anon_e-moose

ie - people that are incompetent at their role of people managers.

Why is incompetence so discussed for ICs but rarely for management?

Maybe if more managers were competent and less conflict-averse they would do their jobs better and cycle out incompetence and bad intentions faster.

Ah wait, but middle managers specifically choose conflict-averse, easy to control, domesticated people. That's why you find this particular type of personality in management so often.

So the issue is incentives as well and bigger than initially thought.

Didn't Australia recently ban social media for under 16s?

Sounds like kids are rediscovering fun and socialization in the outdoors.

Isn't this an unintended byproduct of what Australians wanted and legislated for?

They really could have added some bike lanes though.

A corporation is a bunch of people cooperating to achieve a common goal.

There is a very important factor that heavily influences (perhaps even controls?) how people act to achieve that goal, and sometimes even twists or adds goals.

Is that corporation publicly quoted in the stock market or is it private?

Look at how steam behaves, it's private and more ideological VS how many other publicly quoted companies, whose CEO often sacrifices his own corporation's long term survival for the benefit of short-term profiteering and some hedge fund manager's bonus.

Both need profit to survive, but the publicly quoted company is much more extreme.

When people say corporations only look to profit, what they really mean is that publicly quoted corporations will do everything possible to maximise short term profit at any cost. Is there a CEO caring for long term? Either he will be convinced to change or kicked out. It's almost impossible for someone to resist these influences in publicly quoted companies. It's just how Wall Street works and if that doesn't change neither will corporations.

The people running the world of finance and their culture are what causes enshittification and pushing a zero-sum game to extremes.

He made the point clearly, stop dodging the question...

That short-term individual success is at the expense of the wider long-term success.

If 10 people live in a lake and I fish more than everyone I will be better off that others. But then everyone else will seek the same individual short-term success because my first step in being an asshole was not punished. We will all end up starving in this scenario. A central authority agreed by all to manage this situation fairly is the way out. Rules agreed to in common beforehand and enforced by a neutral party.

If you reach out to them you're risking validating that the data they already have is somewhat accurate, plus they might demand more information from you.

What do you get back from giving that?

Maybe he did not embrace AI enthusiastically enough...

https://www.businessinsider.com/github-ceo-developers-embrac...

> Obviously the LLM doesn't have "senses" in the human way, and it doesn't "see" words

> A different analogy could be, imagine a being that had a sense that you "see" magnetic lines, and they showed you an object and asked you

If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bicycle.

At some point to hold the analogy, your mind must perform so many contortions that it defeats the purpose of the analogy itself.

> while one can't control the company's behavior, a person can control their own behavior. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to criticize them when they choose to act without integrity.

That leads to a society where people are punished and corporations are not, simply because they are too big to be criticised.

Much more often than people, large and publicly quoted corporations end up becoming inherently evil.

The total self-serving lies made by individuals will always be a drop in the ocean when compared to the self-serving lies of a single S&P500.

They're both wrong, but the real issue here is to start by criticizing and correcting the corporations, not the people. Once it feels like a drop in a glass of water, we can start thinking of criticizing the people.

If your competitor is lazy and grows to accept more money for less quality that is immoral. The moral thing to do is to compete against that company so that you provide better products and services for lower cost. That is the moral thing. Communism is neither here nor there, it's a completely different thing. Happy now?

That has nothing to do with communism, go educate yourself, and actually try

> None of these questions seem especially hard, and they're exactly the sort of problem that I face on a daily basis in my work.

Really? Do you invert linked lists all day? When the last time you had to traverse a binary tree? Genuine questions. I'm sure there has to be a mismatch between what we define as "those questions".

> They're also fairly discussion based

They're also performed wildly differently with no standards at all. I've had good coding interviews with the coding as a starting point for a conversation. But I've also had it super strict on rails, interviewer silent and just expecting you to one-shot the optimal path. The latter is particularly great at hiring professional interviewers rather than actual professionals at the job.

Leetcode has nothing to do with actually programming a project that lives long enough to deliver value.

Hiring that guy is a badge of honor because admitting otherwise would be to admit that the interview processes have nothing to do with the job, thus the real incompetence here is with the companies and people following that interviewing style.

Instead of correcting themselves, those interviewers chose to dive deeper into delusion.

For me too, anyone that does horribly, bad signal. Anyone who does perfectly, bad signal.

I've found that looking for mediocre and sub-par results will give you professionals that spend their time getting good at the profession instead of getting good at leetcoding.

I have never and will never hire code monkeys. AI already takes care of that.

I have had the exact same experience with the exact same kind of person. We used to be in the same team for years and after we collaborated once, I absolutely hated any work interaction related to his him or his work. Outside of work we got along well, he was fine, socially stunted, but that's OK.

