it_does_follow

This is incredibly common at most BigCos, I would drop the term "poach", as others have mentioned.

For talented people this is can easily be a win-win all around.

Obviously for the team hiring the hiring process is tremendously derisked. They've already seen the candidate in action, and like what they see.

This is also great for the candidate because a huge part of the risk when accepting an offer is issues that might come up with the larger organization out side of the people you work/interviewed with.

Not that I'm ever one to cheer for the company, but it's also a win for the BigCo as it keeps talent inside and engaged with the company, without them leaving from getting bored or having someone outside offer better total comp.

The only people that "lose" out in this are the initial hiring managers, but if they're remotely competent they'll understand and continue a positive working relationship... and if they're not competent it's good they're losing staff.

The "would you do it" is no different than any other job offer: do you like the team, the comp, the projects? The biggest difference being the interview process is radically de-risked, and the transition is much smoother.

> Recruiters are in the way.

I'm astounded at how awful recruiters have gotten. What's insane to me is how no one in the industry seems to question the spray and pray approach to recruiting.

There are a few "whoa that's neat!" things on my resume such that if a recruiter or hiring manager looked at it they would certainly notice. This works as a great test for if a recruiter is really looking at me or just spamming a keyword on my linkedin. This filters out essentially all recruiter spam.

What's funny though is how much energy companies spend to pretend like they've read your resume and want the actual you as a candidate in any way. Facebook recently tried a tactic of sending email from the hiring manager. "I really want you on my team, let's find a time to chat!" But clearly it was just an automated email since the message didn't mention any of my resume that might make me a particularly interesting candidate for the team. Another company clearly automatically scraped my resume to make it sound like the read it, but picked the most bizarre, nonsensical things to pull from it.

The funny thing is, even though I love my current job, if you came to me as said "it_does_follow, I've noticed that you worked on XXX and YYY projects, we really need someone who could do that type of work for our team, we're working on exactly these type of problems" and they touched on the actual work I've done that I'm proud of, I would jump on a call in a heart beat.

Every engineer really would prefer to work on problems in their particular domain that interest them, for a team that values them as an individual. I am certain that if recruiters spent their time targeting a much smaller pool of good candidates that really are a match for the role, they would have much higher success rates.

You're thinking of regulations. In basically every manifestation the primary function of the state is the enforcement of basic property law. If you don't have that you have warlords/oligarchs fighting with each other constantly over who owns what (since they each individually must act as enforcer).

As far as enforcement of property right, the "distributed" model is well understood and typically leads to a much worse situations than the centralized version.

> enforced by a social contract

At the end of the day every thing that is truly "enforced" is ultimately enforced by violence.

I can promise that if patents where enforced only by social contract they would be meaningless. Larger corporations do not care about their social relations, but do care if you can have the legal authority to punish them for infringement.

You can write your contract on a napkin and if someone is willing to hurt someone else (materially, physically or otherwise) for violating that, that contract will be enforced.

This is just one of the many cases where the block chain, while interesting technology, has very few uses because there are very few cases were we have a problem with the media the contract is written in rather than the overall enforcement of the contract.

> Technological progress continues to outstrip our environmental damage done in it's persuit, and ultimately only technological solutions will get us out of the current issues with climate change.

You've got your causal arrows backwards. Technological progress is fueled by environmental destruction and our use of fossil fuels. I recommend Smil's Energy and Civilization as a relatively neural view on the relationship between our energy usage and civilizational progress.

I understand where the mass denial comes from, recognizing the current state of collapse we are in uproot many of the essential structure of meaning we use to survive so our minds won't trivially let us see them.

Still it is ultimately healthier for everyone to come to grips with this rather than struggle through more and more aggressive and cognitively dissonant forms of denial.

> no warning

We're in the third year of a global pandemic and nothing that is happening now is something that wasn't predicted as a serious possibility.

Pretending everything is fine doesn't make it fine. Acknowledging the situation we're in, and having plan for "rapidly spreading variant that starts impacting kids more" is something that would be an obvious thing for schools to do.

We concretely knew in November this was coming. Again, many people tried to pretend this wasn't happening and brush it off, but there was plenty of time to foresee this situation and plan for it.

The vast majority of people, on all sides of the political spectrum, have aggressively been trying not to see what is happening in front of their eyes. To try to force things to be "normal". If we accepted that we're in a pandemic, and that sometimes we'll have to change our life a bit, we could have easily prepared for this case.

