exmicrosoldier
It takes a LOT of time to validate every path, possibly an infinite amount of time, depending on the complexity of the domain.
Stop voting for people and judges that believe in the Friedman doctrine?
Every decision has tradeoffs. Western society has largely decided to prioritze capital owners over everything else.
Not sure if we called it engineering ten years ago.
The leader is net split and doesn't care about most of the cluster and the "zookeeper" is happy with the leader.
If the zookeeper doesn't select a new leader the cluster is going to stay in this state.
Take possession of parts of their stock in a blind trust and just get dividends or take out loans against the stock and use that cash.
If it wants educated, productive children, it must also pay the market price and that price is exorbitant.
At some point, US tech companies will (maybe have already outspent) the US education system k-12 and at some point surpassing all the ivy colleges just for training some ai models.
He wanted "cloud first, moblie first" - two firsts! The culture at the time was built around RAID - the internal bug datadbase and that there should be clear prioritization for everything.
The inability to decide between enterprise cloud and consumer client devices held Microsoft back.
Ballmer had customers asking for enterprise cloud in 2000 but he kept listening to people talking about lifting windows sales by 10 percent with search integrated to the desktop.
And then they chose the bloated SQL server for that and wondered why that couldn't run on normal consumer hardware in Longhorn.
The fundamental tradeoffs between something that sacrifices generalization for specialization and efficiency meant that what is good for running server rack NASDAQ didn't work for low powered laptops.
From a low level employee perspective Ballmer was the ruthless guy that wanted people to hate each other at work as they fought for survival lord of the flies style but was pikachu surprised that we could never deliver integrated experiences that worked together.
Satya's two key abilites to me were the ability to actually prioritize in a coherent way and the decision to bring the rank and file infighting down because integrated experiences are hard to build when you want your brother and sister departments to fail so yours gets more budget because thats how Ballmer worked.
As soon as they hired Robin and John i knew they (valve) were going to be a giant hit. As a former windows PM, it seems that Gabe knew how valuable mod authors as first time game designers were. Valve may not have been the first to make their game engine a platform, but they were the most dedicated to it in that era.
I didn't know their contract with Sierra was so much like a music industry contract and that they didn't own their Half life IP. It makes so much more sense why they recruited the founder of counterstrike, which is an even bigger hit than TF2.
If they had been public i would have bought into valve before 2005. I missed the boat on apple, amazon, and so many others, but that one had a competitive advantage of understanding the industry that I understood.
Right now you're making 1 million dollars a year per employee or a 10x or 20x revenue to average employee cost.
The reason your software providers probably suck is that I'm not hearing how permanent or consultant employees can provide the kind of ROI that it will cost to build even basic software.
Let's say you're based in Detroit, MI - somewhere dirt cheap - 3 engineers for 1 year is 350K in salary, another ~300k in benefits and then you'll take 2 to 3 people normally earning money off their real work to be the domain experts.
Let's say 1 million in developers and 2 people providing 10x the value of their 100k salaries as well, and that's 3 million dollars of cost + lost revenue from productive employees.
If your company has a 15% profit margin on revenue and 250M in revenue - you're making 37.5 mil in profit, and you'll be giving up roughly ~10% of the company profits on this venture.
So the question is, do you think you have greater than 70% chance of getting a 3x return on their cost? Maybe 9 million dollars more worth of revenue?
If not, the project will fail just from the ROI expectations of the bean counters.
You could try to outsource stuff to somewhere with cheaper programmers but that just means the 2 million in lost revenue from productive employees becomes 20 million in lost revenue as the outsourced engineers need 10x the handholding because they aren't onsite, watching the people that do the work and interacting with them with a tight feedback loop.
It made people really difficult to hit when you were behind them.
I played against some ladder players and was amazed at their other order of magnitude skill.
Part of the reason those og games were so compelling to me is because they didn't really have a skill cap.
It would have been amazing to watch some of those matches in a streaming platform.
Gasoline was roughly 1/3rd the price, but 4 years of state college was 20k, not 100k.
A house I grew up in, while 30 years newer, cost 80k compared to 300k now, even though it needs a lot more work.
Minimum wage there went from 4.25 an hour 30 years ago to 7.5.
Health care costs have gone up way more than double.
So maybe people make twice as much cash, but their costs for the things they actually need, without bullshit fake adjustments, cost 3 to 4 times more than they used to.
One could argue for better, lik how react is "better" than html forms. But it isn't really worth the cost to me.
Excite was about as good at getting me search results for what I am looking for as google has enshittified itself to now.
There are people worth their commission and there are people who are not worth it.
The bigger reason house prices are so high isnt the real estate agent cartel, it is the banking cartel and the capital chasing homes to rent them out.
I will not make the mistake of ever connecting one of these to the internet again, and if I have to buy a Giant monitor for 2k, so be it.
I'm 90% sure that the flash drive on the TV wore out and they want me to replace what is otherwise great working hardware for features I don't even want anymore.
I would guess that there's oil or shipping lanes or aircraft bases that they would want.
As I understand it, the reason they failed is because they gambled on interest rates staying low and chased returns to maximize profits to shareholders.
Shareholders deserve to lose money when they are pushing - or even remaining silent on - increasingly risky corporate behaviors as absentee owners.
aka
> Interest rates are high and I am worried about getting my next round of funding or meeting minimum payments on corporate debt.
Because an overwhelming number of corporations take advantage of tax laws that make interest debt deductible, every interest rate hike leads to firing people and decreasing business investment, just to stay profit margin neutral.
If you want to change this, it would really help to change the tax laws. https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/en...
Put every train car in the country on one train and derail it. Now 100% of the capacity was derailed, but it's an incredible success, because the number of train derailments shrank from 1056 to 1!
So much safety!