yupper32

I was responding to someone asking how they're different than any other tech company. They're known for underpaying and overworking people. That's how they're different than most others.

The implication being that if Twitter switched to that culture, then it'd generally be a really bad thing for most of those who currently work there, since they did not sign up for that.

He compensates below market and his employees are expected to work harder than big tech companies.

He can get away with it at SpaceX because, well, spaaacccceeee!

I'm not sure how he gets away with it at Tesla.

Most people I know who regularly bike in SF (for commuting at least), have been hit by a car in some capacity.

I have no idea why parents use those bike with the kids in the back. Why not just use a car? It's not even like those bikes are particularly cheap. The ones I see sell for thousands of dollars.

> Seems like a pretty good incentive to focus on actual improvement and not just now to get a better grade.

Well that's great, but it doesn't help me when I also require the good grade, because the system still works around GPAs.

> What is important is them knowing how to improve, not how they rank against their peers.

That's not true, though. What's important in the current system is your GPA, which is sometimes correlated to your rank in the class (curved grades being the most direct correlation).

What you're asking for is for the system to change. What I'm asking for is for professors to not ignore that the system exists and to recognize that the incentives are not what they'd like them to be.

You're missing one key point that I meant to touch on in the original post: This professor is still living in the bad system you describe. They just pretend it doesn't exist until the very end.

If they were some private school that lived outside of the GPA system, or were apart of some tutoring company, then sure it'd probably work well. But they don't.

So when I say "track progress", I mean track progress in the current system using the main thing I am (or, was) measured on: GPA.

In the US, your final average grade typically (though not always) follows you for your first 1-2 jobs, at least. So it's quite important.

The objective is a high grade, and learning the material is second, due to the system.

And to be clear, the objective in the author's class is also a high grade. They're not living in another system, they're just pretending it doesn't exist until the very end of the term.

And I'm certainly not saying the system or particularly good, but it is the system that they have to work with right now.

This is an absolutely ridiculous concept to me, and I'm surprised so many people are taking a positive stance on this article.

Grades allow for tracking progress across many different classes, so that you know for sure where you should spend your time studying. Maybe if this was your only class and you had unlimited time to revise and revise and revise, then this concept would work. It's as if the professor here thinks their class is the only one that matters.

And it's not like this matches up to life after university any better than grades do. Professionally, my task is complete when it meets the needs of the client and I get paid. With this class, tasks are never complete. There's always more revising to do, and you never know when to stop.

The author just seems out of touch. "As for motivation, I asked them, What do you want to learn? Why are you here?" -- this is the same kind of person who asks "so why do you want to work at [minimum wage job]?" as if it has anything to do with the job and nothing to do with needing money (getting good grades).

Free climbing is dangerous enough to be in that list, IMO. Lots of things can go wrong even with ropes.

> and that seems a somewhat depressing view of the world when laid out so starkly

> It's that bit that puzzles me most - your openness to being subject to the whims of fashion.

So it's not my choice to consider how I look (in fashion or with my choice of bike), it's that I'm open about it?

> Are you suggesting your opinion on how to present yourself is not influenced by others?

I don't know why it has to be analyzed so deeply. I consider the appearance of the things I buy. I consider both if I like the look and if I think others would like the look. Clothes, shoes, cars, in this case a bike, etc. Some things are pleasing to the eye. Other things are ugly or dorky or weird, which most of the time I'm not looking for in a look.

I mean it's the same as fashion for me. I could wear poorly fitting clothes and poorly matched items of clothing, but I don't.

I care about how I look and present myself. That's not exactly unique, and it doesn't have to be strongly tied to me caring if people think I'm "uncool".

I don't think I could ever get over the look of the small wheels.

It seems like the fanny pack of bikes: pretty useful but you gotta look dorky if you want to use it.

It's vain but I'd find it hard to believe I'm alone here.

> Either don't use HTML and use plain text instead, or use it correctly.

Says who? The owner of the website here owes us nothing.