The idea that if people would stop talking how the world is so bad the world wouldn't be so bad is one of the strangest patterns of thinking I've seen pop up here more recently.

The world is in a state of decline, climate change being just one of many stressors on society. Pretending this is not the case doesn't make it go away, and if anything the media is aggressively downplaying the current situation we are in.

Anxiety and despair don't have to be the only reactions to decline, but we certainly won't get past those as long as people keep pretending everything is fine.

The trick with identifying bubble is not to realize there is one, but to identify what will make it pop. This latter problem is much harder, and the former, as we get deeper into the limits of our current system, becomes so obvious it's not worth talking about.

Of course our everyday world is disconnected from reality (this is what a bubble ultimately is after all). Talk to anyone in any field and they'll all tell you the same thing: everything is a house of cards! it's insane that things are still running!

Crypto is insane, ad tech is insane, the stock market is insane, our ability to reason about the pandemic has entirely gone off the rails, democracy (or the illusion of it) is on the verge of collapse around the globe, nothing about our very way of life is remotely sustainable yet we continue to push for faster and faster development. We are in a bubble of the grandest scale imaginable. Some people deny this, but there are plenty of people who realize that this is true.

But pointing out that bubble is not interesting, at least not to me. Depending on how much attention you pay things have been insane for a long time, they don't make sense and the keep on going. Even some post-marxists theorists at one point started to accept that maybe there is no reality in our neoliberal capitalist world.

Reality does exist, our big, big bubble will pop, eventually. If that happens in 1000 years it's not really interesting, if it happens in 1000 days it will be mind blowing. The real interesting question isn't to point out that things don't make sense (they don't) but to start looking at when does the shit hit the fan.

If you watch the Big Short you see that the crucial part of that narrative isn't realizing there is a bubble, but realizing precisely when and how it will pop. Right now I don't think anyone has a good answer to these questions for our current bubble or any subset of it. Take crypto, most of us here believe it to be to some degree a scam, but when and how does that scam come to an end? Pointing out a bubble is irrational doesn't make it pop.

> And no, nothing in the real world is like this

Retail FOREX is pretty similar. It's a zero sum game with broker's fees, plus you're playing the game with a lot of very experienced, very well funded institutional investors.

I think crypto has basically eaten any interest in retail FOREX, but a few years back it was gaining some traction and I was amazed at how many people were playing a (typically highly leveraged) game that was clearly not in their advantage.

In my darker moments I've come to believe that accelerationism is the only viable pathway to save the planet, since nothing short of civilizational collapse seems to be capable of seriously reducing our carbon emissions.

From that perspective this is great news!

> "We don't actually know that."

Arguably one of my main areas of personal study is the limited ability of science to under stand the world, so I'm not one of the "the science is decided!" people.

There's a bizarrely implied bias here in your statement that I've pointed out in past which is "we don't know so things are probably fine". I've been surprisingly close with a famous climate scientist who also holds this controversial opinion. I'm not convinced. The data I've seen right now is that our climate is breaking down quickly, in ways we have not expected, and we tend to underestimate the negative impacts of what we don't know on the future of our species.

> "So if one is actually concerned about the future, one focuses on solutions, not on hand wringing."

Only the naive optimist paints the pessimist as one who is obsessed with "hand wringing". I'm not remotely interested in panicking, or despair, but rather learning to find methods of survival in a quickly collapsing society. It's visibly happening this moment and in more ways than just climate, you don't need models to or predictions to realize what's going on. Which brings me to an even more important point:

> I'm one of the annoyingly upbeat people

I don't think you're the people I'm talking about. Politely disagreeing with my view is not the problem. The issue is with a huge subset of this community that will down vote and even flag content that scares them.

My concern is that people in denial lead to strange behaviors and become increasingly dangerous as they need to become more aggressive in their denial to maintain mental health. The mental health of people unable to accept our current situations is degrading terrifyingly fast. Myself and all of the other people I know who saw all of this long before the pandemic are dealing with things reasonably well, after all we knew all of this was coming decades ago.

> HN is a negative and cynical place today. Discussions about future developments are dominated by the bad things that are happening

Funny you feel this way because I've seen the opposite. Any real discussion of the severity of the issues facing us getting quickly flagged and down voted. A bit of cynicism is okay, but saying "look we're in big trouble here, and tech might not be the answer" is met with pretty strong aggression.

For example any article about serious problems related to climate change is immediately flooded with "this is fine" comments, and anyone proposing that we may be facing severe problems in the near future is down voted or flagged immediately.

