replyguy912

this is just a more honest merger. Someone is always getting acquired, in this case they're upfront about who has post-deal control.

pretty much like you've described. When you're making up the valuation and spending your own currency there's no problem; you control both sides of the balance sheet

or you could, ya know, walk 8 blocks and keep the restaurant in business, but hey, we all have our limits.

This is an all stock deal, so valuations are about as realistic as a televised poker tournament. No one is paying a 27% premium in cash; they're spending their own ridiculously valued stock.

There is no business model in the world that makes grubhub a 7B company. If proven wrong I will gladly eat a hat delivered by them.

I disliked JIRA and we switched to Microsoft DevOps about a year ago. Now I really miss JIRA. DevOps is so painful in comparison, especially doing really specialized things like, you know, tracking work items and answering questions like "what's done; what's outstanding". sigh.

I'm a big believer and user of 1:1s and don't think they're a waste of time, because if there are no problems it gives me a chance to get a coffee, go for a walk, get to know my direct reports - how is that a waste?

The challenge with natural check-ins is everything else in our world is scheduled and it will eat all time not allocated. I block off the time and the schedule tells my team mate "This time is for you".

I trust my teamm members too, but it's not their job to proactively bring up every problem in a timely manner:

Some people/cultures will not do this but they will respond to empathetic, well thought out lines of questioning.

some problems are very sensitive and scary and don't need the added burden of "going to the boss to ask for some time to talk"

Some problems are not apparent and the 1-1 gives you a forum to discover them

Some very serious problems are not viewed as problems by your team members. A huge part of a manager's job is to identify them early.

I do a lot of the casual and emerging management stuff as well; 1-1s are not mutually exclusive. There are bad 1-1s too: right now with everyone remote I think the quality has gone down because we can't capitalize on the personal aspects. You learn that the 1-1 process is the easy part; actually giving a shit and working at building relationships is the hard part.

having sat on both sides of the table, this is a weak rationalization for wasting a lot of people's time. You're making candidates do so much work in terms of applications, preparation and interviews and you don't even know what the market looks like? Are the positions you're staffing so unique that you can't get comparable data from anywhere, or are you really just fishing for someone you can low-ball?

I hear this all the time and it's overly simplistic. Maybe if I give you a single number that is my true desired value, yes. If I give you a range where the low-end is 25% higher than that true value, I've now anchored discussion at a much higher value and it will be hard for you to reset the anchor.

This seems reasonable and beyond what other major employers are offering, but as is the fashion I'm sure Amazon will be convicted in the court of public interwebs shortly...

Except they were there for 14 years. Unless it became instantly diametrically opposed to their belief system in the past couple of months, the author has put up with the changing environment for a long time. They're not some skill-less laborer; after all, they worked at google! they could get another job pretty easily, no, one with a company that shared their personal values?

from a recent modern family:

Phil: "Who knew people on the internet could be so mean?"

I agree - I consider the current president both a hater and accomplisher of impressive things.

down-voters should interpret impressive as "making an impression" not "something really good"

over-commenting is explaining in pseudo-english what you've written in code. Prentend you are at the United Nations but you speak all the langauges, so you don't need a word-for-word translation. You don't understand to motivations of every speaker though, nor their cultural influences and a million other factors, so context is super important. In the briefings you get some of the information is not new; but if the vast majority of what you're told is obvious or discernable from what people say, you're looking at over commenting. It's not a yes-no thing but a balance of evidence, subjective opinion.

comments shouldn't explain code period; they are to clarify intent.

I just don't agree with this viewpoint at all. There are plenty of profitable startups directly focused on education and the environment. Maybe you don't agree with their definition of meaningful but don't let perfect be the mortal enemy of better.

whatever meaningful means to you should be a highly personal measure, not the classic, obvious societal ones. It also helps if the macro-benefit of the act is a symptom of the behaviour vs. the goal. example: I ride a bike to work everyday because it's fun, good for me and cheaper than driving. I dn'to it primarily because it's good for the planet, but hey, it's a nice bonus. We need to look for lots of opportunities that do good for others as a consequence of doing well for ourselves, not a subsistute.

> I don't particularly care about meaningful work, I enjoy solving problems that matter and I'm good at it so I want to do that.

