSenior product manager
10Software test engineerOperations analystEngineering program manager
11DeveloperIT security specialistApplication developer
12Data engineerProduct owneriOS developer
13System engineerSenior data analystAndroid developer
14Back end developerPrincipal product managerBack end developer
15Quality assurance engineerTechnical product managerQuality assurance engineer
16Technical program managerSenior design engineerData warehouse engineer
17Data analystInformation technology managerAutomation engineer
18Machine learning engineerSenior application engineerMachine learning engineer
19Java developerBusiness intelligence analystSenior Java developer
20Cloud engineerHadoop developerCloud engineer

Source: Indeed

*Exact shares not available