SubuSS

I can sympathize with how this will work out for non-career criminals.

How do you see this working out for repeat offenders? Seattle today has a mini-version of this FWIW: We have offenders who have 44+ counts of 'minor' arrests and a felony conviction on the street [1] getting involved in public shootings.

Overall I like the part where folks who have paid their dues get their life back through a measured re-introduction back into regular society (from jail). Even over here, we will need oversight from professionals who have insight into both the worlds who can help with the transition. I don't think commuting sentences by 90% is the answer.

[1] https://komonews.com/news/local/who-are-the-alleged-downtown...

I don't understand the advantage of rolling a 100side die vs 99% biased coin flip - assuming they are balanced right, both should be equivalent.

I was just remarking on the outright pointers in those two points that status quo is bad / speed of change is god etc. - There is a difference between being against change and being resistant to change.

I am all for incremental changes because I strongly believe existing tested and hairy systems got there by handling a million corner cases that the new one is probably going to solve all over again.

Replacement systems become warranted only in those cases where earlier systems have lost any form of iterability and are stuck per-say and have been obsoleted in some ways. Most of the other scenarios are just developer job-security :)

Again all the above apply only for reasonably complicated systems. I am all for hello world's getting rewritten every day.

Weirdly enough, we see this all the time in large systems. When we built DynamoDB - the core 3-way replication is based on the fact that machine failure rates are something like 0.005, so we will need to be unlucky (0.005)^2 times. Guess what? it happens alarmingly often enough when you run 100k boxes.

> Second, it should be the default that the status quo is a bad thing;

> Third, it should be the default to move fast, and value experimentation over perfection.

These points are making me twitch: We have seen so many examples (even in the software world) of companies trying to move fast and eventually figure it is far better to be thoughtful about changes both major and minor.

Imagine tossing a coin that has a 0.001:99.999 probability split. Just 0.001% chance that you will be killed vs 99+% chance that you won't. Believe me, you don't want to be tossing this coin in a macro scale OR way too many times. Individually we make these choices every day and get out scratch free, BUT once you bring in enough coin tosses, there is an irrefutable point that one of it is going to end up killing you. Individually the hope is that you won't take enough chances like that before you naturally die off.

As conservative as it sounds, keeping status quo is the safer option for a society. There is a reason we see folks turning conservative once they have generated enough wealth - the need to never be poor again far outweighs the need to be wealthy.

A lot of the goalposts got moved there :)

You mentioned talented artists, not self actualization. You are calling goods from jobs as invaluable - few may be. An iPhone is expensive but not invaluable. But art from Picasso is.

I think by moving the argument to self actualization - you’re essentially proscribing a wallE like lifestyle - the above talented artists might go ahead and produce greatness, but I don’t think majority is going to be doing any self-actualization. It’s going to be a party of consumption for most. But we are both guessing here.

That argument also assumes a post scarcity world which we aren’t even close to.

Finally succumbing to the myth of everyone chasing their passions while AI keeps up our lifestyle essentially is writing the end of our civilization as it is. If you buy that it ever happens, you should also buy that one day it will turn off. That day humans will be surrounded by magic machines they have no idea how to fix / work and in essence die off. Or at best, they get back to today.

That leads to the angle where the animals wouldn’t have existed at all.

Think horses in the 1900s (ubiquitous) vs now (rare pets mostly, may be used for some farm work). The utility as dairy or meat producer gives them life. Are you sure that they’d be better off not living at all?

And what do you suppose those people would be doing that’ll be better off than being a productive member of the society making dark chocolate?

I am sure you meet a ton of people like me every day - even kids. I am surprised you’re coming away with the assumption that they’re are all full of drive to do something worthwhile and are being oppressed by the world into a day to day job: I think the job provides a lot of structure and purpose for many.

If your assertion is we’d be better off leisuring away our lives like wall-E people rather than working towards a productive albeit excess world, I wouldn’t consider it better off.

