andrewvc

They are two very different things.

The only situation where that makes sense is if you're not only good at whatever job you have, but you're an expert stock picker and you discover through your superior skill that the one stock with the greatest upside is..... your employer!

The argument against your POV is right in your answer: leaving RSUs as company stock when they vest is no different than a non-employee buying shares of that stock at the vest price.

If instead of getting $X in RSUs you got $X in 'bonus' cash every month would you turn around and put it right into your employer's stock? Probably not.

Regardless of how confident you are in your employer, most people's single biggest investment is their job. Correlating your investments and your regular income is making an incredibly narrow bet which is reckless unless you can see the future.

I like keys / phone / wallet because you can lose 2/3 of those things and still be fine in you home city.

Lose your phone/wallet? Call a cab, go home, get a backup CC or cash. Lose your keys/phone? You can buy/borrow a phone / call a locksmith. Worst case you can book a hotel with your wallet.

Etc.

Phone only..... you lose it, what do you do? Keyless locks with codes do offer part of a solution here.

Maybe the right answer in the future will just be to have two phones. Probably a fancy primary and a cheap backup.

It's more like there's a crowded place with a gun pointed at the middle of the crowd. Every 30m the gun is cocked. 1-10m after that based on a random timer, it fires.

If someone trips and accidentally pulls the trigger after 32m in are they liable? Maybe, but only in the smallest way. The actual problem is the gun or the people walking in front of it.

It's wrong to use the word "may" for these fires. These areas have evolved to burn and will do so unless we shrink wrap each plant.

Humans put the gun there, we started burning which gave rise to an ecosystem that thrived on burning and encouraged more. Then, we settled that area en masse.

BTW much of what burns in CA is not large trees but chapparal.

The linked articles I included have more detail.

They are natural, because humans are natural. California's vegetation has evolved to burn and quickly regrow and easily burn again due to anthropogenic fire for thousands of years.

If it were not for human involvement CA might have more fire resistant species.

http://www.californiachaparral.com/enativeamericans.html

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-anthropogenic-forest-impacted-...

Some psychiatric issues fit much more closely with the disease model of medicine (like psychosis), and others are in a huge gray area.

Most of psychiatric work is in that gray area and does a poor job of it.

Even a former DSM chair thinks so. I highly recommend reading "saving normal" for more info.

I'd like to see this contrasted with the hot warm cold architecture which is the common approach to this problem.

Usually people deal with this problem by allocating faster/more/less storage dense hardware for recent data and slower/less/more storage dense hardware for older data. You can read more about this here https://www.elastic.co/blog/hot-warm-architecture-in-elastic...

Maybe something about it didn't work for them, but it's not clear to me from the article.

Disclaimer: I work for Elastic.

We give children close to zero financial autonomy, no idea of work, of making money and losing it, then ask them to make one of the largest financial decisions of their lives at the age of 18. The background to this is a massive amount of messaging that your education is worth it.

It's not surprising they feel this way.

For the record, I didn't go the traditional college route, and I never had a penny of student debt, so if anyone has a right to feel smugly superior, it'd be me. However, I only avoided student debt by the dumb luck of making poorly thought out decisions that happened to work out in the end.

Most devs I know have been through a whole bunch more than 2. I've had to use at least 8 over the last 10 years of dev. I didn't have to learn all of them well, but I did have to learn them.

So, when it comes to the 1% it can be hard to measure who's actually in it.

The startup culture is not here of course, but the reasons are not the ones you list.

The kinesis lets you find the best horizontal distance apart and change their tilt from center.

It's not that attractive, but it's great from an ergonomic perspective.

It's pretty hard for a hiring manager to be called out as too selective. However, if you let in a few bad apples then you look really bad.

The incentives are for hiring managers to be too careful.

It is, oddly enough, the case that if you are not hiring any bad engineers that you probably are being too selective.

As you move down the scale that becomes less and less true. People go, learn whatever they learn, get few if any connections, and wind up with a pile of debt.

So, we've created an incredibly regressive system.

One other thing to note. When people form those friend groups it's not just about who's their intellectual peer, it's also about who came from similar backgrounds etc. It's an engine of division as much as anything else.

I agree that the value is there for some individuals, but I disagree that this is a good thing for society as a whole. If you get accepted to Harvard, it's almost certainly worth your while to go. College still remains a finishing school for the elites in our society. Some people bubble up from the underrepresented portions of our society, but they remain the exception, and will continue to be so until something changes.

I've included a couple links below that explain the disadvantages some groups face when attending college.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/27/blacks-with-... https://www.vox.com/2017/9/11/16270316/college-mobility-cult...

We've created a system that reaps huge profits in encouraging people to go to school, regardless if that's the right place for them.

If there's no counterweight to that profit motive, things will not change.

One reason why it's so easy to sell, is that college is a near universal experience for the middle and upper classes, and being an expensive experience, people credit it with much of the personal growth that happens in one's early 20s. They also credit it with making them good at their field.

"I really learned how to think in college"

"I really learned how to be apply myself in college"

"I really learned computer science in college, which wouldn't have happened if I went via some other path.

etc.

It's far too painful for most people to think "I could have been an equally skilled person if I'd spent that time doing something else".

I come from a long line of people who've succeeded without going to college. When I tell people I've known for a while that I dropped out of a community college they usually seem stunned and surprised that someone could actually have a reasonably intelligent conversation with them (and be a decent engineer) without that history.

My experience is that you can read books on the humanities, and CS, and get work done AND not kill yourself in the process. Maybe the road is a little longer in some ways, but you also come out of it without debt, and you get the benefit of having a very different set of formative experiences than your peers.

I work for Elastic, but not on Elasticsearch.

Apple seems to think that deviating from their consumer oriented design philosophy is anathema, even when dealing with pros.

401ks are great if you're savvy. They are massively inefficient for society in that they require all the people who use them to understand investing.

This is really bad policy at a society level. People need real, unbiased investing guidance.

That is why these tests are bogus. If they measured useful skills they wouldn't require any study.

I've been working with a lot of graph algorithms lately. I've already forgotten several I learned a couple months ago. That is OK.

The more interesting question for interviewees is where they would find the answer rather than whether they can implement algorithm X from memory.

If a candidate says "I'd use A* and maybe compare it to similar algorithms to solve the problem" that's enough. There's no reason they need that permanently committed to memory. Almost no one writes A* twice a year.

There is a mountain of poor decisions that put Kalanick in the dog house. The culture he created at Uber is notoriously toxic, senior management has been either leaving in disgust or forced out over malfeasance.

Kalanick should gain some humility and leave it to the adults on his board to find someone who can run Uber responsibly.

Telling a customer who's been waiting on a feature for over a year to relax is just insulting.

I picked Fastmail due to their excellent support reputation, you all could learn from them!