thaneross

This tends to come up every time flat structures are discussed and it seems like such a failure of imagination that anything other than strict hierarchies could work, despite plenty of counter-examples like Valve. Yes, some people do badly in an environment where you have to have convince people rather than use power to get things done. However the problems with traditional hierarchies are so well known people assume them to be innate. I'm tired of it being normal to have an incompetent boss.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Given the top 10% holds 87% of shares, it seems clear the stock market is primarily a tool to compound wealth. Having a surplus of money is table stakes to play.

What if, and hear me out, we asked the people a new employee has been onboarding with? I know, trusting people to make a fair judgment lacks the ass-covering desired by most legal departments but actually listening to the people who have to work with a new hire is an idea so crazy it might just work.

American culture still holds puritanical views of sex, and this article crosses the taboo threshold that 15 year olds are having sex.

Unfortunately many providers don't expose all the state used to create certain resources through the API, so there's no way to download the real source of truth after the fact.

If your only exposure to static typing is six months of TS, what you are missing is experience. You're still on the learning curve and thus the cognitive load of explicit types is high, but with time the opposite becomes true.

A poor manager in a structureless org is only going to have as much influence as their popularity allows. While this may cause damage, it pales in comparison to a bad manager in a traditional hierarchy who has the power to force their decisions.

I agree people are reaching for the limited power available to them, but the objections to cancel culture aren't usually around voluntary consensual boycotts but rather the use of "social force". Destruction of reputation, demands for firing, deplatforming, doxxing, swatting, etc... the methods of harming a person over the internet.

Violating ethical beliefs when they are inconvenient is what I'd call "moral hypocrisy". Practically everyone is guilty of it to varying degrees.

Because nationality is an accident of birth and being unconcerned with causing harm to others is sociopathic.

If it's clear someone is not acting in good faith, I can think of three options:

1. Find out why and try to fix it

2. Fire them

3. Embrace the low-trust environment by trying to mitigate the dysfunction with layers of bureaucracy

Strategy 3 seems quite popular, and to be fair it might be the only one that scales.

If Mastodon is any indicator, the Fediverse is already well optimized to create echo chambers.

I hate to say it but from my 20+ years in the industry, this is the norm.

Why should a small group of activists get to decide for everybody which statues are allowed to stand?

It tells you the company values process over efficacy. Interviewing, like practically any complex task is dynamic in nature. Following down a line of conversation with a candidate provides genuine insight into the individual and cannot be done mechanically.

These kinds of attempts at language revision rarely have anything to do with the people supposedly offended by them; they are an excuse to gain moral standing. The goal is to advance a particular political ideology, namely Social Justice, which its advocates believe is in the best interest of said minorities and thus doesn't require the consent of those they choose to speak for.

Neutrality does not "implicitly support the status quo" unless you believe the status quo is stable or exists in a local maxima. That clearly isn't true however because the status quo is dramatically different today than it was historically, and I wouldn't attribute activism for the bulk of those changes.

I dry clean my suits. I thought that was the only way to clean them... am I missing something?

I think most people don't realize this given how normalized it is. Wealth is a mechanism of distributing limited resources, and thus profit seeking without concern for externalities or creating value makes everyone else worse off.

I have known very few managers who didn't routinely lie. The advantages of subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation are too tempting when trying to get something from someone.

One I'm interested in is graph databases powered with linear algebra (see GraphBLAS and RedisGraph). Putting the graph structure in a sparse matrix in GPU memory and doing matrix-multiplication to perform queries means you can effectively traverse the entire graph quickly by using the massive parallel nature of the graphics card.

It's a fascinating set of priories that lead to these policies.

"We trust you enough to run your code in production but we can't let you read another team's code because you might steal it. Yes, the odds that anyone wants to steal the code for this mundane microservice are staggeringly low... and yes you're going to be less productive and more prone to serious bugs by being in the dark, but that's your problem."

I wish they hadn't phrased it as "less advanced forms of life", but rather "earlier forms of life". It's a common misunderstanding that evolution favours what we humans would consider improvements, when in reality evolution has no goal.

There's also this less generic lint: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#un...

Indeed. Hosted k8s has been low maintenance in my experience, much lower than managing a bunch of VMs. I think the common thread between people who have horror stories using k8s is either pains from self-hosting or teams who adopted it without experience and used the ample rope it gives to hang themselves.

I'm not sure they are the majority opinion but I agree they are common. It's not surprising given the number of CEOs and venture capitalists on the site.

You're missing my preferred option, pair program on a problem which requires skills relevant for the job. Have the candidate use their preferred tools, ideally their own laptop to minimize discomfort. Make the problem too large to get done within the time block but gives a variety of technical skills for the candidate to show off.

Up to version 1.3 the covenant didn't have a section limiting scope. 1.4 introduced it along with a loophole:

Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.

Eg, if you say something the maintainers don't like on your personal Twitter, all they need to say is "you're representing the project in a bad light" and it's fair game to ban you.

Then in version 2.0 the text you quote appears, but changes

This Code of Conduct applies within all project spaces

to

This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces

but never defines what community spaces are. Is your personal Twitter account a community space? Well, once again that's up to the maintainers to decide. It's the same loophole as 1.4 but more cleverly disguised.

I can't help but notice the contrast with the popular, Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct, which makes it abundantly clear its aim to enforce a set of beliefs on its contributors, with no boundaries between professional and personal life.