Tying this back to my first argument, In asking for a life of leisure + no excess, ironically and contradictorily - you are denying chicken et al the life you seem to want for the people :). Just live it out pottering around until death come.

If we are going by numbers, how many talented artists are indeed there? Of this how many are talented enough to be both artists and stock brokers AND are overwhelmed by stock broking so much that they give up on their Picasso like talents? 0.0001% of the general pop? May be if we count every one with massive world class but oppressed talents, will they account for 0.1% of the world pop?

As much as it would liberate the stuck artists et al from the above 0.1%, my theory is that it would only allow the rest 99.9% to focus their time into consumption of various things rather than production of invaluable goods.

Now we could move the goal post and say, ‘hey, they were born as human and by that they have won the lottery! Why shouldn’t everyone be eligible for the basics?’ - but that’s a different argument than saying this will liberate the arts. I don’t buy that line of argument.

Modern phones have done a tremendous job of taking the thrill out of various troublesome activities.

You could let someone else play a game, you could let someone else risk STDs, someone else do the risky heists and killing etc all while watching from the comfort of your couch, living your life as a voyeur.

IMO that definitely means folks are getting in lesser trouble: I think it draws a lot of poison out.

Now is that a good thing: I don’t know. I like the above benefits, who wouldn’t appreciate a docile community! I don’t like the fact that it is drawing away the youth from action. Yes it went wrong in oh so many places, but it is what brought us here. I hate stagnation. Anyway - just me rambling.

Would you believe someone who reports back?

FWIW I have a friend who is deep into spirituality, still works at a FAANG but definitely feels like he can attain higher states of awareness in his meditations. I don’t see him active on social media, he leads a reasonably ascetic life and so on.

This person doesn’t have much success in making others believe. At best, he gets ‘hey, I am happy that you’re happy’ from folks like me, most feedback is around ‘mystic woo’. I have another friend deep in this world, but she balances it with real world and doesn’t really proselytize.

I think it is very much a catch 22. You won’t believe it unless you’re doing it. So if belief is required for you to give it a shot, that’s a non-starter.

I would say try it out and make up your own mind! What do you got to lose anyway - stay away from holy men who make you uncomfortable, start with books or YouTube!

I am (not American) trying to see how framing this as getting pushed out of your house is better than saying 'being able to sell your house for a huge gain' is better.

Yes this means folks will have to move, but again as cities grow and shape themselves, is it even the same place people have in mind that they started in?

May be my attitude is colored by my immigrant status though - I was willing to pack up and move, so trying to understand what makes people sticky.

Pre-2020 Seattle (I do believe a SF like reckoning is on the horizons for Seattle as well because of political overreach on corporations) in fact might be the exact talent sink and hence danger to Bay Area.

Seattle at one point had Microsoft as the hub, Amazon came on the scenes in 2000s - once they both reached critical mass, there was practically no stopping the growth because engineers had an alternative. Eventually we had FB/Twitter/Snap et al starting offices here and having massive presences which led to present day. If only the weather wasn't what it is, I think we would have reached this ~20 yrs ago.

I don't know if it is going to be Austin / Boulder - but once any of those cities build two equally good employment opportunities, it is going to be a real contender. This is what makes TSLA / Oracle move significant: till now what were outposts are becoming real hubs.

I guess you should ask ‘Is click bait an accurate summary?’ Instead :)

I think it will come down to how you define an object-I don’t think that’s a scientific term.

How'd you incentivize someone to keep these machines up and running for eternity? Or is there another jump here that the machines will be eternal?

There is going to be new threats that show up (covid is a great example / alien attack is on the other end of the spectrum) - how do you plan to protect against these? Are you willing to leave these to volunteer willpower?

If you also notice the set of folks for whom subsistence is guaranteed (countries with good social nets / folks who have made enough money) keep working and trying to climb up the ladder. Do you think there is a baser instinct here (peacocking / self reliance / pessimism about future ...) at work?

At some point, you have to move away from the 'spherical chicken in a vacuum' arguments to have a reasonable discussion :)

Welp you're right: Maslow's.

