xenity7

I’m engineering adjacent (analytics / data sci) but my experience has been the best engineers pitch and pick their own projects rather than being assigned out weeks in advance.

Just recently an engineering manager told me “I trust [IC7 engineer] to go where he is most impactful”

So this isn’t the only model, and successfully identifying and pitching working on high impact projects is a seniority marker that will lead to rapid promotion. In any organization. The pitch may look different in different places but I promise you - if an engineer is successfully pitching and delivering high impact projects promotion WILL follow.

Identifying and pitching high impact projects is a combo of technical and soft skills though, and the way this happens depends on the org.

Why would a long tenure be a problem?

It didn’t violate the dress code…

It’s kind of odd to think it’s NEVER correct for a company to do layoffs. The CEOs job is to run the company - if the company is more efficient why shouldn’t the CEO be rewarded? Their job is to run the company not never fire anyone.

This is an incredibly personal issue, who cares? You’ve made the internet harder for yourself to use...

I would love to see video of this if you aren’t joking!

Circle also has a profitable crypto prop trading arm.

You’re assuming pricing should be based on cost, but there’s no reason that has to be/should be the case.

It’s not a loan, and the 1% fee isn’t an interest rate, so annualization doesn’t make sense and usury laws don’t apply.

How do you determine if a chargeback is “fraud related”?

Although the MBTI is widely criticized/weak, I’ve found it to be quite a lot of fun for having discussions about personality with friends/family.

The MBTI makes strong statements about personalities which inevitably leads to inaccuracies, but it does make for an interesting starting point to talk about the way that people interact.

There are different types of consulting services - you could assess many parts of someone's cyber security preparedness without knowing technical details about security, as weird as that sounds.

Does management make it a priority? Is there appropriate funding? Are the correct policies in place?

And so on.

Of course, if you ignore th and technical details you will have very serious issues.

That said, you shouldn't send a super technical security expert to interview executives about their culture around cyber - the expert will find it boring/beneath them, the execs won't like the expert... etc

Very interesting. However, I've yet to see a graph library that effectively handles large graphs/communities.

It's very difficult to automate displaying more than about 10-15 connections in a meaningful way. I think a solution to this probably might be extremely far away though, as I think it requires making assumptions about meaning and where summarization would be appropriate.

It's a little bit hard to capture in a survey, but the reality is you can't value everything. Values aren't a list of all the things you think are good, it's a list of the things you value "above replacement".

Even just talking about what values your company has is very instructive and revealing. Sure, few people say "we don't value maintainable code", but if you're putting together a list of your four or five core values and you're coming up with things like "speed of execution", "rapid iteration" and you don't put anything about mainainability, the reality is you don't value that.

You might not object to it, but it just isn't important to you - you don't value it.

I realize there are scenarios in theory where it's easier to verify output than create it, but in practical terms (e.g. A web application) what would the difference be between a testthat validates all possible inputs/outputs and the actual program you're writing?

I don't think so, because an idea this obviously silly should fail under almost any market conditions.

As a frequent flier I've found flying is much more stressful to my body than one might expect. Long flights make me completely miserable, sometimes for multiple days afterward. Plus there is social isolation and a strange sense of detachment from being away from home and friends for so much time. I was in denial flying was that uncomfortable for years (why would sitting in an uncomfortable chair breathing dry air for a few hours leave me THAT uncomfortable?

I'm skeptical of what amount to anecdotal claims about health problems from flying. It's an unexpectedly physically stressful job which I think will tend to make people over attribute health problems to it.

It seems you've been hurt recently by a consultant :).

The institutional response to managing the risk of complex systems is often to introduce layers of approval and process that appear to be dealing with a problem ("this system can't fail, therefore please check with everyone involved in the system before making a change") but really have little real world value except driving everyone crazy and incurring enormous cost. They also shield individuals from real responsibility (how carefully do you review something you are the only approver on? What if there are 5 approves? What about 15?).

A better answer is to find ways to conduct real world tests with subsets of your system where you can roll back bad consequences. As far as I can tell This is the approach of google/Facebook and other newer tech companies with pushing small changes to subsets of customers for testing.

Legacy enterprise companies are woefully inequipped to do this for the most part, both technically and culturally.

Some industries have regulations that make this approach difficult (financial services) or human consequences to failure that make the cost of experimentation too high (medicine, airlines, etc)

I would encourage everyone here to actually go ahead and read the manifesto/letter. I did and was surprised by its tone, given the type of headline this situation is attracting.

