This is what the professors in business schools study. MBA’s often get a bad rap, but as far as the actual research goes, that’s where the current efforts at rigorously studying management and organizational dynamics are.
6,784 karma · joined April 24, 2012
For my personal use, however, I use a desktop.
Getting to the point on nuanced issues like strategy or design is actually quite difficult because you have to both understand your point well enough to distill it and you have to be good at putting the words down. I'd argue that the "understanding" part is harder because, from my personal experience, someone who is thinking clearly and just not fluent in English still organizes the writing clearly, but someone who isn't thinking clearly will produce great syntax but the reasoning is hard to follow.
I see much more of the latter than the former in my day to day.
I'd take this a step further. Depending on how similar the career tracks are for the mentor and mentee, mentors often won't or can't know the right answer for the specific situation the mentee is in. As a mentor, your role isn't necessarily to have the answer either, it's just to help them figure it out for themselves one way or another.
In my experience, being able to think clearly end to end is the hardest part of the whole operation, and the lack of that capability is the reason it feels like paperwork and mindless checklists.
If some charge requires both [A] and [B] for the accused to be guilty, then this argument is that it's neither [A] nor [B], but the defendant is innocent if they can prove either half of the argument, since the condition is "[A] and [B]", not "[A] or [B]".
In the same chapter, the author also observes that you need to consider the total amount of salt coming from other ingredients, such as the cheese, stocks, or cured meats. Depending on the ingredients, especially cured meats, you might already be working with a lot of salt before you add any of your own.
In my case, there are two considerations at play. (1) I use the pasta water for thickening the sauce, so any salt I put in the pasta water is also going into the sauce at that concentration. (2) I finish the pasta in the already-seasoned sauce before serving, so the pasta isn't going onto the plate unsalted. End result is that I salt the pasta water when I know I have ample head room to work with, which is most times, but not always.
Of course emails don't always come out coherently either, but my personal experience has been that moving into the streamed sentences model overall reduces the amount of effort put into organizing thoughts before communicating.
In my experience, the exercise of fine tuning what you are and aren’t saying is one of the main reasons to write it in the first place, because it’s actually helping you figure out what you are and aren’t thinking too.
Why do you need a 3070/3080 specifically? If it's to run something like Tensorflow or CUDA code more generally, could you do it with an older card, or the more available 3060s?
- Engineers work to deliver business value and commit the code that flawlessly delivers that value the very first time.
- When colleagues go to review the code, they are edified in its reading and quickly approve the merge request.
- There is no need for feedback because the code was perfect.
- The business then benefits from the code expeditiously.
I think this is a misunderstanding of the many purposes reviews serve. Your goal isn't to produce a pull request that attracts no comments and requires no revision, even though that's what it might feel like because revisions take extra work. Other than the pedagogical goal, your goal is to take advantage of the team to build something better and more efficiently than you could by yourself.
Reviews that take multiple revisions are only bad if a lot of time is being spent on careless mistakes. But driving (forcing) meaningful discussion about the structure of the code and whether there are any edge cases the code missed is the point of the review, and an ideal one helps the team tackle them head on before the code goes into production.
It'd be like if the first time you encountered the concept of an "essay" was when you took a history course in college. You'd have a rough time just understanding how to do the homework.
For example, the 100 level math classes mostly did not touch proofs, just calculation. The 200 level math classes were almost exclusively proof based, but they didn't teach you how to write them. Either already knew how or you were going to have to teach yourself the mental framework on the fly. Contrast that with 100 vs. 200 level humanities courses in my college, where there really was a focus on teaching you how to argue points in writing.
Taking what I had intended to say one step further, if you look at the denominator of "people who participate in digital conspicuous consumption," the NFT people that this article discusses is just a niche/fringe in a movement that already has lots of momentum.
Personally, I hope the digitization leads to far more people becoming creators and not just consumers, but I'm not holding my breath for that outcome.
Over time I’ve learned that the correct response is, approximately, “Sorry, I’m in the middle of [important work], please book 30 minutes for us and [stakeholders] to discuss it.” Gives me time to prepare so that I’m not caught off guard. And to bring backup if I think I need it.
I don’t think it’s just a small community. And I say this as a heavy skeptic of cryptocurrency and NFTs.
I think the article’s author has a point. With or without NFTs, conspicuous consumption of digital goods is already a normalized thing of minor social consequence in the form of video game cosmetics. It started out as a freemium monetization model, but games like Fortnite, Destiny, etc. have solidly cemented the link between spending real money and digital self expression, including the implied social status that comes with specific rarer cosmetics vs. more accessible ones. And to some extent the social status part follows you back into the real world if you all know each other in person.
I don’t think it’s a large leap to a scenario where people pay for designer avatars to bring into digital spaces if online, immersive socialization in some grand unified space becomes a thing. I don’t like that idea, but I think it’s not that much of a stretch.
Where things get murky and become a matter of judgement and data is whether you are exposing settings gratuitously and therefore just making things confusing, or whether you are not offering enough settings and therefore not addressing common use cases.
The topic of "accurate metric" is also challenging. When I worked on this, I would often find discrepancies of up to 5% depending on the technical implementation of the metric. There was never a clear explanation, just that the sequence of events from mouseover to click to redirect to more redirects to the final landing looked more like a very wide funnel with leaky correlation than the straight pipeline you might naively assume.
What I mean is: usually when I end up in a rut, it's because I had been getting into one for a while and only finally noticed. At that point, the rut is usually starting to get baked into a daily/weekly habit. To get out of it means refocusing on things that matter to me: fulfilling personal relationships, family, personal health/growth, intellectual curiosity, and career growth, not in any particular order, and usually I have a decent idea of where to start, but the rut keeps me from starting.
So getting out of the rut involves taking that first step. The second step becomes easier, then the third becomes easier, and so on. It takes extra willpower but I find that it works as long as I remind myself it's worth it.
A lot of this stuff is like trickling tech from F1 teams down into consumer cars. Some of the tech will likely end up in commodity datacenter/cloud stuff.
They might not ask you to your face to explain things like joining a company right after it got #metoo-ed, but if they care they’ll absolutely be thinking the question.
Why do that? It makes a smaller click/tap target for touchscreens, it’s genuinely hard to find and hides the discoverability of the keyboard shortcut, it’s inconsistent with in-app right click menu patterns, and it’s just inane for how many other little details could have been fixed instead.
There’s absolutely a component of learning the concepts, but a huge part of being good at the math is just building up the mental muscle memory for symbolic manipulation. Sure there’s innately talented people out there, but the consistent application of incremental effort will get you very far regardless of talent.
My rule of thumb has been that if it's an app core to someone's job or life management, it needs to be functional for hardware/software going back 5-7 years, less if it's just entertainment or something.