The weights aren't going to help understand "why we see what we see", which is what non-tech people (and this article) think they'll get from companies releasing "the algorithm"
257 karma · joined November 30, 2022
So... everyone and everything is state affiliated and should be labeled as such?
That's obviously not the case. State affiliated should be limited to organizations that are influenced/controlled significantly by the state, which NPR is not. This is actually the definition that Twitter advertises.
> The problem here is that if people stop biking until it becomes safer, then city planners and elected officials will say "why do we need to spend millions to install biking infrastructure (and disrupt car infrastructure), nobody is out biking!"
> it will just cause the cyclists to remove themselves from traffic after which there is even less of a reason to do something about it
Please explain what you meant here. Less of a reason to do something about what? I don't know what you could mean other than people getting are getting hurt or dying, and if that stops happening then there will be less attention on the issue.
Please re-read this. How are you not advocating for people (including children) to sacrifice their lives so that we can get attention to the issue?
And no, I'm not going to stop bringing this up. I'm right and it's not even close.
Bikes are extremely exposed in comparison. One small tap could be devastating.
> It is not your place to correct them.
So you seem to agree with me, but don't think I should be the one to say it. Who should be the one to say it?
That's not the current reality, though. The current reality is that biking in SF is extremely dangerous.
My comment is another takeaway that isn't discussed enough.
This is so out of touch. You might as well be using the "It's the video games!" excuse of yore.
Teenagers and those in their 20s see what their parents were able to do. They hear what their parents bought their house for, they know about their pensions, they see that their parents could afford raising a child into their teens, they find out that college was actually affordable. They know that's now all out of reach.
Some even see their parents struggling, and know it's going to be much much worse for them.
You all really think this is about influencers?
Almost nothing is important. The vast vast majority of people work for the paycheck. If you only hire people who truly think that what you're doing is important, you'll have a hard time finding anyone.
I don't believe for a second that he essentially donated billions of dollars in equity on purpose.
You don't get to his level of wealth without having an innate desire for more of money. Everything always comes back to that.
But it isn't. End of story.
Happy to support people who want to make biking safer. Happy to support politicians who want to build protected bike lanes.
But you can't just make up a fairy tale land and pretend it's safe. Bring yourself back to real life, and your children are in danger.
In my city, it's not if but when you'll get hit by a car on a bike. Yet I see parents increasingly think it's okay to haul their children on their bikes.
Either your org was way too picky, or your hiring pipeline was absolutely awful.
There's no real reason to interview 100 people and only hire 0-2 of them.
If Google is succeeding at attracting talent from other companies, including the company of the person I was responding to, then it's more likely that they're not "overpaying", they're just paying enough to attract the talent away from other companies.
This is capitalism working. Google has a lot of money and they're putting it towards attracting and keeping their talent.
Maybe your FAANG experience is different than mine, but 2% means either you're very picky or your hiring pipeline is awful.
That's misleading. If you're able to get an interview, the success rate is much much higher than 1%. Can you imagine the wasted effort if it was 1%? And I assume if you're getting a recruiter to email you, you can usually get an interview.
The 1% number I always see should include those who try to apply without recruiters emailing them.
Google is massively profitable. That money has to go somewhere. Why not the workers?
(I have no idea what I'm talking about legally, I'm just trying to interpret what I'm reading).
I don't know anyone who does what I could consider "fake work".
Unless you think anyone who doesn't measurably and immediately impact the bottom line is doing "fake work".
Of course, that's a pre-Elon analysis. Elon's loans alone add 1 bil/year in interest costs, and reports say there's been a large drop in revenue since his purchase.
It doesn't make much sense to not fully utilize people once hired.