HN cannot handle the possibility that our future is not as bright as we though when we got into this industry. A bit of mourning is completely understandable, but the rapid denialism on this site make visiting here an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

> HN is very rationalist/materialistic

I find the opposite to be true when it comes to any real existential threats. HN simply cannot stomach the possibility that the future might not be so bright after all and will generally go through amazing contortions to avoid seeing what's happening in front of their eyes.

Stating the climate change is happening, and will create unprecedented catastrophe in our life times will win you immediate down votes and flagging.

What's hilarious to me is a few years ago, when things looked fine to anyone that wasn't paying attention, HNer generally enjoyed ranting about their love of stoicism. Stoicism doesn't really get put to the test when things go well. As soon as the fact that our world is increasingly entering a state of collapse started to become more widely apparent, that stoicism went right out the window and was replaced with panicked, borderline insane denialism of all sorts.

The only statements about the world that are allowed here now are some variant of "this is fine".

In my experience it was the real rationalists and materialists that started looking at the big picture years ago and saying "hmmm... this doesn't look quite right"

The issue is omicron seems to be spreading, at last from what I've seen, faster than the flu (and unquestionably faster than delta).

Most seasonal flu I've lived through, I've never seen everyone in the household come down with it immediately at the same time. In my home everyone came down with covid, kids and adults, almost exactly at the same time with the same symptoms.

Omicron can be 0.1 times as lethal as delta, but if it spreads to 20 times as many people as delta it will still be twice as deadly.

Clearly we don't have enough information right now to do the calculus, it looks like omicron is less severe, it looks like it's more contagious, but how exactly this balances out seems to be unknown. Though I have seen more hospitals in my region reporting record admissions.

I'm still seeing bars in the area sending out email campaigns encouraging people to come up and party for NYE. It's funny that while requiring vaccines they make no mention of "stay home if you feel sick". Right now I don't think we have enough information to correctly assess the real risk of actively encourage people to gather for NYE, but given what we do know it certainly seems like a risky idea.

edit: I'll add the "as low as" phrasing is a bit odd, since my understanding of past variants is that their risk to children was lower than the flu. This means that, relative to other variants, being "as serious as the flu" would be an upgrade in the level of risk.

I find that it's precisely when I'm mired in these "day-to-day worries" that I find shrooms most effective at breaking me out and getting a renewed sense of relative priority.

I can understand your concerns about a "terrible trip", especially since these type of worries typically make me paranoid and anxious when I'm on cannabis. However, I've found that when I do shrooms the psychedelic experience always side steps these anxieties completely and reminds me that these concerns are not the core concerns I have.

What's different about doing shrooms as an adult is that I'm not like "whoa, all this stuff isn't real!", I already know that. It's for those times when I feel daily stresses slowly crushing down, am fully intellectually aware that these things are ultimately not important, but can't quite find the emotional release. Shrooms aren't a miracle cure, but typically I'll feel a bit refreshed for quite awhile. As a teenager shrooms are about changing your perspective of big, metaphysical things "whoa man!", as an adult they're about changing perspective on those small things "oh right, performance reviews really don't matter." The insights are the things you, for the most part, already knew, but have been too distracted by daily life to really realize.

I had bad trips when I was younger, but being older and knowing both myself and psychedelics better I find I am much better at keeping myself from spiraling out of control too easily, and much more deeply feel the wisdom of "there are no bad trips". The other nice thing about tripping as an adult is you have much better control over the scene portion of it.

> as low as $1200 for 6 sessions

Never change HN. Even for many people in tech, this is not a trivial sum.

> a bit of my late adolescence consuming

I liken doing psychedelics in late adolescence to reading philosophy in late adolescence. Unfortunately late adolescence is the period where the majority of both psychedelic and philosophical experimentation happen, when both of these are much more useful after gaining some life experience.

If you haven't even spent time working on or struggling with your own depression and isolation, and are in fact still quite tangled up in the formation of these issues, psychedelics don't have much to offer you other than "fun". Likewise reading Nietzsche as an adolescent, you miss many of the subtleties that make his work truly revolutionary, for example misreading "god is dead" a proclamation of some sort of victory against religion, when Nietzsche is much more concerned about our loss of meaning. You can't really get at what Nietzsche is worried about until you've had your own, serious struggle with meaning as you get older and the reality of death hits you much harder than any adolescent can imagine.