Because it was a comment written without having any context into how NYT handles their games. They assume something about massive monetization that would happen in the future, when the daily wordle will likely remain free forever, just like most other daily games that NYT has.

> But does the result count as a "nice thing on the Internet"? I can be the judge of that and IMO no at this point it's just one of a million free casual games awaiting some monetization bullshit.

I don't understand the thought process. NYT has a bunch of daily mini games that are free and have been for a while. Only the full crossword and the archives are paid.

Did you write this comment before doing any research into how NYT handles their games?

I guess the google tracker on archive.org doesn't count for you?

You want truth? The truth is that having every employer who has been using the 9-5 or 8-5 schedule change to some flexible system is never, ever happening.

I don't see the raw numbers, but the chart seems to indicate Americans waking up slightly before 7, maybe 6:50am? Not too far off from the source I found of 7:09am, and is still approximately 2 hours after you wake up.

And congrats at being disciplined. The vast vast vast majority of Americans aren't. And changing the habits of hundreds of millions of people is a pipe dream and really irrelevant to this conversation.

The jobs I've worked outside we started the day in the dark often times (construction, landscaping). What jobs have you worked that required perfect natural lighting the entire time? I'm assuming it's a decent minority of jobs.

You wake up 2 hours earlier than the average American (which apparently is about 7:09am). Things aren't and shouldn't be optimized for your abnormal sleep pattern.

> If a kid has to suffer through getting up on 5 hours sleep they probably won't make that mistake again.

... I don't think you've met kids before. The vast majority absolutely won't learn.

> Living a larger part of the day in darkness isn't good for most people's happiness, energy use aside.

Standard time moves sunlight to the morning, when people are sleeping. Permanent DST should give people the same or more sunlight during their waking hours. You'd have the same amount, waking up at 5am and assuming you don't sleep until at least 8:30pm.

I don't understand. If I'm at work, why would I care if it's light out or not? I'm not using that light for anything useful.

It sucks more not being able to do any outdoor physical activity after work for much of the year.

> why is "turn on the lights" good enough for early risers but not for late-to-beds or night owls?

I literally say my reasoning in my comment. It's much harder to light up the outdoors for outdoor activities after work/school. I can't use sunlight in the morning for anything other than a wake-up aid.

> No one wants their first couple hours of the day to be darkness.

Why? What are you using the first couple hours of your day for except to get ready for work? Complete waste to do that in the daylight.

> Secondly, it's more dangerous for kids walking to school.

We should be pushing back school starting times anyway. If they're old enough to walk to school, then they don't need their parents to wait for them to leave before going to work, so that typical argument goes out the window.

> And lastly we use more energy since a larger part of our day is lived in the darkness for most people.

A weak argument IMO. Studies are not conclusive on the actual savings, and most of the ones that are out there say they save minimal energy. Besides, I think the mental health benefits of having more useful hours in the evening are worth the extra 0.5-1% energy usage.

Early risers can just... turn on the lights.

You can't just "turn on the lights" for outdoor activities except in very specific cases. Those activities can't really be done in the morning because people have to get ready for school/work during that time. I really don't want to waste perfectly good sunlight getting ready for work. Let me use it when it can actually be used.

Light in the evening is massively more useful than light in the morning. Sports, hobbies, anything involving the outdoors. It's not really useful to have that hour in the morning when you're just getting ready for school/work anyway.

That article doesn't say why it was a bad idea.

Are we really rejecting this because it'll be dark at 7:35am?

Sorry, but that's not even close to a compelling reason not to do this.

I've had similar experiences like that; the doctor pulling up articles from common websites. But it wasn't the doctor pulling up the article because they didn't know what was in the article, it was them showing me so I can look it up later and read more if I wanted.

Wikipedia seems like a poor choice, though. Maybe carpel tunnel is basic enough for Wikipedia to be fine. I've been shown stuff like Mayo Clinic articles.

"The Covid vaccine doesn't prevent deaths 100% of the time. So it does not work."

Something doesn't need to be perfect to work well.

"With the limited space they have"? They chose how much space they had to work with...