Re breaking rules: I think it is more of a spectrum. As you become richer, you become more able to follow the 'nicer' rules. Poor people generally don't go around murdering for example, but I did see a lot of relatively smaller rules broken.

I am sure there is a very human mix of laziness, mob mentality, corruption that feed into it - but his meta point is still true: Some rules are meant for privileged people.

Unless the party line is that 'you should be willing to die for your morals': There are very few who live by this and I admire them a lot. But I like a more practical approach to life - meaning the above anecdote consoles me.

> But the thought of "What would I do if I didn't have this job? I've got rent and food and car payments and bills, I'd be homeless and never work again!" works against this advice and so people compromise their principles or their morals or their willingness to do harm to others, because they are just doing what the boss told them to do and they really need this job.

I will give an anecdote - take it for what you will:

Once upon a time I was driving in India with my FIL. If you don't know about India, traffic is nuts. We were going down an one-way street and folks were still coming in the opposite direction :). I was raging as expected because it was so dangerous - my westernized sensibilities meant I was remarking how come these folks can't follow such simple rules! My FIL responded in a way that has stuck to me till date: You have a job in a multi-national company and have comfortably crossed the base level of Maslow's hierarchy. That guy who's coming in the wrong way, if he is late to his job, he doesn't eat today. Strong morals are sometime a privilege :)

Sorry am lacking reading comprehension- whose buttons are getting pushed here?

I am a nerd, I do attend parties with all kinds of people - so you have my curiosity:)

I think you mean resilient when you say stable: A stable system NEED not get back to resting state by itself. A resilient one does.

Along these terms, I think equilibrium doesn't really make sense - it means stability in many definitions. From the top google result:

> Equilibrium is defined as a state of balance or a stable situation where opposing forces cancel each other out and where no changes are occurring. An example of equilibrium is in economics when supply and demand are equal. An example of equilibrium is when you are calm and steady.

Another take on this: (Stable vs unstable equilibrium) https://web.ma.utexas.edu/users/davis/375/popecol/lec9/equil....

I believe it will go along the lines of a sting. Get enough complaints, send enough undercover cops on said bad rides (short routes / racial differences - whatever the drivers are being accused of) and get em.

Could this be simply solved by having their star rating influenced by % ride drops? Uber can provide its price estimate as just that - a kelly blue book value so that riders can compare and contrast?

Most customers will search for a range of rating + price - so the market can regulate itself. I mean we accept amazon displaying user ratings - so I don't know why this won't work.

I am probably not understanding something in the various wealth tax proposals:

- How is wealth determined? The current billion numbers have a inverse relationship with liquidation: The remaining stocks will lose value as more get sold. (Putting aside the capital gain aspect).

- How is wealth loss captured? If my wealth was 1 Billion last year and it is 1 Million this year due to market crash, What happens?

- How do we handle situation where the average through the period is lopsided? Say period is a year: What if my stocks were worth $1B in jan and $1MM in December?

Don't most of these individuals hold bulk of their wealth in corporations? They are probably not sleeping on a few billion dollars :)

When they have to pay this tax, they will have to dilute the company which in turn affects their control and hold, possibly even the direction of the company over time. So yes - corporations will eventually feel the heat.

I break up work and life with workouts. 30 min yoga in the morning and 1-2 hr bike in evening. Has been great.

Prompt and heartfelt attribution of contributions + thanks/praise that helped you get your work done in public or to the donor's manager. Tacit feedback to the person in private as necessary.

Even as the greatest developer, in most settings you have to work with people. You can get very little done all alone nowadays - The basics of making people feel appreciated takes you really far.

I am not very socially adept - so this was a revelation for me when I stumbled on it after years of 'reward for good work is more work' philosophy.

I usually attach something fun to the tedious tasks: if I am to walk our dog in the rain, I am going to listen to armchair expert: I never listen to it in the regular day - so that acts like a treat. For biking - it is my fascination with being outside and so on. Eventually it becomes into a habit too!

