mindtricks

This is a pretty fair comment. Their lack of ambition also has this downside. I've felt they are increasingly de-prioritizing the old iTunes business to focus on Apple TV+, which sucks because we really need a good counterbalance to Prime.

So many comments debating the philosophy around this. I like it when these type of sites open a new tab for me. Is there a way to just code in a toggle between the two link opening types?

A few reasons I'm staying positive towards Apple, despite being a streamer themselves, is that they're not large at all. They've currently remained a small, niche content provider of reasonably high-quality content. They don't seem to have the aspirations to be bigger than those on their platform. Also, they have so much increasing oversight on their App Store and decisions there, that they likely do not want to do anything that shows a preference and gains the ire of governing agencies. I'm hoping this keep them relatively neutral.

If you don't like calls, then ask the person requesting it to email/message you want you want to discuss and any decisions that you're hoping to make it from it before accepting it. It's not much, but at least you now have a focus for the call. If you disagree that a call is needed, tell them and request to handle it over async comm lines.

It's possible the other party is dealing with some complex or ambiguous and a call is often helpful to talk through and get them focused quickly. If you still hate calls though, as them to send a write up summary of the call and continue any further conversations that way.

There are so many ways to handle these interactions with just a little give and take.

I lived in China as an American a while back and had a similar take. Their ability to grow successfully and manage their populace definitely presented a new model to a lot of countries.

This is basically ageism. It's not accurate and should be coached out. Flip the question for a 25 year old:

* Will they be on on-call or out partying with their friends? * Are they committed to the work or will they hop to another company once trained? * Are they able to work within our codebase or just jump to the next hot thing?

These types of questions are ridiculous for both sides.

I think it's fair to have principles and still have an interesting an active life. The best example of this would have to be, well, Ben Franklin.

I attended in the late 80s, early 90s and originally thought my education was subpar relative to other states. As I got older, I realized my fundamentals were solid and I'd constantly be surprised by what people people didn't know that I learned in middle school.

That said, I could see the gap when it came to others who participated in Honors or more advanced topics in high school. This is a smaller subset of most school's students, but I walked away with a sense that education in these topics at other schools were more rigorous.

If it helps you, think of the rate limiter as the "no" final boss.

I used to count how many non-friend items there were between friend posts. If I recall correctly, my max count was 20. And similarly to you, when I do see something it's from 3 days ago and feels no relevant to comment or interact with. I know so many people hate Facebook, but I used to really enjoy those small moments with friends where we could interact over small life updates and photos. Now they feed me garbage to groups I've never subscribed to based on some "guess" around my interests.

If you feel there are misrepresentations, then just pick one point and discuss that. I've worked in manufacturing-dependent companies and industries, and lived in China for years. His observations don't feel entirely off-base to me and fit much of what I've observed. So if there is something wrong here, help us clarify one part of it.

The fact that my technology-inhibited parents somehow chose one of the lesser used combinations has left me dumbfounded.

Had the same issue, but finally gave up.

I was also at Nokia during this time and recall OPK (Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo), during a visit to the Beijing office, giving a talk where he talked about the difficulties of pushing new things through the organization.

More specifically, he said that even he would push for investment and innovation in one area, but that as the decision made its way through the org, it became something else. It was an odd moment to see a CEO say something like this, and was a clear indicator to me that we didn't have what was necessary to really pivot the way we needed.

As someone who was there, I recall numerous projects instituted to reduce the number of steps it took to even install an app on the device. It was mind-numbing to see what they were trying to extract themselves from.

Earlier this year, I met some of the team behind the launch, and they love their job. They showed up with NASA pins for everyone, the geeked out over the launches, and just expressed a level of enthusiasm on bringing up this service that I rarely see elsewhere. If that team is reading this, I just want wish you good luck, you certainly pre-built a fan in me.

Don't take for granted the number of people who will enter a crowded market just because they think they can do it better.

I could see how it might be used as a "memory" to some of these AI-generated workflows. As content is generated, having it stored, indexed, and easily discoverable would be important. If the users of these AI tools are individuals and small groups more than big corporations, there may be a market here for Dropbox to tune its product line towards.

There is a whole generation that isn't even familiar with this concept, so you could honestly re-introduce it.