As an adolescence you're still rapidly formulating your world view, there's not a whole lot to shake up that isn't all ready rapidly changing. An adolescent will learn far more by interacting closely with a group of people they normally wouldn't, or wandering around parts of a city they normally never go to, than doing any psychedelics. It's not to say they shouldn't experiment with psychedelics and read lots of philosophy, but these won't be really impactful until later.

I highly recommend everyone in their thirties and later revisit both psychedelics and philosophy. There's a lot more there than when you where younger.

> It's here

Can you post a link to a place where I can interact with some web3 content directly then?

Not an article about what web3 will be, but something I can play with? Back in the early web 2.0 this is pretty easy, just point to twitter, myspace, stumble upon etc.

I'm genuinely curious what web3 really even looks like since all the pages that talk about it mostly sound like marketing pitches without a single real thing I can interact with.

You really are scared of what's happening aren't you?

> Call me a monster but I want my daughter to know a world much more similar to what I knew 2 years ago

I think you have your causality mixed up a bit.

When I was younger I would take my coat off in the cold early spring to protest the fact that it hadn't warmed up enough, and, mostly in jest, insist that it was taking your coat off that harked warmer weather (when obviously the reverse is true).

In this case you are trying to do this same with masks, hasten the end of something you don't like by pretending it isn't happening. Unfortunately this ultimately makes a worse world for the both of you.

You obviously aren't the "monster", the monster is the thing that scares you so much you lose all reason, and confuse your causal arrows so much.

It's unfortunate that the world is in a state of decline right now, and I understand wanting to turn it back. But like all people who have tried to stop change by resisting you only ultimately end up making it worse.

It's because you can't accept the way the world is changing that it will progress this way faster.

It's really hard to know whether your even being entirely serious, but just in case:

That piece of the IPCC report that article is cherry picking is a.) a bit out of date now and b.) assuming a warming of 2C which we've already given up on, at least according to the more recent report which framed our current condition as a "code red"[0], though I find it very hard to believe that you missed that press release this some.

And to be clear, existential risk doesn't mean I'm claiming "we're going extinct!" it means that that lies in the realm of realistic possibility. The IPCC reports are well acknowledged to be fairly conservative and fail to incorporate a lot of unknowns (Thwaite's glacier is an obvious example of this).

One example of evidence for extinction risk is work of paleontologist Peter Ward. Ward's "Under a Green Sky" is his popular science version of some of his work (and worth a read). Ward discovered that quite a few major extinction events in the past have been connected with sudden rise in atmospheric CO2 and rapid climate change. He makes well reasoned arguments about how quickly conditions can change and how that could easily lead to massive extinction events (we're already in the 6th largest extinction event right now, which again, I'm sure you know).

The main issue with climate change is there are many positive (and of course some negative, but we don't quite now the balance) feed backs that we don't understand. It is quite possible that enough of these trigger and all of our "worst case" projects turn out to be quite optimistic.

0. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097362

What does the total snow mass for the entire Northern Hemisphere have to do with parent's observation (especially since it explicitly excludes mountains, the subject of the parent's point)?

It's completely possible that the Northern Hemisphere also has more rainfall then ever before, would that mean that lake Mead isn't drying up right now?

I find it a bit hard that you're really posted that information in good faith given it would require an almost willful misunderstanding of what the parent is saying and how hemisphere wide observations completely miss essential regional variation in weather patterns.

In recent years HN has becoming increasingly aggressive in it's climate denial. Not in the classic sense of denying that there is climate change at all, but generally holding these assumptions as a sacred:

- climate change is not happening in a meaningful way now.

- the future impacts of climate change are wildly overstated.

- all potential issues that may come up with climate change can be mitigated through technology.

Any comments that violate any of these assumptions will be aggressively downvoted or often times even flagged. I have alt accounts that have had the latter happen frequently and I know because the flagged comments are always unflagged on review (conveniently hours after the article is no longer on the front page, and the discussion is effectively over).

This tendency may have always been a part of this community, but it has become a bigger issue in recent years because it has been increasingly apparent that severe climate impacts are being felt "faster than expected" right now, there is absolutely existential risk at play (on both a civilization and species level), and that nothing short of immediate reduction of the use of hydrocarbons can prevent extreme impacts (i.e. no techno solution).

Personally I think this is largely because these ideas pose major challenges to the ideological foundations of most of the HN community. In general people are brought here out of a common interest in the future, and the belief that technology (specifically VC funded technology) can solve any problem out there.