Have you worked in a company where the average age was that low?

When I joined Snap about 5 years ago, I was middle aged compared to the average which was probably in 20s - even my CEO is reasonably younger than me :). The company was also pretty small (100?).

From that (single/anecdotal) data point, I'd say it is not as bad as you portray. There is definitely an affinity to try new things - part of your job is evaluating it for all its worth rather than its glitter and ensuring you communicate that well / provide value. I always try to focus the conversation on the problem we are trying to solve and how the new tech is solving it better. The good alternatives usually seem to catch on very quick (See Go vs Java, Kotlin vs Java) compared to the also ran technologies. Your worth will kick in based on your skill level in judging these and definitely in getting to a mentoring role rather than a gate keeper role. But it has been a lot of fun.

The agility is also something to keep in mind: Snap allows for extreme career mobility. Recently I switched teams from doing data related work (for the past 15 years?) to a complete unknown of joining our spectacles team and Snap has been supportive. You just don't see the typecasting you tend to hear about in bigger companies.

So yeah - give it a shot with an open mind! You may be surprised!

I guess I have old school compunctions against discussing it, probably comes from generations of folks not talking about it and considering it impolite.

I also have seen how people react when they realize there might be a huge pay variation for same titles - it's not good for anyone. I avoid conflict as much as possible nowadays, so it makes me more reticent. I pretty much redirect direct questions even from family because of that. None other than me and my wife knows how much I make - that's the max comfort level I'd ever get to I suppose.

I prefer not to discuss compensation - so will answer this indirectly. Few SDE3s definitely make principal salaries, Principals make millions and so on. I remember there was an ex amazon guy putting up the top end numbers on twitter which seemed more along these lines. It sadly comes down to your managers and VP decisions.

FWIW it is kind of a future investment IMO. You come out with a ton of knowledge and contacts that your future jobs can definitely be highly rewardd if that's what you're going for. Some find joy in the company of like minded peers instead of chasing the gold, everyone unto their own!

I worked for Amazon (like you:) but that was 5 years ago. Things were a lot more breakneck then - but I can see how things could’ve slowed down with the 3x dev count now.

As many have pointed out, it depends on teams. I have seen engineers in retail whose sole job was ensuring data entered the catalog correctly through the input system and fix any errant data. I also saw teams like mine (early kindle / early dynamodb) literally perform magic. We launched dynamo across the world with a <15 person team. But it had 3 principals and 5 sde3s in a time when the whole company had <100 principals. That team remained highly motivated through my tenure but the members went on to different parts overtime because it was too much talent concentrated in one spot.

In short I look at FAANG as flexibility. you have a major life event, you will probably have enough good will to work it out with lighter contributions. You want to build bleeding edge software, you can do that too.

I’d suggest finding the local legends now, see what they are working on, building deep knowledge about it, ask for an interview and join them. In a big place like that, there are always movers and shakers - they are also looking for motivated and talented devs for their team, so it is mutually beneficial. It will only work with your initiative and a bit of luck though.

FWIW - I still have some of my old contacts there. Message me if you want a referral. Good luck!

FWIW I turned off suggestions and I don't get recommendations anymore. Doesn't solve the tracking problem though.

It definitely starts there, it misses on a key aspect: 70k for how long and how assuredly? Usually once you start making that, your next goal would be

- To ensure that is true for your life time. (at 4% reasonable return, that would mean $1.75MM in savings) assuming you don't want to bite into the principal.

- Then you want to account for inflation. (Add a buffer to the above)

- Then you want to ensure this is on top of your car, house, child costs. (Depending on where you like to live and your car choice, add anywhere between 200k -> 2MM)

- Then you realize this car/ house kinda bumps into the 70k limit - especially if you went for a giant house because reasons.

And so on. So yes, folks can definitely start to feel 'safe' at 70k, but that's nowhere close to the checkout point. Once you figure out a target number based on above, you will realize you need to make so much more than 70k to get to that comfort state.