astuyvenberg

Can anyone confirm this information is actually shared? Last month, I went through a background check for a new position which used The Worknumber. Not all data was present & correct (a previous employer was acquired and that goofed some data). When I was asked by The Worknumber to correct it, they wanted a W2 and said (direct quote from web form):

"Please redact or conceal any compensation related information on any documentation you submit. It is not permissible (either by law and/or company policy) for <new company> to view such information as part of your background check."

So can the new company actually get access to the compensation information? Is that perhaps a state law?

I concur with a lot of what Nader has laid out here. Specialization + Content are keys to unlocking much higher pricing power.

Getting started is tricky, but my most profitable side work has been workshops and lunch-and-learns, which is beneficial as I can re-use a lot of the same content between engagements.

The issue is when the ultra-wealthy take out loans against their investment assets (and thus, those unrealized capital gains).

By doing that, ultra-wealthy _are_ realizing the value of their investments without being taxed. That's how this wealth is being accessed, and that's a large component of what drives these ultra-low tax rates for the ultra-wealthy.

This is true of basically all platforms, including every major cloud provider.

AWS's playbook can be described as: 1. Provide low level infra 2. Observe what customers build on it 3. Create a general solution and charge a premium for it 4. Repeat, moving higher up the stack.

Not to mention Amazon.com's "Basics" playbook of finding what sells, then knocking it off, releasing their own version (and ranking it higher for search).

From other comments, it appears OP is associated with upstash.

Immunotherapy of all kinds is poised to become the revolutionary medicine of our generation. I'm excited to see what Wyndly does in the future!

Depends on performance. Corey Quinn's article is on point (linked a few comments below)

Most offers for FAANG companies include salary and stock compensation, that vests over 4 years.

So if you were granted 400k in stock over 4 years, you'd get 100k per year in stock (which you can keep or sell, but it's real compensation).

After those 4 years, the company will either give you another stock grant over another 4 years, or they will decide to show you the door - and not offer you anything.

That's what seems to have occurred here.

Easily AWS

Precisely - vendor lock-in generally happens at the data level. For example, AWS finally turned off their last Oracle DB server only a year or two ago.

non paywalled: https://archive.is/n2yra

Especially if you layer on additional functionality, like triggering a lambda function to resize an image when it hits the S3 bucket.

When people talk about avoiding vendor lock in with AWS, they tend to talk in terms of using k8s or another compute abstraction layer.

But I think the real lock-in lies in services like S3, making so many workflows simple and intuitive (while controlling your data, which is where the real lock-in lies)

S3 may be my favorite AWS product. It's the epitome of "It just works" design.

Thank you for answering my question! I wasn't aware that Apple had a credit card.

That's a good point! And Privacy.com does offer a product that lets you generate temporary credit cards for this type of thing, which seems like a more elegant solution.

I'm interested in learning if there are alternative credit cards available that do not track/resell your purchase history. [1]

To me, that seems like a major aspect of surveillance economy which can't be easily disrupted by something like Ad Nauseam or pi-hole.

[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90490923/credit-card-companies-a...

That is unfortunate, the "call to cancel" dark pattern is so annoying.

I hope they do better.

Congrats to the Auth0 team! Their product solves a really tricky, undifferentiated problem that I'm glad I don't have to solve anymore.

AWS CLI is pretty handy

Congrats on the launch!

I use DynamoDB for most production workloads. With that said, I really miss the ability to run ad-hoc queries against a relational database.

Joins can be baked in to DynamoDB for application access patterns - but frequently I (or product/sales) want to know "how many people with X also have Y", which is really hard to do with DynamoDB.

Well you have to live somewhere, right? Either buying or renting - unless you can find free room and board (in that case, invest in the stock market instead).

I found the NYT rent vs by calculator to be pretty helpful when making this decision on my own https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-cal...

This is great for users already on Aurora, but I'd love to make stored procedure calls to Lambda from regular old RDS instances.

The α-gal story is one I continue to enjoy learning about. If you haven't listened to it yet, RadioLab has an excellent episode on the topic: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/alpha...

Simply put, Docker includes a bunch of UX components that Kubernetes doesn't need. Kubernetes is currently relying on a shim to interact with the parts that it _does_ need. This change is to simplify the abstraction. You can still use docker to build images deployed via Kubernetes.

Here's an explanation I found helpful:

https://twitter.com/Dixie3Flatline/status/133418891372485017...

Generally speaking, functions don't run continuously. If your use case is 100% compute 100% of the time, it's not a great fit for lambda.

I didn't mean to imply that they did it to be kind, I think it's clear they made this change to be more competitive in the market place.

It's still great to see.

It's still measured by wall clock time - not CPU time. I'd love to see them bill for actual CPU time.

It's nice to see that AWS is using their economy of scale to reduce their own costs, and passing that on to the consumer.