I agree, but I'd argue they make sense at a high level just not as much on lower ones. The level they may sense on is the "design a way to keep kids busy with useful stuff while their parents work". In that sense, something that involves directly being bussed somewhere after school vs. and evening thing adds convenience.
As if checking account insurance is effective altruism? And are you saying offering a neo-bank service involving skirting what's possible and passing the value on to customers isn't scrappy? And finally, did someone force you to move your money? Ethically speaking optionality and customer empowerment is good, and forced insurance is fraud.
Agreed with this. Was involved in big platform company who handled it this way and it went well. A good way to do it is email the customer and say 1. You disagree with them 2. You respect their rights and will allow them to legally use your service 3. Tell employeesb and customer that you'll donate the money to Planned Parenthood, etc.
Is it possible that this is true and yet applies to only a small subset of people? On LinkedIn this comment got near universal negative response along the lines of "that's impossible." But when you read their titles, it was universally jobs people have to pay their bills and not mission driven work. Why is the correlation between people who change the world and working very hard so constant if it's impossible or false? How could studies show it's false for the typical person but almost universally trust of the most impactful people?
I find as I get more experience I realize my limitations as a programmer so I can predict much further out where I'll run into trouble. It usually ends up being avoiding bad architectural choices, avoiding bad abstractions, avoiding introducing bugs into code that works. It's easy to spot a bad programmer, I find that a lot of the time a good programmer will be known for their faults in other areas (ie. Bad communicator) but people take their skill for granted. And then there's the rare programmer who can solve things that others can't understand. There's way more bad programmers than star ones, but my guess is a lot of people here fall into the good not great category unless their track record is exceptional. A lot of people try and fail early, much like companies, so if you've been in the game for a while it's a good indication.
I mean we only tolerated those bills for a few months before we had to switch, but generally speaking we were handling on the order of 4-5M requests/day, mostly low bandwidth. API Gateway, and wasting lots of allocated server resources for each time the function ran, was just killing us. The load was pretty constant, which was another reason to switch. No regrets either way, but we should have done the billing math at production load and not just been blinded by the free tier and the low cost per run.
Certainly our AWS bill when we were using Lambda + API Gateway forced us to "think about servers" and why we were paying 10x more for slower responding application server to spin up for 15 minutes to process a request that requires 50mb of RAM / 10 ms and subsequently billing us for the full allocated amount at 100 ms. Learn from our pain: use EC2.
Many restaurants in downtown areas have separate order desks / staff / kitchens for online, it's a significant and growing percentage of their business. Space is almost wasted on a single floor of tables, generally it's more efficient because of expensive real estate and cheap people to just order.
Is efficiency the best health metric for an economy, or is it just an easy one to use? Many of the most useful things become natural monopolies because they are so good.
My wife and I had a child in Canada with about as extreme a complication as you can get (transferred to Level 3 ICU for the sake of mother and baby). We calculated that it would have cost at least $200k in the US in direct costs, let alone things we couldn't quite get a price for (medication, the hourly rate of the over 20 medical professionals in the room during delivery, etc.). Would have ruined us for sure if out of pocket.
I generally try to get as much work done (in life) as I can. Some projects I can work for 12 hours a day on, others I'm tapped out at 6, so I just maximize output. If output is below the debugging cost of that code or something, I stop. Could be 2pm or 10pm.
Modern meat, save the expensive grass fed stuff, isn't even that nutrient dense. With the exception of B12, which you can get from mushrooms/nutritional yeast/supplemented, everything else is available in sufficient quantities. I'm not even vegetarian, but meat's nutritional value is highly overrated. Agree with you on lack of micronutrients and genetic modifications making things harder to digest and begetting chronic disease though. Source: worked in meat industry tech for 4 years.
Teleological thinking and IQ aren't particular correlated. It is possible to believe in god across all levels of IQ. Atheists tend to have a lower capacity for teleological thinking. Scientism, as opposed to science in the strict sense, is basically a religion with rational and irrational proponents.
Article like these are interesting. In our experience, API Gateway + Lambda burned through almost 5x as much money as Elastic Beanstalk, and involved so much refactoring to get around the weird limits (timeouts, recursion, etc.). Maybe if you aren't using API Gateway and you are doing something that is truly spiky. Otherwise, it's actually much more expensive at scale. Don't get me started about cold starts...
My experience with my current company could be considered the opposite of this. People are willing to pay us large amounts of money (surprisingly so) because they need a solution for this particular problem and nothing exists, but they hate what we have built and constantly complain / write angry emails offering feedback of all varieties. What they don't do is leave, despite not being locked in. Strange.
The challenge is that these are key fit questions. Hiring someone with experience doing high velocity one-call-close sales at $250/month is very different than hiring someone doing high touch field sales for deals that are $10k/month. You might as well be asking a DevOps person to write R for data analytics -- tooled totally differently. Those are the questions sales people have to understand, to understand if they are a fit, if their experience is relevant, etc. If they are experienced they can help define it, but it mostly all starts with pricing, how many calls you can afford to have before you are losing money on CAC and whether they have to do a lot of outbound grinding or not.
Where in SaaS you might pay the first month or two as commission, in licensed software you generally pay 10-20% of the gross margin for the first year of the agreement. The mechanics of the sales process are very similar, the people involved are very similar. The difference is the approach to commission, typically, and the quota.
On the one hand, Myers-Briggs is very useful for correlative anecdotes (ie. ENTJs have these problems, INFJs respond these ways, etc.). On the other hand, the test/re-test validity is low because people tend to mistype a lot. Maybe the model just isn't good enough, but the concept is useful in areas.
Not to mention that daycare in cities where people who tend to be dual earner make big incomes tend to live can often cost at least half of the gross of the lower earning parent. Meaning working is something people do for a net contribution of less than minimum wage, even as a high income earner.
The VP of something should be more or less the best at that thing in the organization. The VPs in each area should theoretically be considerably better than the CEO is at that area. Specifically, at leading that area, which usually comes from deep functional experience in that area as a specialist. The career path of IC, founder, player-coach CEO, investor is one thing, but the alternative is specialist skills in a function (ie. marketing coordinator, manager, director and finally VP).
Schizophrenia incidence goes up with IQ from average, as does high functioning autism and bipolar disorder, the only health conditions that increase as you go up in IQ (all others decrease or aren't affected).
As easy as it would be to dispel this as something only low IQ / low capacity for development people would fall for, teleological thinking tends to slant towards schizophrenia-spectrum nervous systems. If you plot schizophrenia on a continuum from subclinical (one symptom) to clinical (threshold for diagnoses) you see teleological thinking / religious zealotry / conspiracy and paranoia in all parts of the spectrum, where it mostly gets worse as it progresses to clinical levels. Those of us on the autism spectrum tend to have the opposite neurology, with a low capacity for teleological thinking and more capacity for reductivism. Neurodiversity is interesting because whether you fall into one camp or the other (or somewhere in between) doesn't change much through your life, or affect IQ or other conventional measures of development capacity. The future is going to be interesting as evolution selects for more extreme traits in each of these domains.
Says the guy who started an overvalued ad network trying to divert attention to himself. Just because no one cares if an ad-tech CEO burns out doesn't mean people don't care about Musk burning out. Musk is a symbol for entrepreneurship and will power in an age where most people are whiny victims. Almost no one could handle that level of stress and he does it by choice. Drive the gas car you deserve, Nick.