GoatOfAplomb

> is probably because of lags those stuffs introduce

There is likely some truth to this, but I think the bigger reason for these things is that Qualcomm can't be arsed.

Also - I don't recognize Jerry, but I do recognize many of the other names on the threads, and they're VPs or SVPs. So there's no argument of "this is just some random Googlers talking before their bosses got involved". These are the bosses.

Edit: Jerry is also a VP, per LinkedIn.

For a quick visualization, I like Rich, Broke, or Dead (https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/)

For in-depth planning, I like ficalc.app, and cfiresim.com is good, too.

Adding on to ambicapter:

Get the high-performing devs their good ratings and promotions. Get the low-performing devs moving better or off the team. Bring in more good devs.

Read, obviously.

You could do bench press instead of overhead press. They have a fair amount of overlap. Some beginning strength programs alternate between them.

Abortion may be the most politically prominent among reproductive rights, but "Women's reproductive rights may include some or all of the following: abortion-rights movements; birth control; freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception; the right to access good-quality reproductive healthcare; and the right to education and access in order to make free and informed reproductive choices." (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights, which cites https://web.archive.org/web/20080120140923/http://www.amnest...)

I meant that:

1) The statement "you matter" (call it X) is not the same as "you deserve a job in radio." (Y)

2) I expect (but do not have proof) that the readers of Hacker News, or a sample of western society generally, would more strongly support X statement than Y.

I did not say, but I will say now: I agree with X and not Y. I also don't believe that you deserve not to have a job in radio.

I initially wrote that out because it seemed to me that you were equating X and Y. You contested someone's apathy towards a threat to your job with a statement that you exist. Because I think that (1) and (2) are distinct, I didn't find your reply convincing. I hoped I would convince you of the same, or that you would respond with some insight I had yet to consider, which might change my own perspective.

"You matter" is distinct from "you deserve to have this job." I think you'll get a lot more support on the former than the latter.

That's the quandary with sock puppets, though. The comment is written well enough to withstand a quick skim, and if no one rebuts it, it may convince some skimmers.

Nearly 30 years after keyboarding class, if I tried to change now, I think I'd spend the rest of my life tripping over the keys.

Gemstone (now Gemstone IV instead of Gemstone III) is still going strong, with 549 characters logged in as I write this comment. Simucon, the annual convention for Gemstone and Dragonrealms (sibling MUD), happens this week. I expect around a hundred people will attend.

We don't get a lot of new players - mostly just returners who trigger nostalgia for the AOL days when they were teenagers. Occasionally someone brings in a D&D buddy. But it's enough to keep things going!

There's a free tier nowadays for anyone who wants to give it a try (https://www.play.net/gs4/), though be warned that it is built to eventually frustrate you into converting to the monthly subscription. It also leans pretty heavily on pay-to-be-awesome/whale-chasing these days, though not actually pay-to-win. All endgame content (and earlier) is accessible with gear one could purchase just from accumulation of loot acquired in-game.

My understanding is that it was classism. That is, only the "right" people could dedicate themselves to becoming a world-class athlete without any financial support, and they didn't want to complete with the "wrong" people. I think you can see similar in how "prize fight" boxing was initially looked down upon as a corruption of gentlemanly dueling.

(Can't find sources for this right now, sorry. And I'm not even positive I am remembering it correctly. So perhaps take my response with a grain of salt.)

"Assume scale and sometimes incompetence" means basically the same thing to me as "they don't care about you." In either case, it's "we're okay with not making things right for a number of people who have done nothing wrong."

Amazing how many hotel rooms can fit into a jumbo jet.

See also El Avion bar/restaurant in Manuel Antonio, Costa Rica (https://www.elavion.net/history). That plane was involved in the Iran-Contra affair and was abandoned as that came to light.

It would be great if promo wasnt such a big deal. But when I look at the comp for an L3 software engineer, and the comp for an L5 software engineer, I have a hard time seeing how you could make people pay less attention to promo.

I guess you could switch the process to "promo after N years of not being fired at your current level" but that seems even worse.

Agreed, but I think there's probably a profitable business to be made out of 1% of Google Search's users.

I'm curious about how often a term sheet is renegotiated after due diligence, for say, a Y Combinator startup, or a tech startup in general. Is it kind of rare? Almost expected?

