271 karma · joined August 23, 2018
For example, I'm instantiating something N times with this change. Each instantiation is fast, but this is a hot path. It's not clear whether that's safe or if it needs to be gated which is something a reviewer would ideally flag.
I suppose the counter-argument most people would make now is that if the AI didn't call it out, it's probably not likely enough of an issue to focus on -- even if it does wind up becoming a problem later.
I've pretty much completely dropped it for writing (but still use it for catching issues with clarity or logical flow afterwards). I've yet to get away from it for coding. Perhaps I keep trying with coding because I feel I'm doing something wrong (and because for a a little my performance was tied to usage of it...).
I know you said you're involved in some retrogaming and were experimenting, but as someone who works in a world where hardware is pretty heavily abstracted away, even if I got into retrogaming I don't know that I'd consider that there may be a systems improvement lying around. Beyond the creative aspect, it feels like there is some systems and hardware background that helped put the idea together (and I'd be interested to go learn about of that systems/hardware knowledge myself).
By understanding priorities I mean: the tech lead has to be in sync with management (of the team and often other leaders of the org) about what needs to get done and what can be cut if there isn't enough bandwidth. Weak tech leads in my experience don't have a sufficient grasp on changing priorities, which results in the team working on things that don't get rewarded properly / don't pay off and/or loading up the team with work that could have been deferred. Some of this is the manager's job, but often it falls to the tech lead to estimate the true technical 'size' of what is being asked.
By acting on leading indicators of success, I mean: the tech lead will ideally not be doing the majority of execution on a well-staffed team. They should be doing some execution work to ensure the codebase is sufficiently easy to work in etc, but most importantly they need to know how to figure out whether or not something is on track without sinking too much of their time to do so. Setting up milestones and some target date helps with this, but it's often uncomfortable to do that with folks that were recently your peers (it still needs to be done).
I don't have books or other resources, but this has been my experience as I transitioned into similar roles. I also think my experience may skew more towards a 'manager-tech-lead' than a pure tech lead, so take that with a grain of salt. Good luck!
Either way, before and after my edits the intent was to identify areas in which distributed systems researchers moved their focus to support areas such as (but not exclusively) AI.
The question comes from me supposing that “pure” distributed systems research has slowed.
This seems like a good direction for sure.
I think there is a point here that user-facing innovation stagnated and OpenAI helped break that, but it’s wild to me that there is no acknowledgement at all of the giants whose shoulders they stand on. Although I guess that’s what he meant about the arrogance…
Would anyone be able to explain what's going on in that section or point to resources that explain what the goal is / why this looks so programmatic?
I was waiting around for a better rate, but even when T-bills were being offered at >2% annually, banks were offering less than a percent. Even competitive savings accounts seemed sluggish. Money market funds were an easy way to get similar rates to T-bills without actually buying them myself or waiting for banks to get the message.
If there were fewer assets then deposits, then yes the 250k+ accounts are probably out of luck.
I don't know if there are more details elsewhere, but I feel like a solution here is to not host the meeting in such a way that allows others to share anything (or at least only allow authorized users to join)? Although I would think that a 'broadcast' of the meeting followed by text-based follow-ups from people not physically present would be an even better system.
Maybe there are more requirements that I don't know about.
Now the folly/experimental/coro library can be compiled by anything that claims to support C++20, which is a pretty big win for FB if nothing else.
Zuckerberg owns controlling interest over the company to the point where the board of directors are essentially advisory. I believe I read that he owns over 75% of Class B shares, for which he gets 10 votes for every 1 vote that a regular Class A voter gets.
That's a lot of power. This has allowed the company to ignore Wall Street in the past, which makes me think he's not suddenly concerned about Wall Street now. Whatever Zuck does is really his choice and responsibility.
It is kind of nasty to think about the timing though. If true, they kept those managers around to do the very undesirable and time-consuming performance cycle (yearly review) work and will be letting them go now that the process has concluded.
If the manager doesn't understand the business and technical needs enough to be able to set those items with an engineer, I'm not sure what that they are really enabling team members to have a good bar for what they will be evaluated on, and I think that is a sub-optimal environment for people (not just engineers) to work in.
My ultimate sentiment here is: would you want to take a test where you didn't have a good idea about how it was graded?
That makes me think to some extent the problem is we have had little continuous feedback from these leaders or even much concentration on goals/expectations. That makes it really tough because you just have to keep outputting and believing it's enough until the end-of-cycle feedback comes in. I've managed to succeed in this environment anyways but it's certainly stressful.
I've spent some time this cycle trying to mention this to our new manager, so we will see how/if things change.
This is the first time I didn't take PSC super super seriously so we'll see how it goes. I put in quite a bit of effort still, but I'm not spending 8+ hours like it seems some other people do.
In fact there are some companies out there that my friends have moved to that don't have formal performance reviews like Meta etc, but rather continuous reviews that are low-stakes. They make more than I do now.
Additionally I'll note this is an article from 2019. Prior discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21904070
Where I work, time in the job doesn't necessarily correlate with career progression. It is dependent on continuously demonstrating impact, contributions to grow people, and direction. Someone in industry for 10+ years may not be qualified because of how senior is defined here, and similarly people with less time in the job very well might be qualified.
I was lucky early in my career to get enough mentorship to be able to get to that point. Maybe I would not be considered senior elsewhere because I haven't been in the job long enough, but at this workplace I am an L5.
I’ve been pretty much working and operating solo for the past two years, which isn’t great. I also live in Seattle which I have found not very conducive to networking, but perhaps that’s wrong. I’ll start looking around for things that way.
But yes I agree I need to chat with someone at prospective companies once I find one I like!
It seems to me like Meta might have some advantage here initially, but in the long run I'm not sure how it can compete with a company that knows how to really build an ecosystem on top of hardware that it engineers end-to-end.
I imagine cost might come into play here to start. I remember growing up and never having an iPhone because they were too expensive, and most of the kids I knew didn't have one either. It was all Android until one day I noticed everyone had swapped for an iPhone. Maybe Meta products will be the Android in this field, the device you get until you make the upgrade to an Apple product.