jurassic

Most of my frustrations with GHA arise when doing something useful conflicts with someone’s idea of security. For example, branch protection rules intended to stop devs from yoloing commits blocking me from pushing a version bump commit during a release workflow.

These lawsuits are about enforcing contract terms. In business, if you don't honor agreements you get sued (and lose).

The parent post is referring to the "golden parachute" execs are entitled to when fired by new ownership in situations like this. This is different from getting the $54.20 for shareholders. The purpose of these payments are to help align the incentives of leadership with shareholders so they cooperate in getting these complex deals closed.

I also haven't heard any updates.

The cold weather performance is significantly worse, and as somebody who lives in a region with snowy winters I'm tired of the way environmental activists and car manufacturers both seem to be on the same page about pretending this isn't a problem. It also masks a big part of the cost of ownership, since in winter you need to charge a lot more often to drive the same distance as in warmer months. People can plan for shorter range, but they need to know what to realistically expect so they don't end up stranded on the side of the road in winter (this has happened to people I know). I plan to keep at least one ICE vehicle for longer trips and winter use until they are outlawed or we see a revolution in energy tech that makes this a non-issue.

The sweet spot in my experience has been for WFH orgs to get together periodically for extended offsites. A one week gathering twice a year has forged some incredible bonds on my distributed team.

I like that for the present moment there are a diversity of approaches and people can somewhat self-select into a work culture that fits their preferences and needs. If you make abrupt changes I don’t like, rest assured I will be using my new time commuting on the train to prospect new job opportunities. But good for those who want and prefer an in-office culture. Voluntary association is a wonderful thing.

I mainly reserve scorn for companies issuing abrupt ultimatums to employees they hired remotely that they must relocate long distances or be fired. Nobody established in an area with a partner that also works, potentially has family nearby or kids in school is going to accept that. That move signals a toxic brew of tyranny and cowardice from execs who don’t want to take responsibility for doing a real layoff. Grindr, looking at you this week.

This is a cool party trick, but I don't see a need for this in any real applications. Black and white is its own art form, and a lot of really great black and white images would look like absolute garbage if you could convert them to color. This is because the things that make a great black and white image (dramatic contrasts, emphasis on shape/geometry, texture, etc) can lose a lot of their impact when you introduce color. Our aesthetic tolerance for contrast seems significantly reduced in color because our expectations for the image are more anchored in how things look in the real world. And colors which can be very pleasing in some images are just distracting in others.

So all this is to say.... I don't think there would be commercial demand to, say, "upgrade" classic movies with color. Those films were shot by cinematographers who were steeped in the black & white medium and made lighting and compositional choices that take greatest advantage of those creative limitations.

This is whataboutism. Drunk driving kills and should be harshly punished. People who are unsafe drivers for other reasons (e.g. too old) should be handled separately, but their existence is not an excuse for irresponsible behavior.

Threads badly needs search and trending topics. Once they have those features, it will do much better. The product as it currently exists makes it exceedingly difficult to find conversations you are interested in about current events.

For a modern switch option that is quiet but has a pleasant tactility, I've enjoyed using zilents. Get ready to open your wallet, though, because they definitely charge a premium for them: https://zealpc.net/products/zilent?variant=5894832291878

Agreed. The switches on Model M are loud as hell, and those big plastic cases they used on various vintage keebs give them a real growl you don't get on more modern cases that tend to be smaller and/or machined out of solid metals. I'm not an audio engineer, but seems like the cases act as a resonance chamber and give a really unique sound signature.

I understand the scenario you are describing, but I still don't think running around like a chicken with head cut off is your best strategy. Thinking about how to convey your value and targeting work you are well-qualified for will convert into a job much more reliably than spamming and claiming to be something you are not.

Some of this is good advice, but I definitely wouldn't advocate embellishing your resume in this way. You're going to waste a lot of time on the phone with recruiters exploring roles you probably are not a good fit for. Also if I contact you because I'm looking for a FOO expert and you actually only read a blog post about FOO, you immediately lose credibility with me. Very low chance of it turning into a job.

IMO it's better ROI to get as specific as possible about the BAR role you are looking for and then put in the effort to do these things:

1) really workshop all the text on your resume / LinkedIn to make it clear you are seeking BAR opportunities

2) connect with people who are working on BAR or are BAR-adjacent

3) (if needed) think of easy things you can do to bolster your BAR credibility (small side projects, read a book on it, etc).

If you can do these things you automatically stand out because most people seem to lack introspection about what they want and also communicate poorly.

Doing this also will improve the ROI you get from your own network, because people will be able to more easily understand what you're looking for when thinking about the opportunities they know about.

Bottom line though: If I read over your profile, is it obvious you are actually good at X and seeking Y? It's amazing to me how many applications I see that communicate nothing about what the candidate has accomplished or would like to do next. A keyword spam resume is getting the circular file if it hits my desk.

If you have no friends, discuss it with ChatGPT.

There's no direct comparison to be made with housing shortages. The only scarce educational resources are those that convey high prestige, and there's no way to manufacture more of that through higher tuition payments because it's the scarcity that makes it prestigious. Harvard would be just as prestigious if it were free to attend as if it were $100k/yr to attend. Whereas in housing, if you had people lining up to pay $100k/yr, you'd be throwing up new buildings as quickly as possible.

In general there is a an oversupply of higher education capacity due to demographic downturn and a decline in enrollments since 2010. Smaller colleges have been closing because they cannot attract enough students.