When the layoff time came, everyone had to scramble to move by themselves to a small selection of teams. The second I heard that guy was interviewing for the same team as me, I had gotten an offer at that point, I told the hiring manager, me or him. That's how bad working with those kinds of people can be. He ended up elsewhere and I'm still in that team. I just could not deal with him anymore. Perfect interviewer, but couldn't write production code to save his life... He's still employed by the way, bumbling around from team to team because the consequences of his incompetence take months or years to feel...

/s... Right...?

There is no such thing as a 100% free market, not in America, not anywhere.

What was passed was a petition for the EU to listen to the needs of a million EU citizens. It is not yet a law, but it might become one. Laws are the rules of the market. A 100% free market is anarchy.

> First of all we are developers only. Calling ourselves engineers is a sociopathic lie. Almost none of us are capable of doing anything that resembles engineering.

What if you did engineering before and just moved to software engineering because that somehow pays more than the noble profession of engineering?

Good points, he seems to be in to something in the health field, but the analysis was incomplete and flawed. Given the importance of the health results, perhaps someone could build on top of that and build an improved study?

Phone usage while driving is a big one. Flat out looking down at your lap and texting, instead of looking at the road. I have seen people do this everywhere, in the city, in the highway.

Considering the whole world, gun utility for the civilian population is clearly much smaller than car utility. You will also find even in US a higher number of individuals that have at least one car VS number of individuals that have at least one gun.

Sure the reverse might be true for a minority, but the majority scenario is out there with plenty of statistical and empirical evidence.

I'm neither pro nor anti-gun, just stating facts.

> the skill that actually matters is reaction time to sudden unexpected hazards (and consequent need for stopping distance)

More important than that is actually learning to predict hazards. Over years of experience, what was unexpected becomes hedging risks. Tight corners in residential areas, parked cars blocking visibility, managing distance not just from the car in front of you but behind you. That obviously requires slowing down in those sections.

One of the few places unrestricted speed makes sense, is a fully enclosed highway with very little traffic and enough lanes, during the daytime.

If grandma can't tell that the picture is edited, then it's no longer a meme, it's slander.

The comedic value would be even higher if it was an obvious tongue-in-cheek edit. Given it's professionally and seamlessly edited, then it's too ambiguous to be a meme and thus should not be protected as free speech.

That's all fun and games until a single company puts the top 3 or 5 candidates pitted against each other to see who waits the longest without a rejection and takes the lowest offer...

I heard this from friends, and despite being very comfortable where I am, I started interviewing cynically with no intention to take any job. I can confirm this is very much true and widespread. Hiring is at its worst ever.

Whenever supply and demand gets fixed, we'll see these behaviors go away.

What is it with the trending focus on the negativities of remote work?

Are all the corporations trying to promote in-office work as a justification for buying offices in an attempt to hedge against inflation with property?

I wonder how the conversation on remote/hybrid/local office would go if real estate was not a financial instrument...

Public meltdown still sounds better than a private meltdown

I did but unfortunately that day I did not have a military of my own that could serve as the tool of last resort in advancing my political will.

Aligning incentives through financial penalties = forcing an entity to give you money until what you want happens. The key question here is intent - 1)which entity, 2)what's the scope of what you want to happen, 3)what happened before and 4) can you do something about it if you're disadvantaged?

Tariffs and fines, for lack of better words, are both aligning incentives through financial penalties, but they are still different things.

The EU (governmental body) created laws to price in negative externalities and punish offenders until they correct their behavior. Fines will punish corps (private citizens) directly, with little collateral damage, until they stop being anti-competitive.

A fine forces a 1)small target to follow 2)a specific law and uses, like tariffs, financial penalties to achieve this. That law is a long term reflection of people's local culture and values, and it 4)can be appealed and judged. 3)A negative externality was priced in as a law and a fine.

-- Right now, you have the Trump admin (gov body) applying tariffs to other countries (gov body) because they want manufacturing (private citizens) back in US soil. There is clear widespread collateral damage.

A tariff shapes the economic behavior of a 1)big target and, like fines, also uses financial penalties to achieves this. The desired economic outcome is a 2)trading strategy of a temporary administration. There is collateral damage. 4)There is no court, judge or 3rd party to appeal to, you as a government can only try to negotiate with the other government. 3) Two governments that were having mutually beneficial and consensual trading are now no longer doing so, there was no negative externality here, and while Trump may claim so it does not make it true that other countries were taking advantage of America. See trade balances considering products and services, as one example of lies trying to make it look like US was getting short changed by the world, it was not.

If tariffs and fines still feel like the same thing, it's only because 1)corporations have become government-sized and have achieved government-like powers; and 4) that 3rd party of the judicial branch seems to be more and more taken over by just the government itself, who might actually be a gov-sized and gov-powered corporation.

> Art builds on art, and "stealing" is probably the most important part of the process[2].

> [2]: https://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

Nice try ChatGPT stealing from studio ghibli and Scarlett Johansson are still two egregious examples of what can kill artist's motivations. Why create or publish if credit is not given?