Isn't this the same thing? Meaningful is highly personal & contextual, so a problem that matters IMO definitely is meaningful.

Being good at something valaueable that you enjoy is one of the key measures of a life well lived for me, so kudos on that.

I think the question around performing meaningful work is largely rhetorical; the challenge is where do you find meaningful work?

We tend to love the romantic notion of throwing away the high paying meaningless (to us) job to follow your dream, but in reality it tends to be more of a dream than the way things work.

I wish more people would put some deep thought into (1) defining what meaningful work in their context would look like, and (2) building a strategy for moving from their current state to the desire one that doesn't involve essentially throwing away what they have to start over.

As far as trading money for meaning, I see this as an alternative view on the well known limits of extrinsic motivators; you'll trade any money beyond your personal level for deeper purpose. The key then is figuring out what this amount is, then evolving into meaningfulness.

Yes, likely the inventors' ancestors now work for Facebook or EA.

I'd say it's somewhere between bottom 5% and top 10% ;)

> Walmarts core is poor, rural/suburban America.

Maybe in 'Merica but not in Canada. It's the go-to for the huge array of products between Costco & the grocery store for a wide set socioeconomic segments. If it's a supercentre they get lots of the grocery dollars too.

They give you free shipping on everything, including big, bulky items like diapers. I think this is more important for lower income folks than same day delivery.

We're in the process of migration, first from Jira to Boards. I have some serious concerns but I'm a marginal Jira user and DevOps newbie, so they all seem confusing to me.

The build pipelines & release management stuff is even more confusing but could be quite powerful. I'm pretty opposed to replacing (even ancient) Jenkins et al CI tooling that works though - seems like a lot of work for little net value.

If you're doing greenfield development in the MS ecosystem DevOps should be strongly considered; aside from the cost savings (it's usually bundled with lots of porgrams/memberships) I don't see huge benefit over say the Atlassian solutions.

The biggest problem with learning on an "as-needed" basis: You only learn what's needed to accomplish your immediate goals. An inefficient, injectable query will certainly get data showing up on your web page.

Most people are not going to "learn databases" over the weekend. A boss or company that has employees capable of this type of independent learning and routinely expects it will soon lose the former. That costs more than 2 cents.

It's hard enough to identify good or bad, let alone assess to the degree that I can say 2 candidates are comparable. When that happens it really means I've got an equally poor measure of both.

Must be pretty cool to able to identify sociopaths just by "lookin' them in the eye!"

The more I do interviews and get assigned the "culture & fit" asessment role, the more depressed I get. It's really just code for the bias "looks and acts like me => good"

Well, what your typcal symphony orchestra audience wants is a mix of challenging (for the performs & listeners) pieces and the well-known standards. Stray too far either way and it's a miss.

It not just entertainment for a lot of people, unless you consider all cultural events "expensive entertainment acts".

We have SQL above that level and relational algebra below it; the challenge with your proposal is it's super-dependent on non-trivial implementation. Upper-level database courses deal with this, but in the same way compilier or operating systems do: you get to build functioning implementations but not realistic, performant ones. IMO opinion this is outside the scope of comp sci grad students or advanced undergrads not in a DB specialization.

Agree on struggling for real scenarios where you'd use a right-join, but your example with

select * from dogs where owner_id not in (select id from owners)

You wouldn't actually recommend something like this would you? The query plans for sub-selects vs. left-joins are very different, with lots of implementations having limits on the "in" clause.

Kind of funny that the way you'd feel if you saw a right join is similar to how I feel about sub-selects!

There's a parallel that every consultant or salesperson should use when a client asks for "super-specialized feature X" in their gp-product: reframe what they're asking for in a way your product can address the underlying need without committing to adding the specific workflow they ask for!

You're right; there are a number of quality character traits (like this one) that disqualify a person from ever achieving elected office. I fear the list grows longer each day.

I agree but but I think it should be followed by some indication of the strategy or initiative that you'll use to get in the know:

"I don't know - I need some time to research the effect of XYZ on our prooposed solution. Let's get together tomorrow."

"I don't know. Let me ask Bill from the platform team if he has any suggestions and then get back to you."

etc.

Weak performers use "I don't know (how to/where to/ etc)" as an excuse to give up; strong performers use it as an opportunity to learn without bucking responsibility.