Government lending and a lack of price controls are the ultimate root cause. The government extends near-unlimited credit to student borrowers that goes way beyond their credit-worthiness, academic performance, graduation rates for the school, prospects for employment based on field of study, etc. And universities have clued into the fact that students who can pay any price, will pay any price. The ceiling of what students will pay, if they have sufficient access to credit, to join or maintain their status in the middle class is very very high. So universities hike the price year after year with little resistance because the availability of government borrowing takes the sting out and shifts the pain years or decades into the future of those students' lives.

I think some major force is needed to counter-act the runaway price growth without cutting off borrowing for students from low-income families. I think university prices should be capped by law at the inflation rate.

Think rent control for tuition.

I don't think it adds anything to the discussion to personify and sexualize these companies.

I see no reason for this at all.

Nearly all mobile games are designed to get you addicted and then monetize you via micro transactions. IMO it’s better to just not participate in that form of gaming. I deleted all mobile games about 10 years ago after I found myself unable to regulate how much time I was spending on objectively stupid games like Pocket Frogs (basically you vs an RNG trying to breed and catch them all). I knew it was a low quality way to spend time, but still I would find myself there again multiple times per day because they baked time delays into the gameplay (unless you pay up, of course). I hope it’s the closest I’ll ever get to experiencing a gambling addiction, but it was so odd feeling like I had no control over it after a while. I had to delete everything and go cold turkey to get back control. I still enjoy a good console game now and then but it’s giving too much of my time and attention away to game developers letting that stupid stuff on my phone.

Twitter is very much dying. It just doesn't happen overnight.

I know of several people who have experienced this recently either shortly before or shortly after getting a new role. Seeing multiple examples among my acquaintances tells me it's not that uncommon. Seems horrendous that companies can go from hiring to firing in the space of a few weeks, but that's the reality.

Generalizing heavily, I think layoff risks looks something like this (from most risky to least risky):

1. Startups in an immediate or medium-term funding crunch. Standards to raise money are much higher now than they were in the recent past, so a lot of companies will likely go bust if they don't trim expenses aggressively. This includes a lot of companies that look relatively legitimate, have users, have nice websites, successful raised multiple times in the past, etc. If you ask them, they will never tell you they are having trouble raising, so you have to do your own research to form an opinion of their funding status.

2. BigCos under pressure from shareholders to grow profitability due to rising interest rates and competition for investor dollars. They have plenty of money to keep people employed, but investors are demanding a pound of flesh. This is why you see share prices surge after layoffs are announced.

3. web3/crypto zombie companies that aren't in dire financial straights yet, but may be pressured to return capital to investors given recent events in the space. You probably don't want to work here anyway.

4. Well-funded startups that raised recently and are actively growing. Any runway issues they have are far enough out that you don't need to worry much today.

So my advice is: Pick a startup that raised recently and is building something that looks like it could be a real business with appropriate margins. No web3 crypto scams, no uber-style businesses that can't grow without heavily subsidizing the cost of their service, etc.

I think the dip reflects high inflation since the graph says values are afjusted to 2022 dollars. The job market was still good in 2022 so I don’t think there was a large nominal decline in pay across the industry.

It’s not true anywhere I have ever worked.

I heard one of his employees joke that Elon could be the first murder victim in space.

I don't have an ML background and have found the examples pretty easy to follow. https://docs.pinecone.io/docs/examples

+1 on this book recommendation. Insanely good.

This is absurd. Slavery is horrible. Being a slave means having all of your choices in life stripped away to optimize for the financial outcome of your “owner”. If you resist, you or people you care about may be tortured or killed.

A person working for a wage, even a poor one, has way more options than that. If you quit your job at McDonalds, nobody is going to come and murder your family. There’s no penalty for telling your manager to get fucked and starting a new job at Taco Bell the next week. And for those who are truly in hardship, there are social programs like Medicaid, SNAP, etc to look after many of their most basic needs.

Misgendering is shitty behavior in every version of English.

It's not about what I personally believe or think is unfair. It's about what Republicans (broadly speaking) believe. There is massive resentment from people on the right who think the Twitter rules unfairly elevated some political opinions as good/correct/acceptable while treating others as unacceptable.

The handling of trans issues is just one example to illustrate the problem here. People on the left think trans rights are human rights while people on the right think a lot of trans issues should be open for discussion, legislation, persecution, etc. I think if we're being intellectually honest most would acknowledge that as a country we are far from consensus on many of the details here (bathrooms, girls sports, etc), and yet Twitter's rules and enforcement actions behaved as if the leftist view of transgender people is the only valid and permissible view.

The handling of January 6 and the banning of Trump is another example.

These things are Rorschach tests; people apply their biases and reach very different conclusions about what should be done. I don't claim to know the solution, I'm just trying to sketch out the problem with the way things were creating a climate where a big segment of the US felt unwelcome and resentful toward the platform.

This presents a problem for the platform, since you can't afford to alienate large double digit percents of the population if your mandate from shareholders is to grow mDAU by any means necessary. In that context, having some metrics tracking in place to measure the impact of algorithm changes on democrats and republicans to see whether impact is disproportionate is a completely rational thing to do.

For real. If you're voluntarily exchanging your labor for what is probably a top 5% income in the US, you're not a slave.

> ...it is only because that group disproportionately participates in behavior that is bad for the platform. That isn't a problem.

That is exactly what Twitter's stance has been all along (in the pre-Elon era) and it IS a problem for the product because people being silenced due to their own bad behavior (example: misgendering transgender people) feel an injustice is being done. The rule-makers get to set the range of acceptable discourse on Twitter and those to the right of center have felt unfairly disadvantaged by the way it was done in the past.

Over time this has eroded trust in the product. Just because people aren't being labeled and ranked based on whether they are red team or blue team, the people deciding what "good" and "bad" behavior looks like on the platform have the power to disproportionately impact these groups.