2,755 karma · joined May 27, 2009
As an applicant, you should consider it a good thing. You work in one of the few fields where it is possible to easily and quickly test whether someone is incompetent. If it weren’t for the tests you would be in direct competition with legions of bullshitters.
If you are majorly adversely selecting their liquidity provider, they will just shut you off.
It’s not an exchange.
Their overall risk to an individual account is a few 100, and very few accounts will try to do this.
Sexual abuse of toddlers?
Unprovoked abduction and torture?
I think there certainly are base moral facts at the extremes of behaviour. Evil exists. Malevolence exists.
But I agree that most behaviour isn’t so extreme as to be easily judged without the understanding you describe.
“Your team isn’t pulling their weight”
The immediate reaction might be “Yes of course we are, how dare you!”
Now you have two options. It sounds like they have rejected your premise. Do you double down and try to force a verbal capitulation? “No, you are all really doing nothing!”
Or do you leave the seed you have planted: “Oh, alright then, good to hear it.”
The second option works way better. What they said in their immediate reaction is not predictive of the longer-term response. The longer term reaction might be that the team quietly increases their performance. If you went the confrontational approach, you would have ruled that out.
Most fossil fuel facilities are equally vulnerable to destruction, and a blown up coal or natural gas facility would probably pollute to a similar degree.
Modern nuclear facilities are also designed not to pollute in the event of destruction.
Finally, the pollution from the normal operation of a fossil fuel facility would probably kill similar numbers to the pollution of a destroyed nuclear facility.
Finally I would say that war demands a lot of energy - we should be focusing on expedience at the moment.
Then I say “What could I do in X weeks that I can actually ship and that is a real step toward the first Y % of my perfect vision” and I execute on that. I make sure that I am actually building part of my perfectionist vision, not some hacky garbage, but just limited in scope to be achievable in limited time.
Inevitably, along the way I realise my perfect was mostly wrong so this is an iterative process. I refine and repeat.
But your perfectionism is not wrong - use it to your advantage! Just make sure you are also a perfectionist about actually executing your ideas and shipping something.
But “might makes reality” is quite accurate - if a country cannot defend itself it will indeed cease to exist.
Just wondering - Why did you quit the job and the apartment?
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/
Please ignore all the gatekeeping marketing on that front page - it's very counterproductive and not at all accurate. IMHO all of this material should just be included in the standard Rust book, especially the sections about ownership and implementing Vec.
The Nomicon is an extremely useful resource because it "desugars" all the magic that is happening when you write Rust, so you are left with a competent understanding of what the compiler is doing on any piece of code you are looking at or writing.
Valuable reading for people wanting to build real systems in Rust, IMHO.
You need to define a strategy, pick a stack of tools, decide how data is going to be stored and normalised, what the workflow will be from ad-hoc, exploratory studies to productionized inference.
Are there any good resources out there that are useful to this person?
I am this person right now and I need to find some good guidance.
Let’s also imagine hypothetically that in many situations, the speed and strength of consensus itself has value beyond the quality of the decision reached, so eg. quickly reaching a strong consensus on the 2nd-best solution would be better than fighting a drawn-out battle to reach a strained consensus on the best solution.
In this (very hypothetical) world, it’s optimal to favour, by some amount, tall males over higher-performing non-tall-males.
If a job is worth $10/hr to get done, nobody will ever pay anyone $15 to do it. They will just not do it at all - so that’s 10/hr somebody could’ve earned that is just burned.
You have to think of it like that: congressman standing in front of poor single mother, telling her “you’re not allowed to have this job, it’s for your own good”, and then lighting 60% of her desired salary on fire as she looks on in dismay.
Eventually somebody will invent a robot or outsourcing solution that gets the job done for $10/hr.
At no point was any of this ever helpful to that person who was willing to do the job.
Minimum wage hikes are counterproductive - it’s a ban on jobs for people whose skills are worth less than the minimum wage, which are the poorest people who need the jobs most.
It’s a terrible thing to say to someone - “The best you can do is $6/hr, so we as a society have decided you’re not allowed to work to support or feed yourself.”
But we can make our society more functional to penalise poor people less. The people who can only run a 10 minute mile shouldn’t be forced to do it with a weighted vest. The people who can only run a 15 minute mile shouldn’t be banned from running at all.
One thing that helps the poor a lot (everyone, but especially the poor) is functioning, competent institutions.
Things like effective policing and crime prevention, a functional healthcare system, competent teaching in schools, sufficient childcare options, little to no corruption, wide availability of credit, a good transportation network, zoning laws that permit cheap and sufficient housing, employment laws that don’t make low-value labour too expensive to employ, etc.
When these institutions are not working well, they represent a “drag coefficient” that well-off people can just pay their way out of (complicated tax forms? Pay an accountant $2k, solved) - but for poorer people these can represent existential hurdles.
Making institutions perform better (or offering entrepreneurial alternatives) is measurable, empirical, and does not rely on any psychosocial assumptions to produce an effect.
Example:
“How hard is it for someone who is barely literate and is working 50 hours per week to get and keep a driving license?” If the answer is “hard” that’s a big drag on poor people. If they could do minimal paperwork, do the test for free on nights or weekends in cheap rental cars close to where they live or work, etc. that is a massive boon to someone whose next step up the ladder is to get a driving job.
Usually it’s not entitlement, it’s an effort to help.
The effort might be misguided, but assuming that the cause is entitlement rather than a genuine desire to improve outcomes is uncharitable.
Has anyone managed to get through this who could post here: what is the conclusion about humans burning calories?
Agree with the basic premise that the main political division is not between “right” and “left” but “educated people” (ie progressive college-educated) vs “uneducated people” (the working classes.)
Disagree that it’s clear who is right. We will have to wait 20-30 years to see. (Personally I think the working classes are wiser than the progressive elites, but that’s just one opinion..)
There is only equilibrium because everything is jostling as hard as it can to outcompete everything else.
Peace is a human invention, it does not exist in nature.
If it’s a real product it’s cool, I’ve wanted something like this for a while (currently I just use git repos full of JSON files but this would be better I think).