That depends on if the interview process actually does protect from bad hires.
232 karma · joined September 16, 2015
Also - tech removes a lot of jobs via automation.
I never, ever talk to a person at a bank unless I have to.
'Mortgage Loan Officer' is almost becoming a thing of the past, so automated these days.
Inflation can really be thought of as expansion of the money supply while all other things remain steady - stuff just arbitrarily gets more expensive.
Central Banks target 2% inflation so that we don't fall into a deflationary trap. It's like keeping the treadmill running just a little bit, to force the person to run forward.
Austrian school economists basically equate inflation with money printing - to them it's the same thing.
But most things increase in price due to a) better quality product and b) regular dynamics of business c) currency.
So when the beer gets more expensive it's:
a) Better beer (at least in the eyes of the consumer), i.e. longer brew times, better taste, better ingredients b) More expensive input costs c) Currency issues with imports etc.
Those are not inflation, just price fluxuation.
Inflation is when the exact same thing gets costlier, all other things being equal.
Yes, there is.
Advanced economies are mostly service based.
Countries are poor because of lack of social organization.
Many poor countries have tons of resources (Africa).
Many rich countries (UK, Japan, Germany, Singapore) etc. - have none.
Nobody on earth would suggest that google's margins are derived from their revenues minus the cost of 'electricity'.
They are a services company, pure and simple. Their 'gross margins' are their revenues, minus royalties to web-sites - that's it.
Their costs are R&D and Sales & Marketing - and a little bit of ops - that's it.
Agreed they could do it with 1/3 the staff, but it's not an issue of 'gross margins'.
Resource consumption is growing, but as economies have long ago shifted to services and advanced products, it's less a part of the equation.
Your mac, your iPhone, your 'Internet' your 'wireless mobile' , your Netflix, your 500 channels - these are all new services which everyone pays for and consume very little 'resources' in the classical sense.
Even as we switched from drip coffee to Lattes, from crappy restaurants to better ones - this does not affect 'resources' so much.
Definitely there is. If humans spent a long time learning, and were more productive and fruitful in their later years, developing more intelligent systems, they would theoretically out-compete a civilization that wasn't able to develop such advanced skills and learning - especially related to passing on information.
The missing issue not obvious in genes is the amount of cultural information and learning passed on. A genetically 'superior' race of beings (faster, smarter, more disease resistant) would surely be 'beaten' by a group of lesser beings who were able to cooperate, learn, cognize, master tools, pass on wisdom etc...
Total speculation.
250ms we can live with for many things, but not 5x.
But yes - it should be under 50ms at all times I think for people to start taking it seriously.
Moreover, it's a rather fundamental opportunity for them: Lambda's are a form of 'container' and they are exactly what so many of us want. The deal-breaker for us was the latency issue.
Amazon is a pretty smart company, and it's a big opportunity, I'll bet they eventually get this sorted out.
I understand that Lambdas are 'relatively quick' when they are 'hot' - which is my crude metaphor for 'up and running'.
The issue is, if the Lambda has not been in use for some time (seconds, minutes?), then the 'first call' can have quite a bit of latency - often up to 5 seconds - which killed it for us.
There is no way we could reasonably deploy a service wherein customer would have to wait an additional 5 seconds for a reaction in most use cases.
So close, yet so far.
This was about 18 months ago.
If you have some data that addresses this specific artifact - then that would be great. Possibly things have changed in 18 months.
And I'm not a hater, to us AWS is the best thing since sliced bread.
We want micro-services that are available as we need them, at any scale, and we never want to deal with a 'server' again.
"You break the entire model of an oversubscribed multi-tenant container system" - we don't care that much about how it's implemented, or what underlying model is used, as long as it is secure, robust, and reliable.
I checked out the doc and didn't see any reference to latency or how to mitigate it, perhaps I'm missing something?
Listen - I'm a massive fan of AWS. We use some core services and are very happy.
