HN user
Capital reallocation.
In other words, moving money/spend from non-AI projects to AI projects/cost. This includes trimming the bottom X% of performers to reallocate that money too.
In most cases, it is not about current productivity or AI doing people's jobs.
Could the limited MCP support be due to security concerns?
I've seen a number of stories about LLMs going rogue and messing things up (dropping databases, making unwanted changes, etc). Also, apparently there are security concerns with the MCP protocol itself.
Did you mean this one (PDF)? https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...
Having dabbled a bit in astrophotography, I would suggest that color is best used to bring out the structure (and beauty) of the object. Trying to faithfully match the human eye would, unfortunately, cause a lot of that data to be harder to see/understand. This is especially true in narrowband.
"down from its peak of 20 million."
Publish on your Own Site, Syndicate Everywhere
The article below claims that milder store-bought peppers are the result of growers using different varieties, which is driven by larger (factory) consumers of the peppers.
https://www.dmagazine.com/food-drink/2023/05/why-jalapeno-pe...
Check out the book, "Burnout: The Secret to Unlocking the Stress Cycle".
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42397849
I found it helpful in understanding the underlying causes of my own feelings of burnout. Also, don't be put off that the book says it's for women. The core lessons seem to apply to everyone.
(comment copied from earlier conversation on a similar topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35849384)
Related discussion:
JPEG XL support has officially been removed from Chromium https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33933208 (292 points, 378 comments)
I was curious how they defined 'unsafe' in this context. Following the links in the article, I found this quote:
These massive trucks are actually safer for their occupants, but far more deadly to the people outside
I used to work at a CMMI Level 5 (certified) shop. The process was inevitably tailored to the lowest common denominator. It was meh.
We used to say that the process will never turn a mediocre engineer into a good one but it will absolutely turn a good engineer into a mediocre one.
In general, I've observed that a lot of these heavyweight processes are used as a substitute for high quality engineering leadership. They are not a good substitute.
Have you talked with the reviewers about this?
When I've seen this happen it usually boils down to communication problems. The solution is often to talk to the reviewers _before_ writing the PR.
For example,
1. Disagreement about the problem/solution - hash out the design first, then write the code
2. Disagreement about priorities - align expectations before investing too much time in design or code
3. (etc)
Yes, communication is hard. Unfortunately, it's really the only way to get things done with other people. Building decent communication skills is a worthwhile investment for all SWEs
Mark Twain is often quoted as saying, "I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one."
In my experience, simple solutions are not the lazy minimal-effort ones. It takes a lot of work to distill complex problems down into simple solutions.
There is earlier research[1] from the same authors showing the opposite effect. It's unclear to me what changed.
One thing I noticed is that the earlier research took into account productivity increase of the employees due to less commuting time. This certainly benefits the employee and probably the overall economy, but maybe not the employer.
1: https://wfhresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Barrero-A...
Check out the book, "Burnout: The Secret to Unlocking the Stress Cycle".
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42397849
I found it helpful in understanding the underlying causes of my own feelings of burnout. Also, don't be put off that the book says it's for women. The core lessons seem to apply to everyone.
[1993]
Actual article title is: "Higher Unemployment Rate Looms as the Fed Fights Inflation"
Higher != High
Google published a similar recommendations: https://google.aip.dev/
Alternative way to read the Twitter thread: https://nitter.net/_rsc/status/1496352325157457922
In case you are wondering:
Named davemaoite after prominent geophysicist Ho-kwang (Dave) Mao, the mineral is the first example of a high-pressure calcium silicate perovskite (CaSiO3) found on Earth.
Active discussion in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29806076 (240 comments, 347 points)
In addition to the other great suggestions: think about how you present your attitude during the interview process.
IME, many hiring managers want to see passion (desire to focus on the user/mission), drive (evidence you will work hard), and humility (ability to be a team player), in addion to technical skills.
Displaing corresponding negative traits can really undermine their view of you. For example, cynicism, ignorance/resistance to hot/new tech/approaches, lack of interest in learning on your own time, condescension for decisions they have made, disdain for the hiring process, etc.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument
I've never seen this to be true in any of the mature, publicly traded companies that I have worked at. It also seems like poor corporate governance to let someone spend millions without proper review. Consider the opportunities for fraud, waste, embezzlement, scams, etc.
One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is employee performance. In my experience, well functioning organizations go out of their way to retain top performers (with better pay raises, bonuses, equity, project opportunities, etc).
Average performers are valued but replaceable. They probably will see nominal raises over time. Minimum effort performers are just a drag on the team, as they occupy a spot that might go to a better performer.
While it costs to hire and train someone new, you also get new ideas and possibly someone better than average (if the company has a good hiring process).
A number of people I work with have official part time schedules, ranging from 50%-80%. Their expectations and compensation are adjusted correspondingly.
I wonder if you are running into this reaction because you are in a position (or applying for a position) where the expectations and compensation are calibrated to "full time" (~2000 hrs/year). Have you tried discussing a part time arrangement which might work better for you?