The most powerful tools are usually renowned to have the most arcane user interfaces.
Xkcd's "Uncomfortable Truths Well" said, "You will never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas." LLMs don't fundamentally change that dynamic.
There are hundreds of tools that you must learn how to use to get any result. Totally fit for the purpose.
Learn how to properly use that tool and you'll get results.
But there's nothing in the article to suggest that these events actually affected the entire world. Most of the analysis seems to have been carried out in the northern hemisphere. If one of these events happened, perhaps it'd affect only one hemisphere or we'd have portions of the world unaffected or partially unaffected and able to provide assistance.
Half the world is still very different to one country.
In fact, if the "once country" was _China_ (or Taiwan) it could be a civilisation ending event. We've built a house of cards, and while it does have some redundancy it's not all that resilient.
Keep in mind the modern world as it is now hasn't even existed 50 years, it has never really been tested with a truly international disaster.
You're ignoring (among other things) global food logistics. You delete the ability to produce, deliver, and distribute fuel to a hemisphere for a couple of months and the resulting disruption to agriculture guarantees a global famine.
+1, really enjoyed that book. I had recently read the Illuminatus! trilogy and was really amused to find the hacker named himself after one of the characters from the books.
An old profesor of mine who used to review computer science books as a side gig told me he never bothered to read them, all he needed to do was check the contents page to see if they were good or not.
I've been applying that method for figuring out whether a non fiction book is good or not and it works like a charm.if the contents are in a weird order or there isn't the right amount of specificity in the contents its prob not good.
Also don't commit to reading any big non fiction books without checking Wikipedia and doing some 30 min research on the topic first. Easier to spot the bs that way
Your initial post didn't seem like a question as someone who doesn't live in the US, it seemed to me more like an accusation.
As someone from south america living in the EU it seems to me fairly strange that it's not immediately apparent that the sort of violence depicted from the police is completely unwarranted - I've seen police raids in both south america and in the EU, and this level of going in fully armed with military-grade gear is only reserved for the most extreme of cases and /always/ supported by a court order. There's no argument whatsoever in that search warrants with no body of evidence should involve SWAT-team levels of response, which clearly was not the case as there's enough evidence to go around that the search warrant is literally a piece of paper that anyone can invent without need to provide supporting evidence for their claims.
>billionaire investor complains that google is paying avg salaries of 300K
>They are hoarding talent from their rivals and paying workers handsomely so there isn’t a motivation to quit and build a startup that will disrupt the status quo.
What is this article? I don't understand if this is tongue-in-cheek or if there really is something as tone-deaf as this. Regardless, the cut is expected at this point.
I've heard it from ex googlers themselves when I worked in SV. We recruited two of them, they hadn't worked on anything even remotely important/interesting at google for months, that was in 2015
Why is this tone deaf? This is relatively consistent with the stories I've been hearing from friends at FAANGs and from a lower tier company, we have definitely been feeling the lack of engineers to hire for several years at this point
Nobody becomes a billionaire off salary. Generally speaking, billionaires come to be billionaires because they created something that has value in the billions.
Someone who has created their own worth saying that there are people being paid salaries without creating enough value to justify said salaries is not tone deaf. I bet most billionaires - at the very least, the self made ones, which is most of them in the US - have a better sense of value than most other people.
The comment isn’t about making too much money. It’s about being given too much money in exchange for what is produced.
I don’t get it - which bit do you think is tone-death? Companies definitely try to keep engineers even if they don’t really need them to deny to others. But even if that’s not true how would it be ‘tone-death’?
Anyone in the industry knows that's exactly why so many are hired and so little output happens. Anyone who has friends at the company will tell you those stories.
Fully agree with this. As a south american woman working in a multi-cultural company, I have a very direct and passionate way of speaking, which tends to mean I can easily dominate conversations and "intimidate" a lot of my co-workers from other countries.
That's why I try to be mindful of this; there's dozens of tools one can use to have effective communication. Begging the question, starting with a negative assumption, playing devil's advocate, etc. The key to good comms is a) have empathy for the person you're speaking to, and b) assume they're just as competent and well-intentioned as you are.
Fairly odd, as I've interacted with south american women before in both a professional and non professional setting and there have been those that were passionate in speaking and those that weren't. Usually those impassionate were more experienced in their profession. So it has nothing to do with ethnic culture. Op is just attempting a racial profiling, and attributing management styles to that. Pretty appalling and shows inexperience both in management and people skills.
Outside of work I love reading history, working out, I paint and write and do swordfighting and reenactment, which means i need to make a lot of stuff (learn leatherwork, clothes making, and do research!)
I try to be efficient with my time. I don't particularly enjoy watching TV or movies so that helps. A typical day for me is catching up on a history book while commuting, working, then gym for hour and a half (I use this time to listen to podcasts on history or art or whatever I feel like learning), then commute and reading, get home and do some cooking, and work on my art projects/writings until I'm sleepy. On the weekends I do swordfighting and then work on whatever project I need to get done before summer reenactment events happen.
But the key to all this is to do what I genuinely enjoy doing. I don't read because I want to be smarter than some voice in my head, I do it because I genuinely enjoy learning. I don't work out 5 times a week because that's what fitbros tell me to do, I do it because it relaxes me. I don't force myself to be "productive", I just do what I want to do and feel like doing and call that productivity.
Edit: one last thing to mention is that being constant matters more than investing significant chunks of time on it. People who believe you "need to choose" just can't keep a proper routine in my opinion.
