Don't trust any numbers here blindly sir.
Without verification you don't know if any of them are marking $2k+
294 karma · joined June 11, 2007
Without verification you don't know if any of them are marking $2k+
So the controversial nature comes from the implication that most of the workforce (1x engineers like myself) are worthless and not worth hiring, and also the hubris of thinking a 1x company can hire and retain a/only 10x engineers (these same startups/companies usually offer a 1x or less compensation package). If you think I'm wrong, then fire 90% of your engineers and see where that gets you; that would be an interesting result if productivity increased!
I think this is separate from mere jealousy or denial; 10x engineers definitely do exist and I look up to them for inspiration and example.
The title is “why does x happen”.
The content is:
I believe foo. Evidence behind why author believes foo.
Here is an arbitrary list of 6 behavioral responses to foo: [a b c d e x]. X happens which is a bad thing.
There is no critical analysis or evidence substantiating the 6 responses, nor how/why response x happens. In other words, there’s no intellectual rigor behind the title’s claim, nor do I have any inclination to believe the author’s claim as true after reading it.
In tech orgs, a system (potentially composed of dozens of service) can often outgrow their team, especially when there's high attrition and turnover (perhaps because you view each individual software engineer as a highly expendable/fungible "pro sports player").
Seems like a breeding ground for entropy, and compositions of systems built on lost history, chaos, and confusion.
Then, I would probably create a startup that would offer the same service to the children of wealthy families who wanted their child to be intellectually gifted. With an annual tuition of $10,000 over 10 years, their child could be catapulted for life into the top levels of life outcomes and live as part of the elite class in America. Enrolling a mere 1,000 students (200 in East bay, 200 south bay, 200 SF, 400 in Northeast) would net a revenue of 100 million dollars.
Wait a second, maybe I'm onto something here...
There's probably many domains it overlaps and assists with (not to mention the general philosophies that translate to other domains like creativity, continuity of motion, practice/discipline/feedback/improvement -- e.g. "music is the tool to express life" Herbie Hancock). Though naturally, excellence in one domain does not grant the knowledge necessary to be a master in another
It reads more like tabloid journalism rather than investigative/business/political, and her post history seems to confirm that.
Similarly, there was an idea expressed in chess where some people rely on memory to reproduce thousands of similar scenarios, while others rely on the "feel" of the chessboard and the various heuristics related to it (e.g. is the king "safe" -- e.g. castled and not exposed etc., are the bishops "powerful and free to roam" -- e.g. not blocked by pawns or heavily contested etc.).
My argument partially comes from self-defense; my memory is comparatively poor. But I'm able to use heuristics developed over years of experience to make generally good decisions.
So in this case:
"Who would you rather hire: the person who knows exactly what features are available in PHP 7 and which are only available in PHP 8, or the one who will figure it out by trial-and-error of while writing each application and seeing what fails?"
I would hire the person who is able to write the best application, and understand when to use what features or not: similar to the Bond quote "Sometimes a trigger needs to be pulled -- Or not pulled, it's tough to know which in your pajamas". If memory was the most important part of cognitive ability computers would serve a much larger role in society than the (already large) part they do today.
It's time we focus more on how do we appeal to boys, and how do we get the most potential out of them. The cultural messaging is "girl power" while the counterpart is "toxic masculinity". The great heroes of the past (even the present, see how Arnold Schwarzenegger was cut down for the affair with his maid) have been merely reduced to "misogynists" or "terrible fathers" rather than reflecting on both their merits and weaknesses.
Liberal philosophy does not even try to understand what motivates and drives young men to success: it's building, exploring, and accomplishing. Instead it blindly assigns any flaw as a result of "toxic masculinity" while also ironically applying the same "toxic masculinity" it preaches against: "you need to grow up and get over yourself, things are so easy for men because we are in a patriarchy". And then when studies like the above are cited, we go around in the same circle: "men are so pathetic, they need to stop embracing toxic masculinity" while being blissfully unaware that we are the least "toxically masculine" that we've ever been in society, and yet men are suffering emotionally far more than they ever have in the past. Hint: it's the culture. We are driving innocent young men into depression, purposelessness, and masochism -- and it's shameful to see such a lack of care or empathy for it. Seriously, shame on everyone in this and the orginal article's comments that are pointing fingers and blaming this on men, rather than trying to root-cause why this is happening and working towards helping innocent young boys.
Though I've never been diagnosed and live a normal life, I've had mood swings and extended family history of schizophrenia. Because of this, and the knowledge that there are certain triggers that can cause lifelong neurological issues, I'll never try acid or other hallucinogens.
The value of knowing that "underlying craziness" can exist is in inherently reminding us of the actual risk. Let's say someone predisposed toward neurological issues is on the fence, but ultimately decides to follow the reasoning in the comment. What liability are you going to bear for it?
Watching the lecture helped cement the material after already having a degree of knowledge, but they served best as optional, supplementary material. Since it served mainly to connect concepts together, I can see how watching it at 2x speed would serve the same purpose, but faster.
Most people in university would spend the bare minimum amount of time on both reading, exercises, and lecture in order to get a good grade, where good was defined as "the grade required in order to land a high-paying job". Since I was a non-conformist, I specifically made a point to read all the material assigned (and probably achieved ~80 - 90%), and one of my favorite activities when I was (rarely) ahead of schedule was to spend an hour reading a couple pages or a chapter of literature from an elective course. Every word, phrase, and sentence I would ponder about the meaning the author conveyed through multiple lenses (e.g. how did it affect the characters, the theme, the scenery, the world of the author, the culture he/she wrote them in, as well as the relation/history of the words used throughout the novel -- was this a motif? Did the phrase relate to any motifs?).
My professor mentioned "these books were meant to be enjoyed over many afternoons, to be read at leisure and to relate it to life with all its silly impossible circumstances and happenings". What was the end result of all this slow reading? In one narrow sense, it led to me getting worse grades than perhaps I would have if I allocated all my time towards getting the best career possible. It also led to depression -- self-inflicted -- and existentialist contemplation as my outcomes were incredibly poor relatively speaking.
What were some of the positives? Sometimes I can look at the brick walkway beneath me and make some quirky, half-sensical remark like "ah, the herringbone structure. The same one Brunelleschi used in the Duomo in Florence", to which any unfortunate souls try their best to follow socially as if that remark makes any sense in our conversation. Who knows, maybe Sartre would approve.