I think the author makes some very calm and reasoned points and is attempting to start a discussion where he is open to being wrong.

I do NOT agree with all of the points he makes, but I think he is expressing his views in what is largely a respectful manner that is not, for the most part, racist or sexist in the way you might expect.

If he's wrong, and he IS wrong on some points, the proper reaction is to engage on these points because other people are thinking them too.

Encouraging diversity and inclusion means convincing and educating people at the margin like this guy, not virtue signaling and slamming them for not toeing the line.

First and foremost you should contact a lawyer - HN isn't a good forum for getting legal advice.

If you contact your local bar association they can set you up with a minimally costed consultation ($35 in sf) that will likely answer all of your major questions. This has worked well for me for several issues.

You can try a nominative fair use argument, but it is likely easier to just change the name - are you really getting so much value out of the name it's worth spending thousands on a lawyer fighting it for an uncertain result?

The technology industry is seen as progressive and cutting edge, therefore stories about sexism have more impact because they challenge a larger gap between perception and reality - "everyone knows" that finance is sexist.

I'm not sure I completely understand the rest of your point, but I object to the idea that promoting women's rights is against the interest of men. Just society arguments aside, there is a basic economic argument about the talent that is being overlooked by pushing women out with sexism.

What credit card do you have that you're responsible for unauthurized charges?

Once at a particular job, I'm primarily motivated by wanting my coworkers/managers to think highly of me and want to fast track me for various things.

I don't think this problem is as hard as you think it is in practical terms. N is going to be relatively small given basic constraints (the number of drivers and requests that could feasibly be matched is geographically limited). The search space for a request is limited to a few hundred drivers at most, competing with what is likely an even smaller pool of requests, making even extremely inefficient brute force approaches feasible.

"Facebook is its Users. No amount of AI can sell advertising the way Users can. And, last time I checked, it's still the User clicking around and having experiences."

I think you might be over reacting to this language, I believe the intent of the original article was to say that "the current Facebook USER EXPERIENCE cannot exist without AI" - clearly there are other things (users, user engagement) that make up integral parts of Facebook. No one is saying the product is AI.

I wouldn't say "The Big Fat Surprise" makes a case against nutrition research as a field - rather it points out some of the difficulties in performing nutrition research (the largest: it's almost impossible to enforce compliance with an experimental diet without massive expense) and some of the flaws in traditional conclusions (e.g. That dietary fat is associated with heart disease - turns out it probably isn't)

You can't avoid all conflicts with clients, but clear and constant communication that feels at first like over communication is key to prevent this kind of misunderstanding.

Here's what I've seen work with regards to client communication around scope - especially scope overruns:

1) If the scope creep is minimal (like a 15 minute task that wasn't in a bulleted list in the contract), don't even mention it. Just part of being a good business partner

2) If the scope increase will be expensive IMMEDIATELY communicate to the client that the ask is out of scope. Do this with an email, and call the client and discuss the email with them - ideally before they read it (maybe even call before sending it). It's important to have what's going on in writing, but it's easy to misunderstand email and it's also important that the client understands you are just making sure everyone is on the same page about scope. Sometimes (often) the client may disagree about what is in or out of scope, or push you to include more in the scope as a way of getting additional work for free. Regardless of how this ends up , it's better to have the conversation and understand where both parties stand before you actually perform the work.

3) If you do agree to do the work you view as beyond scope for the original price, it can be helpful to explicitly show this as a discount. In the attached article, this would look on an invoice something like:

Professional Fees : 294 hours X $103/hour = $30,413 Investment: $(18,413) Fees Due: $12,000

Pitched as an investment in the relationship and discussed frequently as it happens, this is harder (but not impossible) to be angry about.

That said, this is one of the easiest things to screw up and hardest to get right. Communication with clients is hard. Some people will never be happy.

Interesting story, but I think the researcher who found the flaw probably doesn't have much experience with large organizations, he says they didn't take it seriously because it "shouldn’t take over an hour to contact your IT guy and kill an rsync daemon." After he called the CEO. I'd say an hour is an unreasonably aggressive timeline if you're contacting the CEO... it likely takes some time just to figure out who needs to shut off the service.

Why is it ridiculous that tweeting would be taken seriously?Why would the form of communication matter? Elected representative "should" listen to their constituents by most definitions, and a tweet is just as valid a form of communication as any otherb- and hard to ignore because it is public.