Actually, he won thanks to ~63,000,000 votes. You’re also trying to make it sound like there was something uniquely nefarious about his campaign. He used the same marketing tactics that all recent campaigns have used. The same tactics that Obama was widely praised for in 2012. He won because voters liked him more.
I don't understand this line of reasoning at all, but it's getting repeated a lot on HN. Is the AI expected to hit cyclists, but not pedestrians? Shouldn't it consider any moving object to be a hazard?
>but it's now blatantly clear to me that he deliberately used authoritarian tactics to win the election.
How on earth is such a baseless comment voted to the top of this thread? The truth is that this is a scandal, only because it involves Trump.
Pretty much all of what you've described is run-of-the-mill marketing, that has been used by all political parties for years. You also described some astroturfing, which is also widely used by all political parties (though perhaps some more than others).
How is any of that authoritarianism?
>favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
Compare your straw man to a CEO, who’s responsible for 10,000 families being able to pay their bills and feed themselves. All you’re describing is being lower down a hierarchy, which naturally tends to come with poor stress management and high sensitivity to negative emotions.
You also seem to be quite ignorant to what a CEO does, and the stakes of the position. Failure for a CEO can end your career, regardless of whether you’ve already established yourself as entirely financially independent. It is also by definition the position of greatest responsibility in a company. There is nobody in a company that faces greater pressure to perform.
If you fail at your job, it’s really unlikely that your failure will be dissected in the news paper for everyone to see. You could get fired and go out and get a new job. For a disgraced CEO, this is usually not an option. We could all point out a couple of examples of revolving door CEOs, but for most executives, this isn’t a career path or even an option.
Putting aside the matter of competency for a moment (which I think is being too oversimplified in this discussion), this kinda touches on a positive feature of a free market. Which is that large organisations are by nature less efficient than smaller ones. This gives rise to the possibility of disruption and innovation. The ability to innovate quickly is generally what gives startups over well financed established players. If it weren't for this, then we would see antiquated businesses declining, and innovative startups rising from their ashes.
But we're not talking about how stressful a job is. You said being a CEO would be fun.
For starters, unless you've got a lot of executive experience, if you had to turn up to work tomorrow and be the CEO, you'd be awful at it. So would I, so would anybody else that doesn't have that experience. I guess this wouldn't evenly apply to early stage start-ups, but they tend to not have much executive leadership anyway, regardless of whether they have a "CEO".
Being the CEO is all responsibility. There's very little room for error, and you unavoidably have to deal with a myriad of issues that you will have no personal interest in whatsoever. It is absolutely the most high pressure and difficult job in an organisation. If it weren't, then anybody could do it, when obviously that's not true. Also, if you're measuring who is the most stressed in an organisation, then you're going to come up against a lot of selection bias. You'd expect CEOs to have a better responsibility to stress ratio, because you'd expect CEOs to be better at managing stress.
The CEO job is the most high pressure job in an organisation, and by definition comes with the greatest level of responsibility. Statistically speaking, you would likely be a terrible CEO, and hate doing it.
I don’t know where the metaphor is supposed to go, but I’d imagine that the next stage for AWS is to move further into SaaS products, and to introduce new products and features that lower the engineering overheads of operating on AWS.
Surprising or not, AWS makes a lot of sense when you look at Amazons core competency. Logistics.
Look at any individual AWS service by itself, none of them are all that groundbreaking or innovative. What is groundbreaking is that Amazon has managed to take all of these services, and distribute them through a massively complex and infinitely scaling ecosystem. That’s logistics.
He absolutely was. Personally I think one of the saddest things about this is that Susskind has lost his greatest (friendly) intellectual rival. Those two spending years arguing with each other over the information paradox was absolutely fantastic. (And personally I’ve always felt that Hawking was the perfect counter weight to how strongly opinionated Susskind is)
It's the one thing I really miss about Spotify. When I got into work on Monday, I'd just fire up the weekly playlist, and it would always have enough new content I liked to keep my playlists fresh for the week.
>Apple Music seems to ignore what I dislike, and will recommend it anyway
Before I moved to Apple Music, Spotify had spent the past several years trying to get me to listen to Fleet Foxes, no matter how many times I asked them to stop.
Apple's got a lot of UI issues, which shouldn't actually be that hard for them to fix. Their playlists however are definitely not as good as Spotify's are.
