wayn3

We as a community take a strong stance on the issue and categorically decline jobs that are not fully remote.

The recruiters I work with know that I don't entertain non-remote work at any salary.

Do the same. Join the revolution. Succeed.

Hey, I have 10 years of experience writing bots/getting information from the internet and I'm interested in this role. Care to discuss this 1on1? I'm not going to submit a resume somewhere that will never be looked at.

I'm the right person for this.

Would you consider buying something for less than 10 cents that is now worth 8k? Maybe. Not really sure tho.

someone who has all the responsibility of a founder with all the potential upside of barely becoming a millionaire if it ever turns into a unicorn.

and you obviously work founder hours for employee compensation.

no. the mind, when at ease - when you truly do not try to think a particular thing - will do its own thing. just like when you're dreaming.

deep neural networks have no trouble producing random but coherent content, either.

I invest in real estate.

the first to be laid off usually are local maxima - senior engineers who pull way more than their own weight but appear "expensive" due to seniority.

the first round of layoffs so often cripples a company because they make cuts on the wrong end of the performance spectrum.

the idea to "think aloud" is downright silly.

people who "talk to themselves" are labelled idiots. mental dialogue is supposed to be mental.

call it social conditioning if you will. spelling out your thoughts for someone else to hear them just so they can take note of them for evaluation is the polar opposite of normal human interaction.

maybe instead of doing this hoopadoop all the time, its time to accept that fulltime employment is a concept that made sense when most workers were doing assembly line things.

hire specialized contractors to do the things you need done.

ive never been asked stupid fizzbuzz but have so far not been able to sufficiently fail at a job. weird.

and whats the difference? how can you tell layoffs and firings apart?

whats the difference? regarding laid off/fired.

you acquire long lasting knowledge by doing.

reading only gets you so far.

if you want to retain read knowledge, take notes. what you write down is what you will remember.

toptal does not do any of this. they just take a high cut because they can. their margins are ridiculous

People pretend that platforms like Moonlightwork turn "developers" into "corner whores". Its quite the opposite. They assume all the operational overhead of running a consulting business and let you code. They empower you to be an entrepreneur without doing any of the hard stuff.

As a contractor, I am able to sell as little hours as I want. Working from a thailand beach. Or Tokyo. Or Las Vegas, where I currently reside.

I can operate this as a business. Meaning that I can immediately reinvest the money into a side venture without taking the employment tax hit.

I can set my own hours, work other projects, don't answer to a boss and don't dance with HR.

I make 4x the cash I could make working a real job. I don't get fucked over on overtime.

Does moonlightwork beat working a very senior position at google headquarters? Probably not. But not everyone has the means or ambition or willingness to do the SF grind.

Doing contract work is a very easy path to becoming a millionaire if you're good. You can easily take home 250k+ here. Live whereever you want. Its a very easy life.

I've never been inside an office and I will never be. Never going to be stuck in traffic. Or with people I don't like. Always around my loved ones.

As far as those platforms are concerned, Moonlight Work is easily the best. All the power to Emma and Phillip. I don't know their numbers, but they will make it big. Sky is the limit, guys.

I'd immediately come work for them if they offered me a job.

These guys only charge 15% on top of what you make. That's a joke. They could easily justify 35%. Moonlight Work is the shit. Screw the haters.

quick review. im arriving in vegas in a couple hours so i thought id check it out.

after signing up, i'm asked to enter my flight details, which goes reasonably well until you ask for the record locator number, which is required. I have no clue what a record locator number is or where to find it, so that's as far as I got into the booking process. I literally can't continue right now, and at this point, the potentially helpful intercom is gone.

the price for Vegas would have been §305, which sounds incredibly expensive. I don't really get why the pricing is different for different airports, other than the fact that you want to fleece people for as much as possible. At least feels that way.

In order to fully take advantage of your service, I'd need to book it for both airports. That puts the price in the $500 range, which effectively doubles the price of the ticket for economy class flights. For business class flights, we are still talking about roughly 25% of the ticket, or 125% total.

Thats incredibly expensive and I dont really get the value proposition. If I travel for fun, I go through customs which takes an hour at the worst and then I walk out the hall, press a button on my app and an uber picks me up. I dont see how you can possibly speed that up. Even if you could cut out the whole customs process entirely, which I doubt is possible (picking up the luggage is the time intensive part), it would not be worth it.

If I travel for business, whatever I do at the airport amounts to a billable hour so I dont REALLY care either.

For reference, I make $20-$30k a month all things considered. I feel its expensive. Based on the value offered, I wouldnt book it. Maybe I lack a really annoying flight experience.

Now, you could argue that I'm not your target customer, which is fair. I get that there are people who make more money. But. My girlfriend happens to be wealthy. She takes advantage of services like yours. But she would never visit some random website to book that off of. When she travels, she gets picked up at home and then a whole bunch of things happen that go beyond what you offer and its being taken care of by her credit card company. At the airport, she's handed off to the priority check-in line of her favourite expensive airline and then its off to the business lounge where some concierge takes care of anything that could potentially bother her.

