149 karma · joined January 30, 2024
That said, this isn't some sort of great victory. I expect that soon my intuition won't be good enough. Telling AI from real will never get easier, it will only ever get harder.
It just grabbed my attention when people say "software X treats people like they're stupid", and then they want things done for them.
This had really soured my day for a bit there, but you brought it back.
Debian is one of those things that I consider a source of stability in my software life, together with git, wikipedia, and openstreetmap. Believing that it depends on some dodgy company really put me in a bad mood.
To me the issue isn't CrowdStrike's testing procedures. To me the issue is why does Debian depend on CrowdStrike? Does anyone understand this?
Separate question: is it encrypted?
You're missing the point of this conversation.
I bought them about 7 years ago for 1 pound each. I think they're 2.5 pounds now.
Irrelevant, the motivations of middle managers and executives is not the broader economy. It's their companies results and/or they are perceived by their bosses.
The person I was responding to asked "what drives RTO?". Everything you said might be true, but it doesn't drive RTO. Yes, of course if you own a restaurant you want more foot traffic. But that's irrelevant for an office worker having his boss pushing RTO.
I've been reading "the man who solved the market" about Jim Simons and his hedge fund Renaissance. This reminds me that there was a period just after the fall of the Soviet Union where Renaissance was flooded with very technically strong, very motivated, very hard working, and very fraudulent ex-USSR people.
They're leaking guys, wake up.
Wanna expand on that? Why does that "make sense"?
So the problem that you pointed out isn't optimization as a concept, it's dumb people.
What really REALLY is behind managers/executives pushing for RTO.
My theory so far is that they believe that employees working from home take advantage of decreased supervision to slack. Now on HN you'll read "doesn't matter that I'm working fewer hours if I'm delivering work". But I think managers/executives fear they're not very good at assessing how much tasks are meant to take. If a task is mean to take 1 day and I take 3 days and I explain why it took me longer, some times it's really difficult to assess whether the explanation is true or I'm BSing. (Of course, they don't admit this. They use their own BS to justify RTO. Enhanced collaboration or whatever.)
Bottom line, managers/executives don't know how much output they can realistically expect, but they suspect it will be lower from home.
No, you haven't.
Because if you did, you woulnd't be looking at an exponential and saying "but but but it reverts!!!!"
Ok, honest question. Have you ever looked at the S&P, say over 50 years? Just simple yes or no.
Bonds give you cash later. Cash loses value over time.
Stocks give you a participation in the best companies in the world.
Bonds versus S&P I know which one I'm holding. Good luck with your thing.
The best objection is that I want my software to work for me, not for someone else. Simple.
Yes, and the things you sell high are the ones that performed well in the past, so you'll have less of those in the future, which is what I said. I'm not thinking about anything backwards.
That's one of the ridiculous aspects of fixed-percentage allocations: by constructions those allocations tell you that you should get rid of the things that are making you the most money, and put it into the things which are underperforming instead. (I get that you didn't do that, I'm just got reminded of it.)
Have you actually looked at the numbers or are you just parroting memes? In the numbers I'm looking at some divisions are $1M per employee.