learc83

I worked for a start up that sourced truck drivers. One of the major factors is that sign on bonuses tend to be bigger than any kind of retention pay. So the 94% turnover is misleading. Truckers are generally leaving for a sign on bonus at a new company. They aren’t leaving the industry at that rate.

The difference is that when you press enter I get an alert. Then you take 30 seconds or 2 minutes (or more) to think through and type out your question. Now I just have to sit there waiting for your question.

You can say hi + ask a question in the same message. So I don’t really see how:

Hi. <Press enter> <Ask Question>

Is any more polite than:

Hi. <Ask Question>

He’s the vice chairman of the intelligence committee. He is one of 4 members of congress who have much more access to intelligence.

The difference is China would likely cut off banks and countries who “hurt the feelings of the Chinese people”, i.e., refer to Taiwan as a country, or refuse to recognize the 9-dash line, or comment on their human rights abuses.

That's a nice succinct way of putting it!

Misunderstanding ECS is very common. Mostly because the name includes entity and component, so many people think that any architecture where you have an entity container with behavior defined in components is an ECS.

Yes those discrepancies exist. But they are almost always a result of imperfect information at hiring. No one hired 2 people into the same role assuming that one would only be half as productive as the average and one would be 2x more productive. Had they known that going in they would have hired them into different positions or at least different levels within the same position.

And typically those high performers either get promoted or leave to find higher paying jobs.

In the real world, companies can't go down to the local "Employee Store" and order up a 12 year engineer with a PhD whenever they want, even if that's what they would prefer.

I have hired many employees throughout my career, and never once have we posted a position for which we would have taken a junior engineer or someone with 12 years experience and a PhD. Even at small startups. Not that we weren't hiring both types of people at the same time. But we weren't hiring them for the same position. At my current company we have open positions on our hiring page for 4 different levels of software engineer.

In the case where someone applies for a position that doesn't fit, we let them know and move them over to a different position in our applicant tracking system.

A 2 year junior dev may be able to accomplish the same goal as the 12 year one, but much slower due to lack of experience, and you don't know if you'll find either until you start interviewing.

I have never worked somewhere where they would give both these people the same title. If the more experienced dev can do the job so much better that you're willing to pay them 50% more, they aren't doing the same job. Why would you give them the same title. I don't know anyone with 12 years experience (that would be worth 50% more) who would be willing to work somewhere with a junior title.

If John Carmack and a junior dev both apply to the role of "Software Engineer", I see zero reason why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer him a substantially higher comp due to his experience.

Who is saying the company can't post 1 job title and a gigantic salary range. Of course they can. I'm just saying that it's stupid.

If you hire John Carmack and John Bootcamp grad, they aren't doing the same job, so what's the point of pretending like they are by giving them the same title. At that point you might as well just have one title for every position in the company. Just call everyone "Employee" and have a salary range of $1-$5,000,000.

He'll likely accomplish the same goals more quickly, more efficiently, with better code practices in mind.

If he's producing so much more/better work that he's worth huge multiples more, then he's not doing the same job. There's no reason to pretend that he is.

Having to put it under the guise of "a different position" is just befuddling to the process. It's the kind of unnecessary legislation that pushes companies to find shady ways of solving problems.

None of these laws say a company can't post 1 job with a huge salary range. It's just stupid to do so because it sets the wrong expectations for everyone involved.

Then you post 2 different job listings. It’s not hard. You’d write 2 very different descriptions for someone those 2 hypothetical candidates anyway.

You also don’t need put $50k-$5,000,000 just in case John Carmack applies. If he does happen to apply to your junior engineer position, you instead interview him for another position with a higher salary band.

Companies do this all the time. There’s generally no problem with it. We have an opening for an staff engineer at work, but we’d settle for a senior engineer.

We definitely wouldn’t hire an unqualified person as staff and just pay them less.

Or an overqualified person as senior and pay them way more. That just doesn’t make sense.

Companies also routinely have permanently open positions without exact numbers of positions.

It’s also very easy to just give the higher paid person a different title.

Surely if they are worth 50% more, you can give them a better title to go along with it.

2 years of experience vs PhD and 12 years of experience for a similar position

Why would you hire those 2 people for the same position? If the PhD with 12 years of experience is worth 50% more, then why not give them a better title?

Instead of having 1 role with such a huge gap. Why not multiple roles.

If you find a candidate who you really think is worth 50% more than the average salary for Role X, then obviously that candidate is qualified for Role X + 1.

Not sure how much cash those people think that ATM can hold.

The difference being that lawyers generally need to pass the bar exam once. You need to brush up on your leetcode every few years.

I’ve always been able to successfully negotiate those IP ownership clauses. Usually without any hassle at all.