Our current understanding of climate change and its impacts shake this ideological foundation and makes a lot of people uncomfortably in a very profound way. Their only way to react is to try to make it go away. Down voting and flagging comments happens precisely because these realities of climate change hit a bit to close to the bone.

> very few companies actually value them accordingly

This is something that has definitely gone through waves a few time during my life time.

In particular I remember the early startup era (~2010) developers were treated very well (though I don't think they were ever treated that great in the games industry). Ironically they weren't paid as ridiculously as today, but they tended to play a much larger role in the company, and their time was treated as very valuable.

Back then startups would be a team of engineers, a designer, a marketer with all of the product vision coming from CEO or maybe as very senior product role (typically cofounder). The contemporary world filled with PMs would have seemed (and still does to some of us) foreign to anyone at the time.

The truth is industry tends to despise a "monopoly on talent", and so we've seen the bureaucratization of the industry. The rise of boot camps has worked to devalued the skills of a talented engineer (though it might be harder now than before to hire talent), interviews are formalized into a robotic screening processes, and the current structure of teams, largely driven by PMs/product owners, has radically devalued the input form engineers in the way the product is developed.

If you have been in the industry less that 10 years you'd be surprised how much say engineers used to get in at the start of the most recent tech boom, as well as how different the hiring process was. In 2011 the two biggest signals for interviews were a strong github page and especially OSS contribution. Passionate, curious software engineers were the most sought after people and they were considered very much a part of the leadership of a company, driving it's culture and success.

Today engineers have been more or less reduced to hot-swappable drones across the industry.

So much so that I can't help but wonder if this is a bit of an inside joke.

Having at one time worked for the Federal Government I know me and my fellow employees created surprisingly similar documents (though nothing as formal) chronically the absurdity of our daily life.

This type of "sabotage" reminds of the Onion's FBI Uncovers Al-Qaeda Plot To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Collapse Of United States[0]. For most large organizations these techniques are already widely practiced.

0. https://www.theonion.com/fbi-uncovers-al-qaeda-plot-to-just-...

> some electricity

I think the key part of the controversy is the word "some".

In the original Veritasium video it pretty strongly implies that enough energy to light the bulb, i.e. virtually all the electricity, is traveling instantaneously a short distance rather than "through" the wire.

A big part of that video is to essentially say you're wrong if you understand electrons moving through the wire as how electricity works.

The video posted here tells a different story which is essentially that the mental model of electrons flowing isn't that far off, but there is a bit of nuance when you take into account fields.

This is sort of a persistent problem with "edutainment". I generally enjoy Veritasium, but this is clearly a case where the education component is weakened in order to increase the "wow!" factor of the video.

> to FAAMG long ago

Because Netflix pays Senior Engineers ~$500k/year in cash and MS pays Principal Engineers $300k TC?

> wondered why Microsoft was left out of the original 5

Same reason Cornell is typically left out of conversations about Ivy league schools.

It's just not that prestigious. Seeing MS on a resume is not as impressive as the others, and that's also reflected pretty clearly in the comp. It's not nearly as competitive to get a job at MS. The stock performance over the past decade has been pretty meh compared to the others.

If you're working 60+ hours in your office, you don't have a life outside of work. No wonder you hate WFH.

I did WFH for years prior to pandemic and found it much easier to work less hours. Spent many long lunches with friends, took time out of the day for personal projects, made sure to schedule remote meetings with old friends and former coworkers during the middle of the work day.

It's possible it might be that your current office has a terrible culture (most companies failed the transition to WFH). Realistically you shouldn't have to be working more than 30hrs a week, and not being in an office means you don't have to do any more "performance" work. It might be as easy as finding a new employer that has a more realistic sense of work life balance.

> This is first of all so condescending

It's not condescending.

Many people have spent years neglecting their home life and personal life in favor of work life.

People have been actively encouraged by employers to do this. But at the end of the day for some people pandemic was a blessing and others it was a curse and for most this distinction rests on how much energy people spend prior to the pandemic maintaining their non-office life.

Office life will never return to the way it was pre-pandemic. Absolutely for some people this situation sucks, but it isn't going to resolve itself. I've seen countless people in HN comments like this effectively waiting for things to go back to the way there were: they won't.

Things will change, and they will improve but if you're waiting for a return to feel good again, you will never feel good again. If you want to stop feeling bad, you need to actively start figuring out new possible ways to feel better.

Working on building relationships with friends, neighbors, members of your local community is a good place to start.