Where I currently work, we teach all of our BAs (regardless of how technical they start out), to use SQL (with redash), and some of them use Tableu. As this approach has been running quite smoothly for us, would SAS offer anything that a team like ours might be missing?
My mother in law has taught me a bunch of her recipes, and a lot of them have a step that she describes “...until it has a smell”, like “fry the spices until they have a smell”, which is actually a specific aroma, but I have no idea how to write down an aroma in my notes.
Now that I think about it, a lot of the people I most enjoy working with in the office are parents, and the kind of parents who are obviously really good parents.
My own (non-scientific) opinion is related to this. In my experience, resistance to negative emotions is a much more crucial ingredient to happiness. As I’ve been gradually maturing during my life, I think the biggest improvement is that I’m quite emotionally stable. Small and unimportant things don’t bother me much at all, which really helps when it comes to leading a happy and fulfilling life. Especially as negative experiences are supposed to have a greater impact that positive ones.
I’ve always understood that one of the most important pieces of the PM role is to act as a sort of negotiator between design/development and all other stakeholders. Customers and everybody else in the business all want their own things, and all have their own priorities. The good PMs that I’ve known have kept those people happy, managed their expectations well, and mostly shielded design/development from their demands and politics.
Ya got me. “All” is a hyperbole. But it is undeniable that contemporary feminism dominates universities, you really have to be quite blind to miss that. It is also the dominant culture in Silicon Valley, of which Alphabet and Amazon are major proponents. Google pushes diversity so hard that it’s currently facing lawsuits claimings it’s diversity practices are illegal and discriminatory. Yet even after years of such practices taking place at google, it’s engineering workforce is still 80% male.
The poster was asserting that market forces don’t determine remuneration according to their satisfaction, and that instead people should be remunerated according to what the poster thinks they deserve. How is criticising this as communism not valid?
I’ve made an entirely valid and civil criticism of another posters utopian musings, and all you’re interested in is trying to figure out how you could twist it into being against the rules. Why don’t you contribute something to the conversation instead?
The evidence is clear in the choices people make. There are very clear gender differences in what people choose to study, and the jobs they subsequently pursue. You can’t simply blame ‘systemic oppression’ or ‘hostile environments’ for this, as our universities and tech giants all embrace liberalism and feminism to an extreme degree. How can environments that implement ‘safe spaces’, that provide systemic advantages to women, and that have 0 tolerance policies for anything that could be perceived as sexism possibly be perceived as hostile? Yet those environments are the norm now, and women are still far less interested in STEM than men.
I was referring to companies that are perceived to have ‘cultural issues’, like uber. Not companies that have a few dickheads working for them, which is going to be just about every company over a certain size. The presupposition is that there’s systemic oppression (which there isn’t), not that some people at work aren’t very nice.
Market forces decide what people get paid. The poster I replied to is suggesting that instead people should just do what ever jobs they enjoy, and should be paid some amorphous idea of what they ‘deserve’. That’s exactly what communism is.
Except there’s plenty of evidence for the former, and close to none for the latter. STEM is a field that has embraced diversity and equality of outcomes, with a genuine sense of desperation. STEM and especially technology companies are completely dominated by liberal and feminist thought. Sure you can point to a couple of ‘bad apples’, but you can point to far more examples where those ideologies drive organisations decision making from the top down. Not only is the culture argument weak to begin with (any competitive environment is going to be hostile on some level, to everybody), but it’s entirely laughable to say this applies in STEM, an industry that has embraced ‘diversity’ above all else.
The best managers I’ve ever had were blunt and somewhat disagreeable. The person I currently report to is like that, and I absolutely love it. Both of our time is valuable, and I never have to muck around with him. He tells me what he wants and what he thinks of my work. If I’m getting of track with something, then he corrects my course without wasting any time. It’s not a management style that’s suitable for everybody, because most people just wouldn’t be able to deal with it. But in the upper levels of management I think it’s benefecial, if not necessary.
What you've described is essentially just a high risk strategy. Work at a bunch of different start ups, and hope that eventually you end up working for one that doesn't fail, and yields some returns.
The greatest predictors for success in life are industriousness and intelligence. Over time (and that's important, over time), the intelligent and industrious are expected to beat the odds, and achieve success. Ultimately there are so many outside forces in life that are beyond your control, that achieving success is always predicated on some level of luck. But eventually, smart and industrious people will rise higher than others. Life typically lasts for many years, you can blame luck if you want for any particular individual outcome (even though that's not entirely productive), but not for having a major influence on lifetime success.