> The problem is SCOTUS has already ruled
The current SCOTUS majority will change any ruling as needed to satisfy the wishes of the oligarchs.
8,751 karma · joined September 1, 2015
The current SCOTUS majority will change any ruling as needed to satisfy the wishes of the oligarchs.
Well yes, that's common. But I was responding to the idea that there is literally 0 correlation between performance and raises.
In places where long power outages are common (hurricane areas), many gas stations have their own generators (they also have a convenient source of fuel to run them!)
Maybe I've been lucky to work for moderately reasonable companies, but I've never seen that.
For example in my current company, yearly raises are directly tied to performance rating. And while there is subjectivity in the rating, it is basically impossible to squeeze in a high performer rating for someone who doesn't do anything even if I wanted to (which I don't). It is also impossible to give a very low rating to someone that all peers see doing great work.
The correlation will never be a perfect 1.0, but it is closer to 1 than to 0. Low performers end up getting low to nothing in raises, and the high performers get a multiplier that increases their raises.
The concept of range isn't useful to ask though. If you say my range is $x to $y, all the company hears is that you'll work for $x. The $y part is irrelevant. Learned this early in my career, where every "$x to $y" invariably became an offer for $x.
So now in my initial intro call with any recruiter I just tell them my minimum, fully knowing that becomes the maximum offer. If they're ok with that we can keep talking, if not, that's cool, we both avoided wasting time.
Classic "Silicon Valley" did not included San Francisco. SF was a city an hour north of Silicon Valley but never part of it.
I guess by now I'm an "old timer" Silicon Valley-ite (been around here from early-mid-90s), but I still have a cognitive dissonance when thinking SF is in any way part of Silicon Valley. But yes over the last decade+ it surely is.
Where did you read that? Not in my post.
No, none compatible with the plans anyway. We were going to an event, and had pre-purchased parking at a parking garage near the event. That's where the car was going to be all day. The garage does not have EV chargers available for our use.
Not sure what you're saying, there are places to charge, but it takes a long while. That's what caused the big delay in the trip.
> there's EV chargers literally every 10 miles or less on all major roads.
Right. There is no lack of available chargers on the way. The issue is having to stop and wait a long while.
We don't have a tesla, but charge at the tesla fast charger station near the house, they work for our car. Took 45 minutes to bring the charge up enough for a round trip to SF.
> Because the charge curve on basically all EVs starts high at a low state of charge, there's basically no reason he'd have to wait more that 5 or 10 minutes at a stop to continue on his trip. 45 minutes is absurd.
Amusing when people are so confidently wrong. That's exactly how long it took to charge. Not to a 100%, but enough to be able to do a round trip to SF.
Agreed. Yes, we could plan better around the limitations of an EV.
But does every small road trip really need to revolve around planning to meet the needs of the car?
Yes, and no.
Yes, we definitely could have planned better the night before that we're taking the EV so we could've driven to the nearby fast charger and wait those 45 minutes then, to be ready to go in the morning. This is undeniably true.
But also, it is an EV issue.
If we had taken the gas car and noticed in the morning that the tank was almost empty, we could've done a quick 3 minute stop at the gas station which is on the same street we'd drive on anyway (no detour) and that's that.
At least at every company where I've been in charge of my vendor contracts, I am always grilled by management on how we can lower the cost of the contract and whether we are getting maximum efficiency from each vendor. There is huge pressure every year to find ways to lower the cost.
Here is our EV life:
Need to go to San Francisco (~90 min away, no good place to charge there so need to get back too). Can we make it? Mild panic. No, we can't.
Drive to a fast charger place nearby. Spend 45 minutes charging, bored with nothing to do. We were on time but now we're very late. Child is grumpy because we'll miss the start of the event (this is for watching Fleet Week last month). Finally get going, got there late due to time wasted charging, missed a few planes.
Coming home in the evening, battery is at 30% with half hour to go, partner is panicking. Will we make it? Maybe? Do we detour to a fast charger found on the map? Yes! No, maybe we'll be ok. Rather not stop in some dark sketchy place to charge for 30+ minutes. Let's hope for the best and keep going. Got home with ~10% left, stress on high alert.
Maybe some people like the adrelanine rush of this kind of stress on every road trip, but it's not for me.
For non-technical clients that may well be the case for a while, but I suspect even the most non-technical clients will eventually realize they can claw back a good portion of the efficiency as discounts.
I'm negotiating some contracts where I could do the work in-house for about 1/20th of the previously-reasonable vendor cost. I'd rather not do it, so I'm happy to pay 1/20th plus a reasonable percentage above that, but that's the limit. The vendor can accept that, or goodbye.
Interesting times on vendor contract negotiations these days.
No, not necessarily. Sometimes, yes. For anything important, the last thing I want is a company that's moving too fast.
An email company? The base protocol RFC was written in the 70s. It's as mature as computer technology gets. There is zero value in moving fast here, all the value is in building an absolutely rock solid and secure solution.
The very opposite of move fast and break things.
Tone deaf award of the decade surely goes to that guy.
If it were some social game app or something, I guess it wouldn't be as tragic, but for a company whose sole reason to exist is to provide security... wow. Goodbye any trust ever again.
Definitely not all projects need the same level of quality.
But per the thread, if you allow the skills of all the engineers in your company to rot, what happens when there is a system that needs the higher level of quality?
For a very brief period, and then when the really big money started rolling in, all the personalities that used to flock to wall street became programmers.
The Silicon Valley of the 90s was completely different to the thing it is now here.
Same here! Aside from the basic unix tools in /[usr]/bin/, there is very little software with the longevity of emacs. I fully switched from vi to emacs in 1992 and been using it heavily every day since then. So good.
(The only other program I can think of from that era that I still use is trn to read USENET)
You could simply try it. Find an API that is not publicly documented and thus not part of any training set. Take any AI model, give it the documentation and tell it to create some code that uses that API.
This is a pretty biased take. If there is anything the world is finally learning, it is that being completely dependent (not only for functionality but also availability) on a single vendor operating from a potentially uncooperative government, is not a great position to be in.
You don't rely on the model knowing about such things up front. You feed it the latest API documentation and then work off that.
Linux is the most common platform and many Linux distributions have an issue with license compatibility (or perceived one), which hinders adoption.
There is nothing complicated about having zfs be your filesystem. You can use its extra features like snapshots, send/receive, etc, but only if you wanted to. Otherwise it's just a filesystem, there is nothing to use as such, so nothing complicated.
> and isn’t necessary for most workloads.
Not sure what that means. What workload wouldn't benefit from a reliable filesystem?
Not really, this is an example (of many) where that quote is taken out of context and does not apply.
The premature optimization quote is about spending tons of time fine-tuning functions for optimal performance, shaving a millisecond here or there.
The choice of languages and/or frameworks to allow the product to reach your intended goals is a critical early architectural choice. One that is costly to revert later.
IOW, if you're building a niche SaaS app that you don't intend (or want) to market to a larger customer base then it makes sense to use a slow language if it does what you want conveniently.
OTOH, if your business plan is to scale to millions/billions of users as soon as you can get there, it is a mistake to paint yourself into a corner where you'll have to rewrite everything soon in the growth curve.
Now, perhaps, in the age of AI this matters less if you can use AI to rewrite everything when you get to that point. Although I haven't gone through an exercise of using AI to rewrite the whole company codebase at once, not sure yet how well that'll work.