sidongio123

>Imagine this: It’s payday but before the money reaches your account, someone else has already decided what you’ll spend your money on — one third of your paycheck on housing, one third on food (only plant and insect protein allowed), 10% on transportation (with little allowance for gas), 10% on a mandatory pension plan (mostly allocated to government bonds) and the remaining 14% on clothing, alcohol and pharmaceuticals in state-licensed shops. Spending outside of these allocations comes with huge markups and, as if this isn’t bad enough, saving is impossible as this money comes with an expiration date: after three months, it simply disappears from your account.

Imagine this: a herd of cows falls out of the sky and turns into a bucket of woke paint with muscular arms that backflips in your window, shattering the glass, but before it can splash on your pet velocirator Bill Gates sets your couch on fire and injects you with adrenochrome. Jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews. This dystopian world is closer than you think.

>while the recent inflation rates around 10% manage to do so in seven years.

Inflation is 3.2% over the past year. The dollar has never experienced hyperinflation. Bitcoin has repeatedly had inflation of over 100%.

>BTW I think it’s utterly irrelevant whether someone “gets” PEMDAS or not. That’s not math. To the contrary, it belies a rote, formulaic way of thinking that is almost inimical to math.

Being able to "get" PEMDAS in particular doesn't matter. Being able to "get" things like PEMDAS matters a great deal. Understanding that there are rules that bind the squiggly lines on the page is an idea about as central to mathematics as any I know.

So how do you measure productivity? I see no definition of "Developer Velocity" in this article or the linked ones, nor do I see an explanation of how it's measured, nor do I see any real attempt to prove its validity. They simply assert that they have a meaningful metric, which is begging the question.

>generative AI tools such as CopilotX and ChatGPT have the potential to enable developers to complete tasks up to two times faster

I'm surprised McKinsey is willing to endorse ChatGPT, which is one of their major competitors in the information-free drivel market.

The author is also a non-physicist, though he'd disagree with that characterization. He is a famous crackpot. Ask him to actually derive all of physics from these principles and he'd fail completely.

>Trading off hundreds (thousands?) of people at US salaries for only a 10% impact in uptime is a sane business decision.

A system with 90% uptime is a whole lot less than 90% as valuable as one with nearly 100% uptime.

Twitter was pretty reliable. Now it is not. Users have noticed.

>This is the most common mistake the anti-Musk crowd makes. They fail to differentiate between a person being intelligent and having good self-control. They are not the same thing.

"Smart" does not just mean "high intelligence", as you very well know. In common parlance people use "smart" to mean an ill-defined combination of intelligent, knowledgeable, careful, and wise. A smart person is one who can deal with complexity and make good decisions.

Deliberately misinterpreting what someone has said in such a way that it is obvious nonsense, then claiming what they said is obvious nonsense, is not a clever trick. All too often effective, but not clever.

I am not willing to conclude Musk is especially smart, for the record. SpaceX seems pretty competent, but Tesla, Twitter, Neuralink, and several failed projects are technically dreadful in numerous ways. What can be attributed to Musk's intelligence, what can be attributed to his behavior, and what can be attributed to the fact that any fool with a big enough bag of money can hire brilliant people? I do not know.

What I do know is that every time he speaks on a subject I understand his remarks are word salad.

>Elon doesnt have that experience, and every mistake is at-scale.

Several of his mistakes have, I am sure, been born out of ignorance. This is not a good explanation for his decisionmaking in general. Nearly everyone, whether in the industry or not, has been able to foresee the consequences of his actions better than he has.

His worst decisions have been born out of emotion. He has throttled access to websites like the New York Times and slandered organizations like NPR because they don't praise him enough. He rebranded the company to 'X' because he is still hung up on his failures in the '90s. He writes pathetic and incoherent rants at 2:00 AM and demands every user see them because he is deeply insecure. He desperately wants to feel popular, even if it has to be by fiat. He has done the wrong thing, time and time again, because he is weak.