marcinzm

It’s not about feeling better but likely that the company had a Rooney rule. Your friend was how they got around that while on paper complying to avoid internal political issues.

Does that include those working for a company that gets tax breaks?

> Also in moderately big to big companies, is all about contacts and personal marketing, which could (and typically is) orthogonal to your actual work.

As you go up the levels that is exactly the job (for better or worse) so doing that is doing the work at the next level. You are organizational glue that connects people and ensures your team has proper visibility. If you didn't see it that way then that may explain your problems with promotions.

I think the important distinction is "doing the responsibilities of the level above yours" and "doing them well." These are actually very non trivial since many people don't actually know the former (what does your boss actually?), and then have no baseline so overestimate their actual competence if they do know. Simply doing more work of the same kind as before will not get you promoted.

Were you simply doing more of the same or were you actually doing the job of the level above you? Those are not the same.

As I've seen it younger engineers simply focus a lot more on money and their career growth versus the product or whatever their own sense of "the right thing is". That makes the stock go up and everyone is happy more or less. At the same time a lot of experienced engineers get very upset at the suggestion that they should do likewise.

In my lens the only true score is the collection perception of the score. Not a number, not a formula and not what you think the score is. There is no external absolute counter you can point to because the collective view is the truth.

It’s got nothing to do with values but value. Are you doing things that provide value. Once you realize the only measure of that is how other people perceive what you’ve done it’s a lot less frustrating. It makes thing more cooperative as you now need to work with others and communicate with others and you know that versus clinging to a siloed invalid notion of value.

There is no objective score and thus people are perfect at it since the score is by definition what other people think it is. Like the value of money or stocks. Once you realize that a lot of life is significantly less frustrating.

It’s not a scam. It’s a system that exists for people and made by people. Period. Money, outcomes and so on only have value because people assign them value. If you remove people then what you do has no value or concept of value. Life is not some video game with an omniscient score counter. Other people are the score counter.

The negatives don’t change the inherent demand from people for AI.

Yet somehow ChatGPT has almost a billion users. Thats a lot of tech bros.

Or that the vast majority of people don't actually value their own productivity and time that much. Which given the popularity of social media and people not paying a few dollars to avoid hours of streaming ads per month seems fairly clear to me.

And that's fine, this site has rules and the mods follow those rules. I am free to say things but I am not guaranteed a platform to say them on. My usage of the term is just as inaccurate as your usage of "freedom of association." The difference is that I am aware of that and was seeing if you'd bite which you did. Accuracy clearly only matters to you as a way to discredit others but not as a pillar of your own arguments.

The core of the argument is that they say the rules are X but the actually mean they are Y. That has nothing to do "freedom of association" but simply with being two faced liars. Which people often dislike. And the thing called "freedom of speech" lets me say those last bits. :)

We're discussing this in regards to an article where the obvious "solution" was found by the government to this very approach. You're free to build it that way and we're free to put you all in jail afterwards as a result. Rubber hose decryption at its finest.

You cannot have true e2e encryption on a secure device and comply with a wiretap warrant without a backdoor of some kind somewhere.

> There were many decades where phones didn't have back doors.

Your cell phone provider almost certainly will respond to a valid warrant and wire tap your non e2e encrypted phone call.

I'd be very surprised if the most common mode of remote communication in any time period was not subject to government interception in some format within a short time of becoming such. That includes physical mail, telegrams, landlines, cell phone calls, txt messages, emails, etc.

Referring to "how things used to be" is not in fact helping the case for privacy.

> bad faith > So we have a better sense of these things.

Classic "bad faith, I'm done" when pressed into a corner after your No True Scotsman didn't land.

> constantly inserting “outs” in your wording,

So only your extrapolation of what I meant is correct irrespective of both the wording and what I meant?

This is like talking to someone with a red hat. So surreal how both sides are just as bad.

I find it fascinating that saying "we're not yet an actual dictatorship" is seen as complacency.

> Of course, my family escaped a dictatorship and made our home in the US. So we have a better sense of these things.

Fascinating what people assume about others and then use that to discount the views of others if those views disagree with them.

Clearly you've got a lot of trauma but panic and excess anxiety are not healthy responses to that as they make your decisions irrationally biased. That's how you get lots of immigrants who escaped communist dictatorships voting for a right wing dictatorships in the US. Their trauma biases their world view so much that they panic and then cause an equally bad outcome.

They boy who cried wolf. We are a dictatorship and we are headed towards a dictatorship are not the same thing.

Saying the former when the reality is the latter means your message will simply becomes ever more ignored the closer to a dictatorship we get and thus makes a dictatorship more likely.

> I’ll say the same is true for those that hold your point of view.

I aways find it so interesting that having a view that aims to be based on reality and not overly exaggerated fear mongering is seen as so negatively by both sides. I can't see that ending well for the US to be honest. Fear mongering is how you get dictators, left or right, and not how you get a stable democracy.

Your point being?

Your comment is just another illustration that many people have so little experience with an actual dictatorship to not realize the difference. The US isn't perfect but that's a start contrast to an actual dictatorship. For now at least.

Yes, China is an actual dictatorship and the US isn't.

The Greater LA areas has 34k square miles of area. Germany, the whole country, has 128k square miles. In other words, the LA area alone is a quarter the size of all of Germany.

> EU is full of corruption

Which I think many (the vast majority?) Europeans will fight you to the death to avoid admitting. The politicians just made some honest mistakes. No corruption at all. Just read the other replies in this discussion.

I suspect if you look at your full supply chain for your bare metal the people they also sell to will not make you happy either.

I'd say the core of their success is running everything in a single rack in a single datacenter at first (for months? a year?) and getting lucky. Life is simple when you don't need the costs and effort of reliability upfront.

They were running for a long time (months? over a year?) on a single rack in a single datacenter. Eventually they scaled out but the word is eventually. I think that summarizes both sides of this debate in a nutshell. You can move off of AWS but unless you invest a lot you will take on increased risk. Maybe you'll get lucky and your one rack won't burn down. Maybe you won't. They did get lucky.

And Trump isn't the first person to push for hiring in America or other such things. Under both Obama and Biden companies, government and academia significantly increased DEI spending. Multiple executive orders were signed by both to promoted DEI.

Fun fact, my comment said nothing against DEI and you assuming I did more or less summarizes modern political discourse on both sides. Even implying something isn't 200% amazing means you must be utterly opposed to it's very concept.