lostcolony

The job of a leader is to define the problem to solve. Meetings are a tool, not an outcome.

I'm not sure that ranking them makes sense.

Like, there are absolutely places I as a manager recognized a win/win/win (company/team/myself) by doing something other than what the company said to do, or to message differently than the company wanted me to.

Putting "the company's interests as #1" is a bit ambiguous. It could mean you are willing to do the things needed to save the company from itself, or it could mean that you'd uncritically do what you were told. Without context, it sounds like the latter.

Similarly, putting your own well being behind both of those sounds like a recipe for burnout. What I expect you probably mean is that you look to take on the unpleasant tasks for the team, the things that need doing but won't grow the individuals on the team, or are morale killers, or are just bitchwork to make leadership happy. But, again, ambiguous.

Hopefully people know not to ask others for factual information (unless it's an area they're actually well educated/knowledgeable in), but for opinions and subjective viewpoints. "How's your day going", "How are you feeling", "What did you think of X", etc, not "So what was the deal with the Hundred Year's War?" or whatever.

If people are treating LLMs like a random stranger and only making small talk, fair enough, but more often they're treating it like an inerrable font of knowledge, and that's concerning.

Also a missed opportunity for an obvious pun, 'plane educational failure'

'or be extraordinarily talented and hardworking'

Maybe you meant "and possibly", since otherwise the 'or' there detracts from the point I think you're trying to make (that ludicrous amounts of wealth requires luck regardless of what talent, skill, or determination you bring).

Or more succinctly - a quorum agreeing to a leader to serialize writes through is both less work than trying to get a quorum to agree on every individual write, and equally as consistent.

Unless, of course, someone has already monopolized the pretty rock collection market with robots.

That's really the threat; that all 'useful' labor will be conducted and collected upon by a very few, and how do we as a society handle that? I haven't seen an economic model situated in capitalism to explain how that can work.

And, of course, if you -do- agree to just let the money go, they won't actually charge you.

So the people who can afford to lose the money (criminals) get to avoid a charge just by bribing the cops, and the people who did nothing wrong have to pay the cops.

Crooked all around.

If you read the article you'd see just the opposite. People without any actual charge, or any actual evidence, who have had the state supreme court in Nebraska still side with 'law enforcement'. Because that is modern day policing. Hell, there was a Supreme Court case that sided with law enforcement that they have -no obligation- to protect citizens. It's why you get stuff like Uvalde. The police exist solely to enforce state authority, not to serve and protect.

I was living in Georgia when CNN's building in downtown was hit by a tornado. They're not nearly as bad as in the midwest, but they certainly happen. Mind you, it's a perfectly reasonable place to build up, but the likelihood of getting killed in a tornado over the past 100 years looks to be worse than the likelihood of dying in an earthquake in California over the past 100 years (slightly lower numbers from what I could gather, but dramatically lower population).

Phoenix (and Albuquerque but I'm less familiar with the specifics) is in the desert; both the water it gets and the ambient temperature are getting worse due to climate change. There are already legal fights over water rights in the greater Phoenix area, and it's just going to get worse. That is not a place to be building up.

During downturns the more sure opportunities are through my network, definitely. But I've still landed jobs during them just from searching (I've been lucky enough to avoid layoffs during downturns, so job changes have always been my own decision).

The US (SW and SE coasts mostly, though some of those jobs were for companies headquartered elsewhere), so yeah, can't speak outside of that.

I've had ~10 jobs in my career so far. 1 was via my network; the others were all just me searching.

But that said, networking makes it far easier. I've seen people be brought in even when an interview panel was meh, because they had worked with the hiring manager before (and to be fair they were fine, just bad at interviewing), as well as people bypass parts of the process due to their knowing people. And, certainly, people getting landing interview loops (and getting put in the front of the queue) all because of a referral/networking.

Could also be the increased income disparity, the huge leap in housing costs without associated pay increase, the obvious inability of the US to change the direction it (and the world) is heading...

I mean, it's rising most amongst young adults and minorities; given the political climate alone I can understand the correlation there.

I set up everything to basically turn off at 6. Close the work laptop, and either set up time based notifications for everything on my phone, or a work profile (Android) that I turn off. While meetings have had a tendency to spread out (due to more spread out teams and trying to make calendars work), so I have a bit less time detached, I still feel like I'm able to detach, even with my work area being the same as my personal PC (though I step away from that for a decent amount of time as well).

I feel like San Francisco, and in general, the Bay area, is the sort of place a billionaire could rationalize maintaining a crew.

The parent wasn't suggesting a rental pilot, but a salaried, on call pilot. As in, "You. I have fully vetted you. I have spoken with you. I will pay you hundreds of thousands of dollars to live near the airport just to fly me where/when I want you to. I have two others just like you, so that all of you can still have lives as I rotate between you. Because the 1.2 million it costs me per year as a multi-billionaire is not even perceptible to me, being like a normal person paying 100 bucks a year, and the convenience to me is huge".

And not like you'd have to come in via the street like the poors. You'll have a helipad at the top, because what kind of billionaire would you be otherwise, coming in via street level? The other billionaires would sneer!

It also misses (well, leaves out; not sure the intent of the comment) the fact that unions have been gutted heavily in the US compared to where they were a century ago. When the US was an industrial, workers were treated poorly, unions began to form, fought for worker protections. As the US has transitioned into a knowledge/service economy, creating industries that didn't historically have unions, and industrials have been on the decline, unions have also declined. And where the US was once at the forefront of worker protections, we are sadly more like a third world country than a first world at this point.

Didn't read the article didja? Or even click and read the full title?

