JustLurking2022

Hate to say it but Amazon was hiring the folks getting laid off from major banks a few years ago. They abandoned hiring only the best a long time ago.

Sounds like you were a slacker almost certainly getting paid way above average, and got fired way later than you should have.

No sympathy.

It's not about them leaving the network, it's a matter of whether they could be coerced by an authoritarian government to alter transactions.

So they've discussed DoS?

Ahhh... They're trying to sell themselves as security experts.

I'd like to think that but, hiring for a couple open roles posted only internally at a FAANG, I definitely received emails from external individuals inquiring about the role - and found out there's a whole cottage industry around referrals for a fee.

I've worked in both sorts of companies. The constant questioning may work well at smaller scale but kills productivity at larger scales. Putting aside that it inevitably becomes a political exercise as much as a technical one (because the different technical solutions almost always reflect competing priorities), it also requires perfect sharing of information across the organization, which does not scale.

Especially in any sales driven organization, I've seen it cause issues with infra teams questioning the need for certain features. Meanwhile, the answer is that the features are necessary because someone is willing to pay $$$ for them.

At some point, the cargo cult are the promo reviewers and then the two become the same thing.

Depends on who you count as employees - Sergey? Larry?

Most also look like hobby projects more than professional, so I would imagine having a lot of free time is a prerequisite. I don't know anything about the guy but all of the things you listed are reimplementing something that already existed, which is faster given at least the requirements are very clear.

Downvote though you may, you misunderstand containers - they are not simulating a whole operating system (that would be a VM), they are using features built into Linux to isolate tasks running on the same OS kernel to be isolated from each other.

You appear to misunderstand containers.

The dogma generally becomes accepted because it outperforms other known strategies. In a game like Go, that could previously take a while because there are so many possible follow-ups that it takes time to accumulate enough data on whether a new strategy is actually decisively better, or just worse but over-performing because it's less known.

There's a big difference between those two and "the hacker ethos" will lead to a lot of the latter. However, now computers can simulate enough games to give a relatively high degree of confidence that a variation in strategy is truly better.

As a thought experiment, let's say Facebook did this.

The red team designs a new streamlined look with less click baity posts and fewer ads. Users flock to it, abandoning the existing platform. The new platform isn't monetized as effectively as the old one so revenue drops by billions per year - maybe an order of magnitude more than the new product brings in. Shareholders demand an answer as to what management are doing about it.

There might be some golden path, but that typically relies on finding a new market that doesn't interfere with the existing business (e.g. AWS and Amazon). However, the far easier options are a) shutdown the new service or b) increase its monetization, thereby starting the enshitification cycle.

The environment you describe is self-destructive, which is why it is rare throughout history.

Xerox PARC did it, and reaped almost none of the rewards for their innovation, so it perished. It only worked for Bell Labs because they had monopolistic control of telephony and could charge whatever they liked to subsidize their R&D. As soon as they lost the monopoly, it went down hill fast. Google is the closest thing to this in the past couple decades, and have seen all their investments in AI walk out the door to found competitors.

Bottom line, pouring enormous amounts of money into pure research without demanding commercialization results certainly benefits researchers (who can pick up and take their research elsewhere) but runs companies into the ground.

Having experience both inside and out, I find large tech to be uniquely bad in this regard, but for an unexpected reason. Whereas outside large tech, managers are typically part product manager, part tech lead, part project manager and part people manager, inside it those are all distinct people. It leaves the EM role stripped it down to solely people management which pushes away many people who would make great managers, leaving only those who can't get a more attractive TL job.

Hard pass - many languages simply don't prioritize the experience of executing shell commands.

I think you have it backwards - most people don't know what AI as a product really accomplishes. They're probably more accepting of products that use AI when it enhances an experience they already understand and want.

Glad to hear it's a non-profit but do you publish executive compensation?

Particularly given these are loans to businesses, it sounds like lots of people are making a profit from these projects, but not the people actually putting up the money to fund them. It's a shame that this isn't an actual investment opportunity, as it seems like an interesting space.

Yes, but it only takes a very small generator to power the fans vs. a huge one to power a heat pump.

The only thing stopping me from buying a great pump is how unreliable the power grid is in my area. Lines are above ground, with numerous trees overhanging them so a snow storm is high risk for a power outage at a time I can least afford it, as road conditions may prevent seeking shelter elsewhere. Conversely, with a furnace and a small generator to run the blower, I can keep heat on through a couple days without power.

Funny how crypto folk constantly talk about libertarian ideals, except when other people exercise their right not to do business with planet destroying scam artists.

Honestly, the article rambled & ranted as much as it informed.

TL;DR: Check cashing exists because banks don't want to deal with people who deposit checks with a high risk profile (whether due to fraud or lack of funds by the payer). Unsurprisingly, this risk gets priced into the product.

Dealing with bounced checks from such people often involves behavior that most of a bank's customers would consider somewhere between impolite and disturbing. Also, many consumers of check cashing do not have state issued IDs and may not be up for dealing with KYC checks.

The situation has gotten somewhat better for low income people in that government benefits are delivered electronically, without needing to cash a check and some emerging electronic payment options may improve it further.

Not admitting senior leaders screwed up the strategy and over-hired.

Her ability to "just move on" may be compromised by having a very short stay on her resume, and no reference.

I hope she finds something else quickly but many companies look for any red flags as sufficient reason not to take the risk. This kind of experience has real implications for a person's future prospects, at least for several years.

Saw a variation of this during the recent bout of tech layoffs. Shortly before end of year eval time, a senior executive sent out emails questioning whether it was even possible for new hires to have made sufficient impact and suggesting they should consequently be given a poor rating as the default.

It's amazing that leaders at these companies which, for years, acted as though they had all the answers and were more successful than other industries because they worked smarter. And then, at the first sign of headwinds, they want no accountability for their decisions and can't figure out a principles as simple as being honest and treating people fairly.

I'm honestly curious how CloudFlare will handle reference checks for these people, given they are calling these performance based dismissals. Will they say they are "not eligible for rehire" (the HR way of saying they were terminated for cause)? If so, I hope they get sued, as that can tank a person's entire career trajectory.

No, it's up to the individual company to continue paying those employees.

I ride the subway daily and fully support cracking down on fare jumpers. People have become pretty brazen about it - even many who clearly have the means to pay jump it just because they know no one will do anything about it.

Besides the fact that it's stealing from all the people who do pay, as the resources are stretched that much thinner to keep trains and stations clean despite the extra freeloading traffic (and it really shows), it also likely encourages other lawless behaviors, like littering and aggressive pan-handling on trains when the whole operation feels like no one cares.

The whole situation would be easy enough to fix with better turnstiles but it seems like that's not in the cards.

That sounds like an attempt to ban political expression that is certainly protected by the First Amendment.

I think most people on here are citing US based conditions, particularly with respect to healthcare costs and various taxes.

Stick to consumer banks, they're laid back. Investment banks or asset managers tend to be more cutthroat.