baskethead

How many more tens of thousands of government employees are on the payroll of foreign governments?

No one cares that 1984 was a warning against all of this.

It looks like the Bad Guys have won.

Buying options is completely orthogonal to insider trading. Options contracts are not allowed because it's written in the employee contract and that's because companies don't want you to be engaging in stock activity that goes against the company. But not because it's illegal. If you're no longer an employee, you can buy whatever you want.

If you have MNPI you can't buy or sell anything, including stocks or options, even if you don't work for the company.

You can just short Twitter stock from any brokerage in the US. That is the exact same thing. As a non-employee, you can do that without issues (unless you have MNPI at which you can't do anything).

Companies routinely have blackout periods where employees are not allowed to sell their shares. Typically the shares from equity grants or ESPP are done by a brokerage and they can block those shares from being sold during these blackout periods.

However, when someone leaves the company, they can transfer those shares out to their e-trade account or whatnot. I've done that before and it only takes a few days. After that you aren't beholden to stock blackout periods, unless you have Material Non-Public Information, which means you will probably have to figure out if you can sell without being considered insider trading.

Once they leave the company they are free to sell the stock. They are not beholden to a stock blackout anymore.

Job market is definitely not "hot". I think there are still jobs out there but lots of companies are tightening up severely.

If you do have a kid, you'll learn that every single experience you've had with other kids amounts to nothing. Having a lifelong commitment to another human and trying your hardest to make them the best person they can be, often against their own will, is something that you can't replicate with all the nieces and family friends in the world.

Pedophiles are extremely extremely clever and know exactly how to manipulate their targets. Just like spam, they don't go for every kid but they target the ones they know they can manipulate. If your child happens to be the target of a pedophile it's extremely, extremely difficult. We had some close calls on Roblox because my kid was an early reader/writer/typer so I was watching everything he was doing and cut away as soon as weird stuff started happening and then I deleted the app entirely. Now he's on Minecraft but I have a dedicated Minecraft server and only his friends play on it.

There are certain dangers that you can safely expose your children to with limited negative or even good consequences. Learning how to carefully climb structures at a young age is a great skill and if they fall down, they learn to be more careful. Learning your own limits at a young age is great. If they break their arm doing a skateboarding trick, that sucks, but they will learn more about conquering fear from bouncing back.

Getting conned into sending nude photos or being roped into the virtual hands of a pedophile are quite often things that kids have an extremely hard time recovering from. It's basically like sending your kid to play on the highway and expecting them to "learn" from the experience. "Well, they can learn how to be careful around moving cars!" is a ridiculous statement when the entire environment is dangerous and the outcomes are extremely binary.

It's easier to teach them how to avoid predators when they're much older, but Roblox is targeted for much younger kids.

BitTorrenting pirated movies.

The thing is that when you pull the level, you're interfering so you're the cause of the consequence after pulling the lever. If you don't pull the lever, you're not responsible for what happens, at least in my opinion. That's why in the basic case of a trolley heading towards 5 people or 1 person, I wouldn't pull the level no matter what because at least the deaths of the 5 people aren't my fault, but the death of the 1 person would be my fault.

It's ridiculous to imply that Google and Facebook aren't one of the most successful companies in the history of the world. And there's no way they could have made it to one of the most successful companies in history with a company full of terrible employees.

> And you.. don't?

The problem in this situation is that YOU are the one acting as a gatekeeper as to who gets into the company.

The company should be the one setting the standards, and determine the best person for the job, and you should be able to work with whoever is best suited for the job, regardless of whether or not you like them.

This is where the unconscious bias comes from.

Leetcode-style interviews : software engineering :: auditions : acting

Auditioning is nothing like being an actor, but that's primarily the only way actors get gigs. Unless you're so well-known that they seek you out. This is exactly the same thing as in programming. You have to submit yourself to a humiliating barrage of LC and systems design questions because that's how companies like Google have decided that's the best way to determine talent. And based on their multi-trillion dollar valuation, it's hard to say that they're wrong.

So unfortunately, unless you can come up with a better way, auditioning for your software engineering job is here to stay, just like auditioning for your acting job. So you might as well accept it.

