lacey

There’s a continuous stream of evidence to the contrary, particularly if you’ve ever worked for large companies and seen the kind of wasted resources that go toward pet projects and other high value items that fail miserably.

The difference of course is that one costs tax payers whereas the other costs shareholders, and in one case (government and tax payers) there is some hope of oversight and accountability. If shareholders actually knew about this sort of waste I am not sure they would ultimately care because they may chalk it up to the cost of doing business.

There were also redlining practices and things like razing and redeveloping the predominantly black Fillmore making it a neighborhood the previous residents could no longer afford.

> As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.

Questions like this, although very interesting, just don’t fit the Q&A format they are promoting, where they aim to be free of debate and opinion.

I still think we’ll continue headed in that direction until we start to heal some of the fractures in the US and start to find some common ground and work toward common benefit rather than strictly towards short-term selfish interests.

Do you mean by total revenue, or for a given photographer?

I ask because in general people who do weddings tend to focus on those almost exclusively for their income (the same is true for some of the other categories I mention below).

The way I think of it is that there are perhaps only a few sources of steady income that pays a livable salary with photography:

- weddings

- headshots

- real-estate

- advertising / marketing

In many cases either photographers are being asked to do more these days (e.g. write the editorial that the photographs go with) or people who wouldn't traditionally have photography as part of their job are being asked to do the photographic work on top of their existing responsibilities (e.g. journalists who are asked to bring a camera along and snap some shots for a story).

[EDIT: I am not sure where the day and a half of work figure comes from, either. It is typical for something like an edited/touched-up photo album to be delivered a few weeks after a wedding shoot, with the photographer doing a few shoots in between and then sitting down and editing several in a batch over the course of a week or two until they are happy with the results.]

As a result they walk out of school with debt, find it difficult to find a position (because e.g. some high school level positions in the US have very few vacancies), and end up taking whatever they can get or if they cannot get anything in teaching take some other low-wage job after following their passion led them to a short-term dead-end.

I don’t know how often they are successful at getting photographers for these types of things but I know that if I were going to shoot for those kinds of wages I would rather donate my time to a charity that I support.

If that were the case, why don’t we have several of these prank days per year? Maybe monthly?

It’s because on a scale of 0-10 these pranks usually rate somewhere between 0 to 2 in terms of humor and > 2 in terms of annoyance.

“Your mailbox is empty!”

What?!

“Haha, no, April Fools!”

I’m rolling on the floor now. Oh. So. Funny.

I’ll add that the attitude towards things like stimulants that help people with ADD/ADHD is also a bit bizarre to me.

Precisely.

What I have heard a couple times now from relatives of union members is that senior people who know union leadership sometimes end up on “disability”, meaning there is nothing wrong with them but they don’t work and get paid. They have doctors in the loop to certify the disability. I have no idea if this is actually widespread.

My own personal reluctance with joining a union is that I feel like I do pretty well negotiating for myself.

Having said that, perhaps a tech worker’s union could result in 30-hour four-day workweeks with reasonable minimum vacation, and that would be worthwhile if it became the industry norm.

So e.g.,

a + b + c is interpreted as (a + b) + c because + is commonly left-associative

whereas

a ^ b ^ c is a ^ (b ^ c)

because languages that support ^ for exponentiation treat it as right associative.

For non-associative operators, parentheses are required if you have two operators at the same precedence, so I believe the grandparent is arguing that e.g. a + b - c should require parens to disbiguate in a language where + and - have the same precedence.

Perhaps they have changed their position in the last year.

This was despite my having filed a change of address.

I suggested that this was a privacy problem and was told that it was my responsibility to stop the emails if I didn’t want to continue receiving them. After two or three more back-and-forth emails I still had absolutely no acknowledgement from them that this is a problem.

There is a (perhaps wrong) belief that being first to market greatly increases your chances of success if not outright dominance in an area.

People are unconcerned with the possibility that if successful they will be left with a mess to clean up and a system that is hard to evolve. They believe those are easy problems to fix.

- investing time in things that ultimately do not pay off

- taking risks

- lots of small poor choices that add up

- bad luck (yes, to some extent you can make your own luck but sometimes things are outside of your control)

Honestly I find his list pretty poorly thought through, especially in comparison to the recent blog post by Sam Altman: http://blog.samaltman.com/how-to-be-successful

Part 1: https://youtu.be/29RkHH-psrY

Part 2: https://youtu.be/SVgSLud50ss

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/12/25/256602581/wh...

$400,001.00

“This is the most expensive t-shirt on the Internet.”

import Data.Scientific

(9999999999999999.0 :: Scientific) - (9999999999999998.0 :: Scientific)

I'm also curious what kind of work you do that you find estimating effort to be reliable, and what kind of tracking you do to keep yourself honest (e.g. I often see people say something will take two weeks and the only reason it happens in two weeks is they end up working day and night for the last 5-7 days when they realize that's what it's going to take to make it happen).