adjkant

100% adding a +1 here that this sounds like the right thing to do to start.

> it still just eats at me though

To me, this stands out. I think it's important to answer the "why" here at some point, whether that be before/during/after an extended break. Some potential things to investigate:

- Maybe the company is respectful, but the environment is still too critical / focused on bettering code constantly rather than focusing on product.

- Maybe there's too much focus on code quality over product generally, to the point that it's not helpful.

- Maybe it's not actually as respectful and understanding as you originally thought.

- Maybe the way it's delivered works for others but you need a different format and can communicate that need to others.

- Maybe the feedback coming from people below you (reading into "on a podium") is different than from peers and you're internalizing it.

Whatever it is, I hope a break helps you reset and gives you space to figure it out!

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234215/characters/nm0048127

> but if kindly confronted with undeniable evidence of their harms they would immediately rationalize their actions with bullshit, and get as far from you as possible.

This is not meant to excuse that response, but I do want to point out that it is the rational and "easy" path of response. When people make ideas the core of their personality and survival, threats to those ideas are now personal threats. The path of coming to challenge and change those ideas is a hard road in most cases. It takes a very strong and brave person to change their mind on a core belief.

The better way IMO to approach it is to ensure people don't get caught in the position in the first place. Don't make beliefs the center of yourself, make values the center, and choose them carefully and with nuance. It allows you to change course on beliefs or ideas with much less pain and personal internal sacrifice. That needs to start early though, way before anyone at that table sat down for their meal. It's an education issue, an early one at that.

Really the note here is Nintendo know how to design.

Either way, you're not responding to the original point: east vs west consumption has nothing to do with the trend

https://www.wsj.com/articles/east-coast-ports-get-more-shipp...

> It's much more efficient than trucking across the whole country.

I don't think this checks out on a time perspective. 15 days to get to CA = 15 days for the trucking route, or air. I think both get there under 15 days. Fuel efficiency, maybe, I'd need to do more research. And it seems like the bigger factor is not final destination but the other stops of the shipper, e.g going and dropping in Europe for the Suez.

See section 3.1 here for timing being quicker to truck: https://guidedimports.com/shipping-from-china-to-us/

Actually glad I went on this journey for some learnings along the way, but I guess the point here is that west coast consumption levels have nothing to do with this supply chain issue. I live near you too FWIW, not in this for defending my own west coast dog in this fight, but more to try and see why you were so quick to jump on west coast consumption!

2. Much of the stuff that comes through western ports are coming to the east coast. Things being shipped from China/Japan/etc are usually brought across the US as far as I'm aware.

1. Before the React/Vue era, there was so much JS churn and many devs who went through that are not looking to change anytime soon.

2. Even if React goes into keep the lights on mode, what is going to compel someone to not choose React at this point? The uniformity of it in the JS world, the stability, and the flexibility make it a great fit for most use cases. What value proposition is it failing that would make it lose its place as the dominant front end framework?

It would take a massive, worthwhile new paradigm shift to occur in the JS world to unseat React IMO, and I don't see that happening anytime in the next few years simply because there is no need. React works TM which is big.

That's 200K per employee - server costs. Seems like they're likely near break even, but even if not, they aren't burning a ton is my bet. VC's would be head over heels for that audience for even just a whiff of influence or monetization being dangled in the future.

Just two basic things the charts don't consider:

1. If people followed mask mandates in states (e.g. Alabama vs Florida)

2. Population density and disease spread models (e.g. comparing Montana and Idaho felt like a reach, California vs Nevada doesn't consider spread in major cities vs how many major cities there are in each)

We absolutely should study this later, but some of these restrictions were little to no cost. Let's not lump them all together. Wearing a mask indoors vs if your kid can go to school or not are two very different value equations that may merit different answers of "if a restriction is worth it"

I mean it was a direct claim in your comment I was responding to, literally quoted which is the claim that someone on two project is "not really that effective". I'm simply offering my experiences that don't always match that. That's not my imagination there.

No one here was arguing about that they clearly did not resource it in a meaningful way (I said as much in my post), that's not what this thread is discussing though...

Going back to your original post:

> Yes but doesn't work that way, with context switching cost and all of the rest people who are 50% in one projects are not really that effective.

Again, person dependent but missing the point. Would have it been more accurate to say they have 1.4327 engineers on the project? Probably. Is that helpful when everyone understands what 1.5 actually means? Not really. And two projects is not so unreasonable depending on the situation.

> If anything, shows that they were not that committed to even put a resource dedicated to that project

100% yes to that. And as we have learned since this comment thread, it was not a 50% time situation but actually someone wearing two hats (PM and engineer): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28426523

NCOSE taking credit themselves for pressuring the payment processors: https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/exploitation-webs...

NCOSE is more or less using the "for the children" approach to try and stomp out all pronogrpahy generally. Their president "has helped draft ordinances to end or curb the impact of sexually oriented businesses such as pornography shops, strip clubs, and related establishments" according to their own website. Members of their board have founded and led pushes to ban and discourage all pornohprahy entirely.

https://endsexualexploitation.org/about/staff/

https://endsexualexploitation.org/about/board/

A critique on the Pornhub article / case, describing its reliance on evangelical groups: https://newrepublic.com/article/160488/nick-kristof-holy-war...

No doubt that some positive changes came in the Pornhub case, hence the significant lack of public pushback there. But I think their true goals are being exposed as they try to push further. Pushing on a platform that has become a key income source for many during a global pandemic was probably not the best idea for them in hindsight. It also got them a lot of public attention they probably didn't want, in good part due to a large voice and push over many recent months by sex workers, many of whom got a voice in articles in the media recently instead of only sources similar to NCOSE.

Added that to the top level as well

Comment chain (along with archive link for EU access): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28299929

If you go into the editor/REPL (https://code.pyret.org/editor) and enter 1/3, you'll see that it gets rendered as 0.3 repeating (with a bar, not some arbitrary rounding) or if you click on it, directly as 1/3.

- Things that happen outside of meetings, which are what the remote-video rule is for, not everything categorically. e.g. debugging together when in, white-boarding, the quick desk visit, etc. As I said, teams can (and do) coordinate to come in on the same day

- Socially, the return being happier workers, better teamwork to fall back on when you're remote, etc.

- The people who do not have a good home office setup for many various reasons that affect both young and old.

There are countless benefits, there's no magical "this is the reason to be in the office" that you can reduce to. The "video conferencing by default" rule is the tradeoff for not disadvantaging people who want to retain their less frequent office time schedule of the pandemic.