I'm sure that this may be more expensive than your service, but she doesnt care. Its just a line item on the credit card bill that shes not even going to look at. If you want to compete with that, go super high-end and somehow make it really easy to book. btw, she wouldn't know her locator number thingie, either.

If you want to just do the thing you do, I believe it needs to be cheaper. Or at least make the pricing consistent so that I dont feel like I'm getting fucked for flying into vegas.

I used present tense for a reason.

i think its a fair argument to claim that bleeding edge technology is inefficient during its invention phase.

the very first fusion reactors arent all that efficient, either.

dont tell anyone about this, but:

all major currencies fluctuate, too. the reason you dont see it is because all other prices are quoted in terms of those currencies.

when the price of gold goes up, for example, it may not be gold going up. its possible that the currency is just losing value.

you've just accepted that the price of USD is what you agree on. in a "bitcoin is the currency" world, bitcoins value does not fluctuate at all. everything else does.

thats like saying that the value of gasoline is less than zero because you could just walk the distance without polluting the environment.

computing power is inherently valuable. the value of AWS is less than zero because you could just buy a computer and do the computation cheaper at home. duh.

its because she's pretty. nothing gets a lesser man more jelly than a pretty woman that is powerful.

does not compute. has nothing to do with the money.

doesnt mean that you want to.

There can be relative WHYs. We will probably not be able to answer why particles exist. But we can tell you why gravity works the way it works.

I dont know what ST refers to.

"spacetime geometry" is a mathematical formulation of the physics that happens to correctly describe WHAT is happening.

it makes no prediction at all about WHY its happening. einsteins theory does not explain, and does not try to explain, why the gravitational field exists. it just tells us the effects of the gravitational field being around.

hes simply confounding the mathematical terminology with which we describe physics - with the actual physics.

which is in no way his fault. media present it exactly that way.

the graviton is too small to be observed directly by our machinery.

if you can provide a detector the size of the solar system, proving/disproving its existence will be simple.

we could derive anything from first principles if we knew them. theres nothing probable about that. thats the whole point of first principles. do you want me to call you captain obvious?

- its not my reasoning, i'm just trying to explain quantum field theory.

- whether you call it "gravitational force" or "curvature of spacetime along whose geodesics massive objects slide" - the effect has to be mediated by a "particle". for popular media, "particle" is too big a word, because people tend to think of protons or atoms. subatomic particles are just excitations of quantum fields. little blips of localized energy, of which we are only able to see the top layer.

^ this has nothing to do with general relativity. general relativity describes the macroscopic world pretty well. it generally breaks down on very small scales.

how planets move is described very well by general relativity. how they mediate the involved forces is not described at all.

edit: i just thought about that straight line statement. there seems to be a misconception that a geodesic is a "generalized straight line". That is not remotely true. Geodesics, in mathematics, are "shortest paths". While that happens to coincide with what a straight line does in a plane, generalizing that meaning in the other direction doesn't work.

In general relativity, we talk about geodesics when we mean "out of all the possible paths we can take, we are choosing the one that minimizes energy loss". That is, then, a geodesic. But a geodesic is far from a straight line in terms of movement. Its the path of least resistance in the energy picture.

If you ask "whats the difference?" - the difference is that a straight line in energy space is not a straight line in regular space. Earth, for example, is travelling along a geodesic. But it is clearly accelerated towards the sun. There is nothing "straight line" about it.

When you fall into a black hole, you travel along a geodesic. But it wont feel like a straight line to you at all.

That you happen to be travelling along a straight line in the absence of forces is just a tautological truth. Applying differential geometry to that statement just makes it way more complicated to state the obvious.

hence the quotation marks.

heres your "well, actually" cookie.

gravity and inertia are 2 different properties of mass.

inertia is conveyed by the higgs field.

gravity is conveyed by the gravitational field.

we know that those fields exist, because we can observe them.

if the fields exist, the exchange particles (higgs boson and graviton) have to exist, too - or our theory is wrong.

thats kind of circular reasoning, but we cant derive physics from first principles anyway.

the "problem" here is that the graviton "has to" exist. why?

Forces have to be conveyed by something. If you want to push someone, you have to physically touch them. you have to REACH them. you cant just push the air, across the room, and expect them to feel the push.

this is true on the microscopic level as well. when particles exert gravity on each other, they do so at a distance. but something has to cross this distance. it is not ordinarily obvious how the sun traps our planet in its gravitational field - at a distance. there has to be something that exchanges the gravitational force between sun and earth. we call this thing the graviton. it is important to notice that something that does the "job" of the graviton HAS TO exist. maybe its not a particle. but something causes the exchange of gravitation and thats what we're looking for.

you know that "in space, no one can hear you scream". thats because there is no air that could make the sound waves travel.

in a similar way, without the graviton, there would be no "medium" that conveys the gravitational force.

the problem with detecting the graviton is that it is very weak. we would have to build really expensive machines to "observe" it.

explaining this theoretically is not difficult. we have plenty of "theories". the problem is confirming them with experiments.

i blame the fucked up academia situation. i'd rather work on interesting things.

but i'd more rather make money.