I know you listen to customers - but I suggest that Lambda was probably designed for specific kind of services (maybe IT, admin, batch processing etc.) - I'm going to fathom that maybe 'people running web-sites' were top of mind? Again, purely speculation on my part.
But if you want people to seriously switch over - and they will - in droves - if you get it right, is to basically enable fairly responsive services that scale with a minimum of fuss, latency concerns included.
So - if I'm running a web-portal - and I have a customer pull some data to build a chart from somewhere - and I have a Lambda specifically geared for that microservice - then it needs to be quick.
There really should be no need to use other services to have to hack around the latency issue.
Surely - you can parameterize the feature if you want, and require users to set thresholds for how long Lambda's 'stay hot' (and forgive my crude metaphors), or how much throughput etc. - and you could even bill them based upon those parameters. As long as it's fairly concise and understandable.
Perhaps DynamoDB is a good example. We've used it before - and what we love about it is that as long as we design our data correctly we never have to worry. Bursts of traffic, etc. are generally handled well, it scales largely without concern. One poor limitation of that service is the requirement to indicate throughput thresholds, which is too bad, but beyond that, it's ideal.
Amazon Lambdas are basically the 'last piece' of the golden dream of cloud computing - the ability to develop a truly serverless, microserver-based infrastructure, and never have to worry about platforms again. As much as we love EC2s, we would drop them instantly and go to Lambdas if they worked well. (And it's been at least 18 months since we last experimented, BTW). There are tons of SMEs that would do the same - I don't think anyone who isn't directly in the business of tech, and is providing some other kind of consumer or business service, wants the pain of managing EC2s or servers. 'Elastic Beanstalk' etc. is a bandaid - it's not ideal.
Anyhow - Lambdas are very close to being a super great thing, more than that - transformational - if they could just cross that 'real world' usability threshold.
Again - if something has changed WRT latency, and there is something in those docs I'm missing, please let me know.
This has been going on for years.
Would someone form AMZ please stand up?
I suggest that the latency is 5s for the 'first call', then, subsequent calls are fast - and if you don't use your lambda for a minute or so, it goes back to having latency.
I suggest maybe this has something to do with loading it into memory when it's used?
There must be a way to keep the lambdas 'hot' or else it will never really get used for anything but background tasks.
The issue is randomness. If it's a random sample, it's very large. If it's not a random sample, it's worthless.
"We have no idea how they found the participants or controlled for bias in the selection process."
A) This has nothing to do with sample size
B) If they have any credibility whatsoever, they hopefully know what they are doing. Adjusting is a statistically legit thing to do, they do it in political polling (and in hindsight) it works.
But yes - with 'online surveys', it's hard.
--> 'There is no self' in Buddhism :)
I would argue a Buddhist would describe it as a completely 'apolitical' act :)
But I think it's fair to associate such things with Buddhism, or at least specific branches of it, because it's a pattern of behaviour and an attitude, not particularly common elsewhere, and the act itself is to some extent consistent with their actual beliefs and value system.
Or perhaps, this is merely an illusory effect due to the drugs affect on perception and cognition?
Occam's Razor - which is the more likely?
My father just came back from Cuba. They are encouraged to bring a 20lb bag of tooth-brushes, toothpaste, clothes, toilet paper - and other items because Cubans cannot afford them.
It's a real stretch of the imagination to suppose that Cubans are doing anything, realistically in this area.
'Longevity' is not in any way a measure of the quality of healthcare - and 'infant mortality' is not so much a function of the sophistication of the healthcare system. Any nation with any civic control can achieve relatively low rates of infant mortality with clean water, reasonably informed doctors, antibiotics and some degree of pre-natal care. It does not take cutting edge healthcare system.
Again - the monthly salary of doctors in Cuba is $25. Please don't even begin to talk about anything until you address that point. Can you tell me how many functional CT scanners they have in Cuba? They have one for Fidel & Co. but the economics of it imply the number is de-facto 0. Anything but the most basic medical equipment is out of bounds for Cuban doctors.
