Can someone copy/paste the original text or post a non-paywall link?
357 karma · joined December 22, 2015
Most top CS schools (Stanford, MIT, CMU) have some sort of online lectures. There's also always Udacity/edx as well.
(Which is to say... humans aren’t more powerful — it’s that we’re so limited, we will never reach the domain for which the halting problem is relevant.)
There's a bunch of underinsured (or outright not insured) folk in the very locations where Walmart is opening these, so it has the potential to kill a couple of different birds with one stone. From a public benefits side, it gives a path of medical care for those that otherwise wouldn't have it (beyond say, an emergency room visit). It also lower prices by competing against insurance bloat.
In doing so, Walmart (may) be able to create a sustainable business by tapping a market (folk that aren't currently going for medical coverage anyway) that would otherwise be untapped.
(The dis-economy of scale hurts less if you're already starting from a point with the manual labor.)
IP stealing is a problem. However, IP stealing is a little orthogonal from 1) entities in the U.S. economy being small enough to create/take advantage of innovation and 2) entities being sufficiently small such that their 'bigness' does not create misaligned incentives that then hurts the U.S. economy in the long run.
In fact, the author of this article makes zero commentary on IP theft. However, just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean that the author's points are invalid as well -- rather, all of these issues are problems that need to be addressed.
(Or in other terms -- inclusive or, not XOR. :) )
In particular, 'bigness' alone reduces innovation and can cause misaligned incentives. However, 'bigness' in addition to an outsourced supply chain means the misaligned incentives are allowed to be that much stronger -- now, not only is the US economy less innovative than it otherwise would be, it has also enabled a feedback loop that would not necessarily act in its best interests.
Does said entity necessary need to be a foreign country or even a foreign entity? No. However, as "the entity that has captured critical components relevant to the US manufacturing supply chain", China is a nice example of an "entity with bigness" and one with some explicit misaligned incentives (at least, in terms of certain cultural values), so it illustrates the point more directly than some other examples.
If nothing else, Bloomberg's ad budget is a solid experiment for the impact of ad budgets on elections. I don't know how much of the transparency that seems to exist around what Bloomberg is doing is normal for campaigns, but that is also a plus.
Most of the content in a master's program can be found online (or otherwise in the relevant textbooks) -- if you're paying to do it as a class, you're paying for structure and the piece of paper, and that's about it.
PhDs are start-level research jobs. You'll probably learn things (equivalent to a master's) during your first year or two, but you'll become an expert in your field via a PhD because of the fact that no one else is working on the topic to the same degree of depth that you will be.
(In fact, the fact that this comment conflates PhD with masters makes me suggest that the poster doesn't actually interact enough with folk that have either to have internalized the distinction.)
Best case scenario, your manager is well-intentioned but is misinformed (or under-informed) about what is/isn't okay to say. Mild kerfuffle, not a big deal.
Worst case scenario, your manager is outright crap and the personnel around them is equally bad. (Aka the "you should really think about moving companies now" scenario.)
In either case, escalating is the way to resolve things.
(Don’t remember the exact details, but I recalled being surprised at seeing their spend per user/retention rates on an app trend analysis site a year or two back.)
Enforcement from Apple on FB basically came the day after they were hit with an embarrassing “Hackers can turn on your camera without you knowing it FaceTime” bug. This part is hearsay, but, IIRC, Apple only started enforcing on the dozens of other companies that were doing the same thing once legal action was threatened for uneven enforcement. (Meanwhile, the kid that I chatted with that reported things to Apple in the first place... definitely reported more than just FB.)
IMO, I wouldn’t be surprised if this happened this way cause Apple had decided to use FB as the fall for a PR media blitz. (In particular, Apple made the decision to “enforce on FB” basically the day after their “someone else can turn on your camera with FaceTime without you knowing” bug.)
Specifically, between these "intelligent people [on Hacker News]" and a "guy [with] dubious insights", one of these groups has a couple of billion dollars invested in every single one of the topics in the document whereas the other... well, maybe Bill or Jeff or Satya or one of the others reads Hacker News, but I doubt it. :)
Well, not surprising, given that this is the internet and Hacker News. :)
Making a good product (with whatever shortcuts/hacks come with it) is necessary for doing well. Getting exposure and launching on a Tuesday are neither necessary nor sufficient, but they will give a marginal edge.
Both the former and the latter are 'hacks', the only difference is degree of relevance. pg throws the baby out with the bathwater a bit by saying don't do both types of hacks.
Sorry, not parsing the last sentence - what do you mean by “he is not available to work at the company”?
However, it's hard to make functional programming general purpose. There are some posts about it elsewhere, but iterative programming tends to make reasoning about the storage of different objects in memory quite a bit easier. Given how all abstractions are leaky anyhow, there will almost always eventually be some component that is easier to deal with using OOP. The inverse is not necessarily true.
There are some practical considerations here as well. While it's possible to make OOP-esque structures in functional languages, it's not trivial. Meanwhile, using a piece of functional code in an already OOP system generally isn't too bad - there is, once again, some syntactic sugar, but the scope tends to be clearer. Putting a bit of functional code inside say, a class, tends to muck with the usage and assumptions of said class less than putting a bit of OOP into functional code.
In general, I'd say it's part of the exec's job to ensure that the right sort of culture is set where individuals feel empowered to surface relevant information. This includes trying to make sure that people feel safe enough to surface issues, getting rid of people that aren't good about responding to feedback, etc.
As a corollary of this, you can tell when an exec is bad since not only do people snark, but the same topic of snark lasts for years and years.
There's also a part of their job to have the right organization structures in place such that if a piece of information should really get resolved at a lower level, it does. If a lot of information is having to be resolved by an exec, it probably means an organizational refactoring should probably be happening in the first place.
However, for code that needs maintenance of any sort, it makes a lot more sense to bring the expertise in-house. Maybe it's more expensive in a myopic sense, but by being able to retain an individual that already has context (not to mention, who was also probably hired with a higher hiring bar) has more gains in the long run.
Just think about all the companies that tried to outsource to India or China in the 90s/00s and got bit.
https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/Q2...