__derek__

> But does it mean you’ll get moved to a slow line, get an extra pat down, or a mark on your record? “You should have no derogatory experience based on you exercising your right,” said Lim. If you suspect that has happened, the TSA says you should ask to speak to a manager.

I have to assume that this is a joke. If you speak to a manager, you'll be subjected to more bureaucratic abuse and risk missing your flight, just to have your concerns dismissed because there is no enforcement mechanism.

No doubt. This was an amusing aside, not a critique, intended to illustrate the long-term impact of storage choices. That's part of the bull-case for AWS long-term, and why we see projects like AWS Snowball.

Not just hard, but expensive. The Acquired podcast episode on AWS[1] highlighted a particularly ironic angle of this:

> David: I can do you one better. Another example. Amazon.com used Oracle databases when it was started. Amazon.com did not finish their migration off of Oracle databases and onto AWS products until 2019.

> Ben: Oh, my God.

> David: Thirteen years after AWS launched.

> Ben: That is insane.

> David: It took that long for Amazon itself to migrate off of Oracle.

[1]: https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/amazon-web-services

The article discusses senior-level management, but the comments here mostly focus on line-management. IMO, these are very different beasts. The former set overall strategy and need to be highly competent in their area of expertise. The latter focus on tactics and don't necessarily need to be competent in their team's area of focus as long as there are other mechanisms to provide their team with technical guidance, mentorship, etc.

It's more fun if you use the medical senses of the word 'impacted' to parse layoff announcements.

I read their thread before my comment because the title on this submission was pretty inflammatory. Their tendentious argument is exactly what made me think this was a trial balloon.

This fits with what I've heard from ex-Coinbase folks.

Ironically, TFA highlights this as a common anti-pattern:

> Don’t stop the deep-dives. Sometimes executives get confused (or are too afraid) to step on toes and so avoid getting into the weeds. It’s seen as a waste of time or somehow not practical to spend the exec team’s time discussion “lower level” things. But where there are critical initiatives (see John’s point about points of leverage) I think you should get into as much detail as you can.

The more execs gloss over details (e.g., technical challenges, requirements), the less valuable (maybe even more dangerous) their plans become.

This seems like a consistent application of existing in-app purchase rules: purchasing a digital good to enjoy within the app requires IAP support for everyone else, so why not Coinbase? It's not clear (to me) that Apple is doubling down or strengthening the rules here.

If anything, I suspect that Coinbase intentionally violated the rules with this update so that it can sign on with Epic and Twitter in the fight against Apple.

This is apparently the theme today. I just read a story about government recruiters making hay after tech layoffs.[1] It does seem like a good opportunity to reshuffle talent to more productive uses.

As an aside, I wish people repackaging information from FRED would provide links/embeds to the source.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-30/laid-off-...

> Enron forgot to grease the right palms in Washington

What does this mean? Enron donated a ton of soft money and lobbied heavily. They had no shortage of friends in Washington.

That's the cost of liquidity. You can buy a 30-year TIPS with a real yield over 1.5%.

If this represents a change in employment terms, couldn't that be considered constructive dismissal (maybe the wrong term)?

It seems reasonable to assume that this is a byproduct of laws/regulations requiring more specific consent for tracking users. We're not in the wild west any longer.

Reaching for an "extreme" label is the issue here. What you've described in the blog post is lower opportunity costs. That is compatible with but doesn't imply desperation or a lack of alternatives: neither applies to the "revenge" founders or the folks foregoing $200k+ salaries, for example. In fact, both are able to take the risk because of solid-but-not-extravagant alternatives (wealth from prior exit and highly-compensated jobs, respectively). That's what separates both from the VPs pulling down million-dollar comp, who face much higher opportunity costs for the exact same potential reward.

That population of VP+ is also significantly smaller, though.

FWIW, this is from Forbes's pay-to-play "contributor" network.

This underestimates longevity a bit: a 55-year-old in the US has a life expectancy of ~26-29 years (male and female, respectively).[1] Granted, this may hinge on what you mean by "active" years.

[1]: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

AFAIK, that's not the case for the WSJ. Other outlets like Forbes do have self-publishing arms, though.

I got a free WSJ subscription earlier this year, and it's been interesting to see how much they go out of their way to promote odd businesses like this one. There's also an anti-ESG investment company started by some Thiel acolyte, which has gotten several front-page articles and op-eds published. Like this "bank", they don't appear have any traction, but the WSJ is committed to helping them advertise.

I really enjoy "max deboosted" as unintentional newspeak.

In case anyone else who's played with search engines thinks, "Wait, Okapi sounds familiar," here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi_BM25

The "Get Started" and "View on GitHub" links both have `href="/"`, so they don't work.

FYI: Amazon has a large and growing ads business. It's actually one of the bright spots at the company.

This sounds like Italic[1], albeit maybe a different target segment (budget versus luxury). Speaking as a Costco member, I don't see Costco tie-in.

[1]: https://italic.com/

Another way to be "bloated" is to have a lot of teams working very hard on systems/projects that don't add value to the overall business. Those teams will still manage out their low-performers and run a ruthless environment, but the folks that remain continue to work hard without providing value. Add new systems/projects underneath because people want more scope and responsibility, repeat through a few cycles, and you arrive at the quoted line.

This looks like flailing. They just shuttered Amazon Care. Now they launch a new business offering a subset of its services via the same delivery mechanisms (minus video calls)? And it still doesn't work with insurance? Strange.

They've agreed to the acquisition, but the deal hasn't closed.

The need for the "crossover" qualifier says it all, IMO. It's a slightly taller station wagon, not something I'm going to take 10 miles down pock-marked forest roads.

No, that's a crossover. Someone in the market for a true SUV would not consider a vehicle like that.[1]

[1]: Yes, I recognize that this looks like a No True Scotsman assertion, but there are real differences here.

The DOE loans helped seed the industry by getting first movers off the ground. That worked, so why would it make more loans?