Second - when Cubans send doctors abroad for training, and for 'aid' purposes, they do so whilst holding the doctors family members hostage, given the possibility for defection. If aid agencies pay said cuban doctors $1K/month - Fidel & Co. grab 99% of it, and leave the doctor with their $25 a month.
There is absolutely no preponderance of Canadians going to Cuba for medical care.
When Canadians 'really need healthcare' - they go to the US.
This, not including a) plastic surgery and b) middle class types who want otherwise very expensive surgery. But even in those cases, it's very rare.
Cuba has no money. They pay their doctors roughly $10/week.
Do you think Cuba can afford all of the drugs, diagnostic equipment, software and services that are required to make a highly functional modern Medical system?
Of course not. I made a reference to Cuba out of sarcasm - there is no defending the Cuban system, other than to say that they can provide adequate 'very basic coverage' to it's citizens, which is good.
They pay their doctors literally less than the cost of many common and important therapeutic drugs. It's an economic non-sequitur.
+ That there are market controls ensures the viability of the system, that alone doesn't speak to necessarily how it was distributed. But you've contradicted yourself - and I don't think you grasp my argument: Uber vs. drivers is an infinitely large imbalance than cab-owners vs. drivers.
Putting the 'profits' in local cab owners - all things equal - is still better than putting all the profits in Uber.
+ "Where do you think the money comes from? Not being responsible just means they don't get to make choices - they're forced to accept whatever the car owner says."
Again you contradict yourself: Uber drives are more forcibly required to 'accept what uber says' - then any cab driver is forced to accept what an owner says. But again you missed point point: Cab companies and drives are businesses, and they can make longer term decisions about insurance and capital allocation. Cab owners will not run their business at a loss. Many Uber drivers, probably are running their business at a loss.
"Then why was medallion ownership the single best investment in the last 30 years? Compete for talent? Where?"
+ One, I don't believe you, and two, they compete for talent (i.e. drivers) like any other entity. Drivers can work for another owner, another cab company. There is a massive diversity of Cab owners in any region. This diversity creates competition. Uber is a de-facto monopoly in the service that they provide, given them even more power.
"Uber has crated jobs" - Uber has created a means for people to get around regulatory issues - earn mostly less than minimum wage, by making short term decisions about their work vs. long term investment in capex (i.e. cars) - and reaps 100% of the profits from a system.
Now - if we want to have a discussion about whether or not cab companies regulatory framework are appropriate, that's fine. But make no mistake - almost all of the benefit from Uber goes to Uber, and Uber riders, not the drivers.
'Single payer wherein you cannot buy private services' is basically unique to Canada, and is fundamentally part of the reason that the quality of care and services in Canada is so bad.
My fellow Canadians are smug and righteous about their system, thinking that it's superior to the American system.
Anti-American bigotry is frankly rampant in Canada.
I lived in the US (and abroad) for many years, while most of my peers have never spent more than a few weeks in the US - and their understanding of the system is nill, and comes from the highly biased and borderline propaganda they get from our 'State Controlled National News' entity - the CBC. I generally like the CBC, but they also support national programs, and most of their staff don't have the relevant experience or competence to make any assessment.
My position on healthcare is a lot more nuanced.
Canadians are almost religious about their healthcare system, they have little grasp of how things work elsewhere, and little awareness of how poorly their system fares against other system.
+ Yes - it is. Your system is absolutely isolated from the French system. The fact you can get coverage is no different from the fact I can get coverage in another province. There is absolutely no operational relationship between French and Swedish healthcare systems.
"Even in the US, there are about 9 million people in the VA system and 55 million people in the Medicare system. Is there some fundamental reason which explains why Medicare cannot scale by a factor of 6?"