It's "TikTok for Text!"

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but coming in with the mindset is not always natural. We don't know where the poster grew up, their education, their background, etc. It's not the worst assumption to believe that a company is going to be invested in developing you because some will and do. Sadly, the poster was not part of one of those companies.

So instead of beating them down, we should point them to a better way of thinking in a more constructive manner.

It's an interesting point about motivation and work load. My experience with burnout occurred at a time where I was regularly doing 60 hours / week, and enjoying it! The motivation hit came when a new manager moved into the team, and he suddenly wanted to shift my role in a career direction I did not agree to. Prior to him joining, I felt my path was progressing in the direction I wanted, with the blessing of my previous management.

It's amazing how fast a single person can flip that motivation versus work load into the wrong direction.

Facebook is an ad company, and if that market is declining, those cuts may come from non-technical groups meant to serve those accounts and markets. There are likely other programs necessary with high marketing needs that I could imagine need culling and thus fewer people.

When I was in business school for my MBA, the human component was absolutely covered, and I suspect that is the case with many of them. Part of the problem may be though that there are subjects (finance, operations), where I can see the concept of a human resource becomes a bit abstract in order to focus on other concepts. In this regard, schools can certainly do better to connect the people element across disciplines.

For those with a complete disdain for "business types", I'd encourage you to read Peter Drucker. Some of his opinions may feel a bit outdated, but he speaks quite a bit to the knowledge worker and their needs.

The reason most young engineers think this way is 1) they think their work is self-evident and doesn't require demand creation, 2) their management does not engage with marketing and therefore can't convey the value down, and 3) confuses "growth hacking" and "advertising" with the broader work that marketing supports.

...and for the records, they're completely justified here. They have a lot on their plate as a new engineer and this is not an area that has immediate value to them.

I struggle with this as well. My team grew during COVID, and many of them are in different locations. In many ways, they haven't been able to gel as a team. There are other managers who had teams before COVID hit and their virtual hangouts just amplify the bond they had before.

People will complain about these events, but I just don't know any other way to help teams learn about each other.

I'm not sure I 100% agree with the rule, but sales teams should definitely consider it deeply.

It's worth the money for a sales team that understands this process. If your team isn't influencing the RFP, that means they have no real relationship with the client and relevant stakeholders. You'll likely just pull in cost-conscious or high-maintenance clients.

The author makes innovation out to be something akin to "if we focus on this, then it will change", but that's not how this typically works. Most development is based on smaller improvements and discoveries made years in the past. And those take time to mature and scale.

Sometimes they converge around the same time and it looks transformational. More often though, they are slowly incorporated into the progressive change we enjoy.

It's also likely that areas that are important to him, just don't have a market. It doesn't mean people aren't innovating, it just means that resource allocation towards innovation went to other areas (for good or bad).

People need to internalize that more. The gut-check reaction from most people is that process = overhead. It may be true that it creates that from time to time, but essentially a process should help align, remove confusion, maintain flow, and open up organizational capacity to do higher-level and more impactful work.

Most of what you have shared can be easily explained. IT trying to be responsive to you by making sure you have a laptop seems reasonable -- they may be concerned if they wait after Christmas, it would lost in the shuffle. They just made not have had the EQ to think delivery affected you, especially if you gave them address to ship it to them.

Since you're working with a tool (and want education), your manager just may want to expose you to the vendor to help you succeed. It may be that talking with the vendor in this way may not be easy to set up.

And I say this because it sounds completely normal to me for this size of a company.

That said, if "best intent" is still not enough to justify their requests and actions to you, then that's on you to decide the work style and company you like. And if you feel you have the opportunity to pursue opportunities elsewhere that best fits your comfort zone, then you should.

Instead of root cause analysis as blame laying, look at this as more of an identification of diagnostically important reasons. The above example doesn't help anyone. If code was late, would you accept "our developer is incompetent" as a root cause? Of course not. It's possible that they are, but it's also possible that requirements were not clear or that they took toe long to clarify, which led to a reduced amount of time to do actual development.

In a bigger sense though, the exercise is to force you to take a moment to look beyond band-aid solution, not as an exercise to critique capitalism.