I’m not arguing about setting up your own infrastructure. Heroku launched when rails was 2 years old. What’s the point of this comparison if you arbitrarily handicap the most common rails deployment environment?

I was around in the early 2000s, and you certainly didn’t need a 3.5 GPA from a top tier school for anything but a very small handful of companies.

In the early 2000s, you could get decent work just knowing HTML.

As someone who leans frontend

I would second guess SaaS startups that start by building the infra/data models unless they’re going for a highly technical play

Do you not see the problem with these 2 statements. Of course not dealing with non JavaScript is easier for a JavaScript developer.

You can get something in front of your users tomorrow.

This is something we’ve been able to do with Rails or Django for nearly 2 decades now. I can do something similar with more interactivity with Phoenix LiveView and Postgres these days.

When was this? Maybe If you’re talking exclusively about FAANG.

Sorry I wasn’t clear. I got 6 weeks of paternity leave. I just didn’t take it until my wife finished her 12 weeks of (unpaid) maternity leave.

Still super lucky to have that!

It’s not really that bad for every baby. I have a 4 month old, and I’ve managed to get a few chapters of a technical book I’m writing and illustrating done during the last month on paternity leave.

After a month or so he started mostly sleeping at night with 2 or 3 feedings needed. Then during the day he started napping for 1-2 hour stretches.

Michael Phelps directly says in one of his auto biographies that he was eating 8-10k calories a day. I don’t think you can call that a rumor.

Of course he could be off a bit, but it seems unlikely that he’s off by a factor of 2.

He lists the foods that he ate, and it definitely sounds like it was close to 10k calories. His coach also discussed his diet, and backs up his claims.

How do his results line up real world data like soldiers needing about 5k calories a day when active. Or athletes like Michael Phelps consuming 8k-10k calories a day while training?

The surviving craftsman homes, which weren’t average for the time time due to survivorship bias, are more likely to be built in higher density walkable environments closer to urban cores. Real estate in those areas is more valuable in general.

The average D.R. Horton home is built further out on lower density, less valuable land.

There’s also an element of scarcity here. There’s a subset of people who find older homes appealing specifically because they are older. The supply of older homes can’t increase, but the supply of D.R. Horton homes can and does.

There’s probably some an element of fashion to it, but there’s also a technical element. Engineered lumber allows for cheaper, larger unsupported spans.

Cooking is also less frequent, extraction fans are better/cheaper, we don’t use wood burning stoves. When people do cook it’s less likely to be an all day process, and less likely to involve methods like deep frying in bacon grease. It’s also less likely that a middle class family has a servant to do the cooking for them.

All this leads to less need to segregate the kitchen from the rest of the house.

If you look at Victorian houses, kitchens were placed as far away from living spaces as possible. Going forward from the 19th century there has been an overall trend towards integrating the kitchen with living spaces. Culminating in the modern trend of combining the kitchen and living room into one large space.

Families are also smaller than they used to be, so there’s less need for as many rooms. Plus furniture is larger on average.

The point is there are factors pushing houses towards larger open spaces, and larger open rooms in general that are likely durable.

The average craftsman home built 100 years ago isn’t going for the same price as a 25 year old house.

The craftsman homes that have survived for 100 years in good condition are. That’s a very different thing.

Old houses also have tons of problems even when upgraded, and they just aren’t anywhere near equivalent to a modern home unless you essentially gut them and rebuild.

Insulation isn’t nearly as good. Bathrooms aren’t nearly the same size. The floor plans aren’t nearly as open. This last one in particular is a big cost difference because creating large open spans is expensive.

Those things might not matter as much to you, but they are big differences.

The point is that even you wanted to replicate an original craftsman home today, you wouldn't be able to do it for that price, even ignoring regulations. Labor costs have gone up, wood has gone up, minimum cost of every material used has gone up.

Depends on the part of the country and whether or not you can use modern equivalent materials.

Where I live, assuming pre pandemic prices, I could probably build a 900 sq ft, single story house with a wooden pier foundation, no plumbing, no electrical, no insulation (or maybe old newspapers like my great grandmothers house used for insulation), no driveway, no sod, and no inspections for $40-$50k.

That would be roughly equivalent to your average house built 100 years ago.

Many houses built 100 years ago were incredibly shoddily built / assembled. Have you ever looked at the foundations on old houses? Wooden piers that are lucky to last 40 years were very common. You’re seeing survivorship bias at work.

Also 250/sq ft is far from cheap/shoddy quality in much of the US. And with proper maintenance just about any house built to code in most places in the US will easily last longer than the average house built 100 years ago.

This was a proposed RFC that wasn’t adopted. For another take on the Robustness Principal/Postel’s Law by a proponent see this blog post: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20090222