1,755 karma · joined December 10, 2010
Recruiters might be paid to bring people in, but HMs are the ones whose teams these hires typically work for, so being able to do productive things with them is more important than just bringing people in. The cost of retraining, losing institutional knowledge etc, and just the time it takes to bring in a new person are all costs that take away from the actual work of building the product.
Probably creates a ton of false clicks for whoever is paying for that advert.
This is a strange commitment to pricacy. Not that there’s a technical barrier to employees accessing data, but something along the lines of “we wrote up a rule in the company wiki, so we trust that employees won’t violate it”
A better methodology might have been to compute the expected value of a beer (essentially weighting the price of a beer by the probability of purchase of that beer)
(Also, as others have noted, the standard size of a beer varies, so only including data for a particular size can bias the results). Knowing the price/ml might be an interesting statistic too, but it would have been good to know the price of a beer (for whatever ‘a beer’ means locally)
And yet, Gmail keeps getting redesigned every so often to the point where it's hard to figure out how basic stuff works. This is a hard argument to buy.
*It took me a decent amount of time to figure out how to add users to cc/bcc. This sort of stuff, which was easy to do in the 90s shouldn't become harder every year.
There are ways to justify a $20 movie rental, but it feels different to go spend that at a theater vs paying it at home. I will wager that it's a much harder decision to make as the value proposition is different.
It would be educational to hear from someone who understands this industry (as opposed to speculation) about the economics of such donations. Does this move the needle for a company as large as Moderna? Since this donation was made to Vanderbilt, does it enable multiple streams of research that gets licensed by Moderna? Does it enable the company to try out avenues that they wouldn't have done in the absence of the funding? What does this level of money actually purchase? (grants to individual researchers, equipment etc)
2. Replacing the TV with a projector
3. Adjustable weights (makes all the difference while sheltering in place in an apartment)
4. Better food storage tools (a vacuum sealer, weck jars, glass Tupperware etc). Makes all the difference when it comes to food wastage.
How do you infer this? It could also be the result of the mass country-wide protests which are absolutely not the norm. It's not like the system automatically corrected for this issue.
Racism has many forms, and this is one. Learn to recognize it and move away from it.
> “If we’re able to work out how to scale up the seaweed to such a level to that can feed all of the cows and the sheep and the goats around the world, then it’s going to have a huge impact on the climate;
And there you go. That's the hard part that you cannot just hand-wave away.
You also have to wonder what the impact of growing all this seaweed (or harvesting it) to feed the planet's bovine population will be. In the end, the problem is due to the massive scale of human consumption on this planet. The mitigation might be just as bad when you consider the scale at which you have to produce the 'better' solution.
Whether the settlers landed at Plymouth Rock itself is not known accurately. However, the Puritans didn’t land at whatever became the Plymouth colony. The ones who landed were Separatists (the ones who left the Anglican Church) who called themselves the Pilgrims. The Puritans (ones who stayed in the church to purify it) did arrive in America, but later.
The other problem is making the tradeoff between detecting this fast enough (to turn on all the systems that follow so that the screen can light up fast enough) and waiting long enough (so you can be extra sure that the user intended to look at the screen)
The garden path is easy. Making it work mostly unobtrusively is very hard.