The $750k figure is the amount of Mux's services they provided in 2021, that were (claimed to be) pirate streams, and were not paid. By taking steps to catch and remove pirates, they are reducing the number of unpaid invoices they have.

Their actual costs are less, yes (in that how much they invoice != their actual costs), but it's reasonable to say saved themselves $750k of their services.

It had nothing to do with converting pirates to paying customers. It had to do with preventing pirates from incurring infrastructure costs for them/making use of their services without paying.

Honestly, most of my work experience has been those mythical magic moments just led to a decrease in morale. As a remote worker I am not as invested in the company, and that's a feature, not a bug. I'm doing my job, I'm actively looking to do it well, but frustrations I can't control feel further from me.

I remember distinctly overhearing our internal devops at one place (that was pretty fragmented) talk about how their mandate was to get people only 80% of the way there, that the teams were responsible for getting 100%, and it pissed me off no end, since one of the reasons my department was doing our own devops was that there was no way to take what the devops department was putting out, and leverage it to get to what we wanted (i.e., no path to go from the 80% they provided -> 100% of what we needed). We had tried numerous times to talk to them about it, but they wanted to decide things in isolation and tell us what to do, rather than listening to us. I tried figuring out who was in charge of that group and reaching out to them, and managed a meeting, and they heard and acknowledged the need and agreed change was necessary, then nothing happened with it. Etc. None of that helped my morale, and I ended up leaving that company, not because of that, but because of a number of places where I simply could not affect change.

As a remote employee though? Don't care. As I said, that missing cultural buy in is a feature, not a bug, and it benefits everyone involved. I'm still raising concerns, still trying to reach out for solutions, but invariably when the business prevents me from fixing things I'm not stressing, and am so less likely to leave.

It always struck me as strange that corporations rely on chance for people to connect and understand what other parts of the org are doing, to find synergies* and suchlike.

That feels like something that absolutely can and should be operationalized* if the success of the company relies on it. Build in easy ways for people to join other teams for a quarter (or whatever), ensure that areas of effort are communicated horizontally and back down in minimally invasive, synchronous manners, have clear domain ownership such that it's easy to know who to reach out to, etc.

It's absolutely bizarre to me to pin success on "employees chatting by the water cooler" or whatever the expectation by upper leadership is when they claim stuff around in person. Don't get me wrong, I like seeing coworkers in person now and again, but I explicitly want to do it just to meet them for socializing and team building; not working.

*(buzzword) Bingo!

From the article - "but it also reduced the amount of feedback that junior engineers received (in the form of comments on their code)"

Sooooo...literally just measuring how many comments are being added to the code? That feels like both a really poor measurement for feedback, and also really easily addressable (heck, if you really want that in person feel, make it so PRs are done synchronously; someone hops onto a zoom and the writer presents their code, talking through the changes).

This is the main thing I've noticed - the people who talk about how there is something lost in how work gets done haven't changed how work gets done.

You can't just move to being remote without rethinking how you do everything. People were forced to be remote with COVID, but corporate essentially just tried to port the way things were done to remote, and on realizing it didn't work as well, want to move back.

A few places are doing things correctly and building specifically for remote work.

I honestly believe this is why we have such stark disparity in studies.

I mean...it's self-evident if you've worked in any large software department. Well, with one caveat; there is the inverse, where a company's organization doesn't reflect its software, and there almost nothing gets done, and what does get done does so at a global pace. I've seen that too (oftentimes you get that in the startup that has grown too quickly; the only way anything can get done at all are the people who have been there since it was 50 people, since they know who to talk to).

Yeah, I should probably say "they're treated as CP systems", in that they purport CP guarantees, when in reality they adhere to almost none of them (but, they also adhere to none of the traditional expectations of an AP system, i.e., a way to heal partitions and restore some form of consistency).

He -has- done some positive things towards the Everglades (signed an EO that puts another 3.5 billion towards restoration and water management there), but I do tend to think his track record is ultimately kind of limited just from the fact he denies climate change as being 'woke' (and sought to expand fossil fuel use and curb/ignore renewable use).

It also happens to align with Republican Florida voters; the Everglades hasn't been politicized in the way climate change has.

You don't think code is involved in that my dude? The input wasn't a description into an AI model, with copilot the model. It's code that calls to an ML model. Which is my point. The model was created with code. The model is deployed with code. It runs on infrastructure that executes a bunch of other code. Code takes in user input, puts it into the model, takes the resulting response, does something with it. There is no ML model that is a product in and of itself. ML is not a compiler. It is not a runtime environment. It does not understand business needs, it does not take direction. It certainly may be transformative, for good or ill, but it hasn't suddenly deprecated the need to code; far from it.

When you've built a product using only OpenAI, and not a programming language, come back and tell us.

While at it, come back and tell us when you've implemented a neural net using AI, and not a programming language, come back and tell us too.

Can't speak for op, but can speak as just an observer - probably not. Blockchains are ultimately CP systems, not AP. From that link - "Data can be inserted into the sequence by appending the data to the previous generated state. The state, input data, and count are all published. Appending the input causes all future output to change unpredictably."

Meaning there is a single source of truth. That single source is decentralized (because blockchain), but it still requires a quorum to agree to accept a bit of data, and to treat the new state as the valid state. I.e., multiple competing parallel writes must be serialized across a network of computers, which is always more expensive than if they multiple competing parallel writes can be done in parallel.

Lamport clocks and etc are AP. It fully expects nodes to make decisions autonomously, and to synchronize after the fact. And data can be lost without realizing it.

(The above is all a bit of a simplification, but fundamentally, they're solving different problems)