yupper32

Just about anything done with poor form or in excess is going to cause issues. Not sure it's a useful point.

Running is actually good for your joints. You'll have a hard time finding studies saying otherwise.

Running is certainly usually harder for heavier folks, but being bad for your joints is not the reason.

Please focus on one thing at a time. I think you're starting to come around to the idea that maybe Wikipedia has an appropriate amount of funding and is spending an appropriate amount of money?

You can just keep moving the goal posts every time you get proven wrong.

Also, you were complaining about Wikipedia being in the US/SF, when the Internet Archive is also in SF.

$11mil / 169 = ~$65k / employee. So average pay at Internet Archive is barely over the median salary in the US? That's not good.

Salary costs don't need to be looked at as something to aggressively push down. You can treat your employees well while still being a non-profit.

(Though I'm not claiming wikipedia treats their employees well, I have no idea.)

Maybe they should spend more than $350k and find someone more competent.

If you want to compare it based on the people working for each company:

Parag has around 3900 employees. Wikipedia has around 550. Around 7x multiplier.

$30m / 7 = ~$4.3mil

Sundar has around 135k employees. 245x multiplier.

$250m / 245 = ~$1mil.

$350k seems like a steal no matter how you put it.

Those normal people should know that $350k is a steal.

Do you just donate to places without looking into their finances and how they spend their money? It's not like wikipedia hides it. It's right on their website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances

I tend to only donate to places that seem to spend the money well and efficiently, for example.

> But from any normal person's perspective, it's expensive.

Why does it matter what that hypothetical "normal" person thinks? Does that "normal" person have insight into how much it costs to hire a competent executive?

I'm not disagreeing with the overall premise of the tweet chain. I'm just saying that $350k is pretty cheap for an exec at one of the most viewed/important websites on the planet.

Sure but pointing out $350k executive salaries as somehow lavish is strange. That seems low for an executive at one of the most important (or at least, most viewed) websites on the planet.

All business, all the time! No fun allowed!

I think it was a good aside.

1. It makes it more evergreen.

2. The excited/super invested explanations are funny.

3. It leads into the joke that Jim doesn't believe that Pam ever saw it hit the corner.

Anyone who uses the internet, for one.

Have you ever listened to congressional hearings related to tech? Folks from congress have no idea what's going on. They're focused on the wrong issues, ask insane questions, and at the end of the day are responsible for regulating the industry. If things don't change, we're going to end up in an even worse spot when it comes to online privacy, security, etc etc etc.

Note: this website seems completely independent from the US government, despite its official appearance.

The real danger is the lack of technical literacy in the world.

Pretty much every generation makes the same mistake you're making right now by writing off whatever the younger generation is focusing their time on. You can find quotes from 1000 years ago with the same exact sentiment as your comment.

Every single time they were wrong.

In my experience those who implement before process leave out important cross team requirements and/or blow their political capital right away. Or they spend their time doing things like unsolicited refactors or migrations or rearchitecting. They're forgiven for a project or two but eventually people get tired of it because it's not sustatinable.

Those are not 10x engineers.

Real 10x engineers know how to deal with politics and process on top of the actual engineering. Those are rare but absolutely amazing to work with.

I've had people on my team with these views and often their expectations need to be re-calibrated. They want to spend their time rewriting the codebase their way instead of being actually productive.

Those people are not 10x engineers, despite them sometimes thinking they are.

(Not saying that's you, I don't know you).

> its painful for existing senior software engineers to welcome one on the team

Huh? Why would that be?

I'm at the 2x mark with my wife.

It's both your money. Jealous and bitter? Her money? You both just need to grow up and realize you're married and on the same team.

It might be different if you were both struggling to make ends meet, but you're wealthy. You made it. Be happy about that.

> He will get some kind of legal consequence ... eventually.

I don't see how you could possibly be confident of that. Even if he is absolutely guilty and gets to the point of a trial, which alone is a huge huge huge huge step, he may be able to delay things for the rest of his life.

That's ridiculous. If I created a service and the government happened to start using it, my service being taken down should not be labeled a national security issue against me. The national security issue would be the government deciding to rely on my service.

A security concern for the governments, not twitter. It's not twitter's fault that governments are using it as a primary form of communication, nor should it be their responsibility to have amazing uptime just because governments are using their platform.

Could be targeting tourists.

Dumped as word isn't the incorrect English. The formation of the question is the incorrect English.

Correct: He dumped his clothes on the bed.

Incorrect: Why he dumped his clothes on the bed?

Correct: Why did he dump his clothes on the bed?

> Getting rid leaded avgas

Isn't that more chemical engineering? Boom sounds mostly mechanical.

> moving away from fossil fuels altogether which includes fields like energy storage and electric propulsion

Isn't this mostly battery tech? Seems like a stretch for these experts to be working on that.

> developing an efficient trainer to replace the piston lead-gasoline burning C172 that is so ubiquitous and makes up much of the 1500 required hours for an ATP license.

At least this sounds like something in their wheelhouse, but needless to say, there's no money in that.

Boom is developing a plane that has demand. Simple as that. Not everyone needs to try to save the world.

Take home tests are never just an hour. They're open ended traps designed to find out who is willing to put in unpaid overtime. The OP themselves admitted to expanding the scope of a take home test they were given by around 10x because they felt it would give them an edge.

This is what a ton of candidates end up doing, knowing that others are going to as well. Especially when the take home test could be sent to a massive number of people.

Spend a few hours with me and watch me code. Show you care. I'm not rejecting the idea of spending time coding for an interview.

So do you have applicants write a 4 endpoint API with flask, or do you have them implement an elevator system which you describe as very hard? I've actually given that question in an hour long interview. But guess what? They get to stop at an hour, instead of guessing how much work they need to do to move on. You and I know that someone could probably make a career working on that system.

When you commit your time and set actual deadlines (such as 1 hour), they don't think they need to write a multi-elevator system with floor input outside the elevator and account for load and time of day or write it in 8 languages and write a 10 page report on the whole thing. They just spend an hour with me and we go through the problem and see how far we get.

You could be spamming that question out to hundreds applicants for all I know. Show you care and spend the time with me. I get several interview requests per day, I'm not wasting my time unless I think a company respects me. I'm in a nice position where I don't need to show I can be exploited by doing a ton of unpaid overtime work.

Those are a lot of words that could be empty. It's easy for me to see the red flags:

1. Mentioning firing in the very first post when talking about hiring.

2. Take home interview tests, showing you don't value your potential employee's time.

3. And this is an interesting one: accusing someone of having a poor work ethic when you don't know them and they didn't show any sign of it. This is a big red flag because it points to you equating disagreements with performance, which makes #1 even more of a red flag.