> Where are the examples (with actual numbers)?

In upper-level undergraduate math, I made a game of seeing how many pages I would go before seeing 7 printed anywhere. It was usually 10 pages, if I included the page numbers.

I should also say my explanation assumes we're in last betting position here. If we're first to act, the logic is somewhat more complicated than I can successfully conjure up here without going back into the books - it's been many years since I played seriously.

I don't really think of thin value betting and semi-bluffing as the same concept on different betting rounds. Thin value betting gets its positive expectation (versus checking) entirely from getting called with a worse hand. It doesn't really have positive expectation from inducing a fold the way that semi-bluffing does.

At least, that holds if you assume the opponent will always call with hands above a threshold and fold with hands below it. Which is correct play (though kindly ignore raises, for simplicity - but they don't blow up the argument). Only if they behave very strangely, e.g. folding with the very best hands and worst hands but calling with the decent ones, can I see a better connection with semi-bluffing on early streets.

The distinction is that semi-bluffs are for when there are still cards to be dealt.

The meeting management tactics in this post are highly applicable in other situations as well, whenever you are presenting to a group of approvers/overseers. For me, that's launch reviews or program reviews. It takes a lot of time, but a smooth review pays it back many times over.

Thank you; I recognize that you're correct regarding cryptocurrency here and I was not.

And yes, a company would have to pay dividends, which is what I was hiding in my "in principle" parenthetical.

Stocks represent fractional ownership of a future income stream - the profits of the underlying corporation. You can (in principle) buy a stock, never sell it, and get back more money than you put in. So you're not completely dependent on what others are willing to pay for it in the future.

Trading cards (and cryptocurrencies) are not like that. You can only make money if someone else is willing to pay more for it.

Individual contributor- not a tech lead or manager.

One of the top results, Accenture, seems to have evolved to provide a very wide range for Colorado instead:

"As required by the Colorado Equal Pay Transparency Act, Accenture provides a reasonable range of minimum compensation for roles that may be hired in Colorado. Actual compensation is influenced by a wide array of factors including but not limited to skill set, level of experience, and specific office location. For the state of Colorado only, the range of starting pay for this role is $62,100 - $122,799 and information on benefits offered is here."

I started to write this out but realized a more polished explanation might be more useful:

"Snorkels constitute respiratory dead space. When the user takes in a fresh breath, some of the previously exhaled air which remains in the snorkel is inhaled again, reducing the amount of fresh air in the inhaled volume, and increasing the risk of a buildup of carbon dioxide in the blood, which can result in hypercapnia. The greater the volume of the tube, and the smaller the tidal volume of breathing, the more this problem is exacerbated. Including the internal volume of the mask in the breathing circuit greatly expands the dead space."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snorkel_(swimming)

(The face mask snorkels are relevant to the "greater the volume of the tube" part.)

I graduated from a very respectable but not elite university, with a respectable but not noteworthy GPA and internship. (I do feel I took to algorithms and data structures somewhat better than most of my classmates, which helped with interviewing years later.)

I worked some jobs in "low engineering" as described here, for several years. I got into this new Android thing, and published some relatively successful apps on the side, before convincing my employer to let me build their Android app, which was also reasonably successful. (I also broke into some light algorithmy stuff to improve ad serving/ad sales for that employer, though it was entirely trivial compared to what "elite" shops were doing.)

I believe that skill was the key to getting contacted by a Google sourcer - there just wasn't much of an external talent pool for it at the time. I failed one interview after insufficient prep, a delayed flight, and very short sleep. They called me again a year later and I prepped some, got in early, and went in fresh.

I imagine ML is maybe the closest thing to an analogous "door-opener skill" over the last few years, but I'm not confident about that. Research roles may really emphasize the sterling academic credentials, and for applied ML roles, Kaggles don't give experience crafting a data set and productionizing a model.

Some years ago, the official ladder descriptions changed to reflect what was already unofficially the case in (most of?) the company. Roughly: you can hang at L4 pretty much forever, as long as you're willing to keep learning new things as required for your role.

That leaves the pressure of getting from L3 to L4, which, admittedly, people do feel. But L3->L4 is also a much more straightforward promotion. It's not nearly as sensitive to finding the right project/right team/right boss, and the promo comes more from your impact on the project than your project's impact on the product/company.