Your technique has already been proven to create unconscious bias, because you are more likely to hire people that are like you. You even said it yourself, you want to work with people that you like and that you get along with.

Here's one of hundreds of articles that talk about this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/05/01...

Unless there's data that backs your choices vs the ones that you rejected, all you're doing is reinforcing particular stereotypes in your company and in the software industry.

Investing in that is vital if you want to grow as an engineering company. I work at a company with 2000 engineers, and the infrastructure and our build/change management/review system is horrible. It takes me all day to check something in, the integration tests are flaky and waste a lot of time tracking down errors, etc. Investing in this would collectively save so much time, but the people in charge think we can't afford the investment so everyone suffers.

I think it's a good idea, but I also envision a lot of cheating just to get free money. If they can tailor this so that cheating isn't possible then I think it's a great idea for some areas of the country.

It's Facebook's job to convince users that allowing access to the data is worth it to the users. It's not Apple's obligation to give free reign to companies to their users' data. Their obligation is to their users and I'm happy that they decided to do it.

Facebook should instead spend more money and more effort to entice users to give this data that they used to get for free. To say that Apple has too much power is ridiculous. Apple and Facebook are orthogonal to each other in terms of markets so it's not even an anti-trust issue, it affects all companies that were used to this free data.

I think it's only unprofitable in the US. Since China has banned mining, the US has become the country with the largest share of miners, and now as the price drops, mining will simply move to countries with lower costs of electricity.

Why? Are you afraid of rejection? Do you have problem making relationships with people you want to date?

You misread it. It went back to baseline after discontinuing the treatment which means that the increased depression was during the time while taking the medication.

Bill Gates isn't buying SFHs. He's buying all the farmland he can. He's the largest owner of American farmland.

I agree with this. Owning apartment buildings are one thing, but buying hundreds of thousands of single family homes and squeezing regular people out is detrimental to the entire country.

> Those of us fortunate enough to have 30 year fixed rate mortgages at about 3% are about to see our mortgage “debt” give us better returns than our stock holdings.

This is incorrect. That's only if house prices go up along with inflation, which I don't think it will. House valuations have been sky high, like the stock market was 6 months ago. There's a lot of room for valuations to pull in, I would say at least 33%, if not 50%. So we could see deflation in house prices, and a net loss even though "real" rates are very negative.

My house almost tripled in 8 years. I made $2 million profit from selling my house last year.

Homes have been going up in price for far longer than 40 years. The only time they have dropped is the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Otherwise there isn't an asset class that is more reliable over the long haul than real estate.

Anytime anyone says that Democrats are on the right side of morality, please point to things like this. California has been strongly Democrat for decades and this is how things are. They are "progressive" on hot button issues like abortion and gun laws, but for the most part, they don't give a shit about regular people just like Republicans.

We need a third party to disrupt the two party oligopoly that has tricked most Americans into thinking we have a choice. We currently have no choice because both parties don't give a shit about citizens, just how can they perpetuate the ruling class to continue to feed off us.

You do sound like a luddite. Also it sounds like you're not used to remote work or interacting with other people in a remote-first environment.

Meetings are essential. Seeing people face to face is essential. I had lunch with a teammate recently and it bridges so many gaps you can't do with Zoom. And Zoom is orders of magnitude better than Slack or email.

If you don't think that face-to-face video meetings aren't important, then you don't understand human interaction.

With a 1000 people you should be streaming. There's no conceivable way 1000 people can have an interactive meeting.

The funny thing is that the presentation was completely wrong. The "good times" were only about to begin. Within a couple of years, tech went on probably its greatest stock market streak in history. If you look at tech from 2010 until 2021, the gains are so outsized that it caused things like massive income inequality in the Bay Area because the gap between tech workers and non-tech workers was humongous.

AAPL went from $8 in 2010 to $180, not including the 28:1 split during that period. Google went from $300 to $3000, not including a 2:1 split. Amazon went from $100 to $3500, with no splits. Startups like Uber and Airbnb were about to be founded. Twitter was created only a couple of years previous. A tremendous amount of multi-millionaires and billionaires were minted during that time.

Except that's not how the markets work. Historically the PE ratios were much lower and the rates were much higher. Your model doesn't even work 5 years ago.