Ask yourself the question: would you want a 'EU' level healthcare system - where Greeks, Swedes and Bulgarian were managed by the same entity? Do you grasp why that would not work? Greece is a completely dysfunctional country. How do you think it would fare under the 'same system'? Would Doctors in Greece be granted retirement at age 55, but Swedish Doctors not until 65? Under the same pay? It would never work.
+ It doesn't matter that everyone is entitled to some kind of 'emergency service' - and frankly - I'm not against that. But what if you were to put people who illegally into the country 'last week' - ahead of American citizens who required 'knee surgery' and because of this - American citizens who wanted (and paid for) knee surgery, went from waiting on average 2 weeks, to 18 months. Is this fair, or even moral? It's absurd. If people want to pay for healthcare, they can pay for the service to have it in two weeks.
The question of 'how much medical coverage we give to illegal citizens' is really another question entirely.
I once had an ailment that was difficult to diagnose, the doctors at the clinics, used to seeing people for coughs and colds could give a shit. I ended up having to pay a few grand for an American entity operating barely within the bounds of legality in Canada (the Cleveland Clinic). I can assure you that it's a pretty desperate feeling when you are locked out of the system.
Notre Dame Hospital in Montreal is lined with people in beds in the hallways, broken chairs, broken, leaking water fountains in the waiting room, broken / discarded beds in the waiting room - I thought I was in Cuba. The doctor was actually nice but the facilities were crazy. A well run McDonald's has more visible operating efficiency.
It's far from optimal.
The other difference is that taxi drivers have generally stable work. A guy can drive a cab consistently for years. The pay is not good, but the economics have to work out.
Cab companies and owners have enough wherewithal to make long term decisions, moreover, the 'drivers' - the ones on the end of the chain - if they are not owners - are not responsible for the fixed costs of the cars etc..
Finally, cab companies are by nature, small - and don't have hyper-leverage over drivers. Cab companies have to compete efficiently for talent among their drivers. If you can call it talent.
Uber is a hyper-capitalists dream - you take 105% of the surplus from a market.
I live in Quebec, Canada and the healthcare here is among the worst in the civilized world.
Also - it's illegal to pay a doctor to fix you. Canada is the only place in the world where it's illegal to pay someone to cure you of something. It's basically communist.
The American system is untenable, but 'single payer' is not the solution.
Successful countries that do it are tiny. Sweden is smaller than Los Angeles. Swtizerland does it at the cantonal level, which on average is 800 000 citizens. Can you imagine your entire hospital and insurance system being in blocks of 800 000?
Maybe at the state level, subsidies, regulating drug prices etc. etc. - but full-on national level 'single payer' would be a huge disaster, beyond contemplation.
Also in many single payer systems - the guy who snuck across the border illegally gets the exact same healthcare as you, working professional, paid a million in taxes, dutiful citizen etc..
I think there should be coverage for everyone, but single-payer is not the path.
There is some 'growing the pie' at the margins, but I'd suggest that Uber Corp. grabs more than what is created, and that drivers et. al. are holding the losing end of the stick.
The power imbalance between Uber Corp. and drivers is quite massive. Esp. without employment status.
Uber is designed to suck every last penny of real margin out of the system, and leave drivers with the absolute minimum.
Worse: because many drivers make short term decisions about their costs, and don't calculate wear and tear into their decisions, it's probably that Uber driving is borderline unprofitable.
Imagine if there was one factory in the world where you could work. You got $10 an hour - just enough to stay alive. But - you are going to get sick and die in 10 years from the toxicity. Well, the real 'market price' for such dangerous work might be $20/hour - enough to pay for health insurance and medicine, but because of short term decisions made by workers who are desperate - it's $10/hour i.e. a 'long term money losing venture' to work in the factory.
I generally like Uber as a concept, but we can't ignore these issues.
I would suggest this has nothing to do with gender, and that wanting 'less condescending interviews' is merely a gripe about the current state of the entire economy. Not only is it not tech specific, it's not even industry or nation specific.