some_guy_nobel

You can show any number in isolation and it can mean anything.

Now try presenting it the distribution of typical job gains/losses!

Here we have someone who clearly practices little real science, as evident by the ease with which they speak absolute statements that apply extremely broadly.

Raising (already record high) tuitions that have far, far outpaced wages and inflation should be a last resort. You can start by cutting bloated admin, reduce fraudulent procurement/graft (e.g. the $700k Berkeley Chancellor's fence: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/700k-iron-fence-co...), vanity construction, study abroad admin budgets that dwarf actual student grants, and the executive compensation/perks by admin.

And this is just mentioning a sample of admin bloat, never mind the other areas.

YMMV, but I don't agree. I was building very complicated UI's with Svelte before runes (multiple layers of state, complex d3 + webgl visuals in the UI, etc.) and loved Svelte. Runes completely nuked the vanilla feel of Svelte, so I determined I may as well just use React. I know other people did the same (just look at the evolution of dev tools for Anthropic's research post-runes, or popular news rooms that once used Svelte but now don't).

The main issue I had with Svelte was building real full-stack applications, where Sveltekit itself certainly felt behind its peers, but that's unrelated to runes/signals.

It's certainly not a rare viewpoint, just click on any link about "svelte runes" to see people upset.

- https://www.reddit.com/r/sveltejs/comments/1crpj0r/svelte_5_... - https://www.reddit.com/r/sveltejs/comments/1htup7k/ive_been_...

You do raise a good point that LLMs make React much easier to adopt these days. Again, in my case the switch happened before I found LLMs effective for the sort of work I was doing, (but now it's a no-brainer to default to react).

From what I recall, they nuked the ergonomics/what made Svelte great with the runes api (Svelte 4?) and most people begrudgingly switched over to React, because, why not at that point.

Nice post up until the section on "don'ts", at which point it loses the plot and almost becomes a performative caricature of itself:

> Don’t feel like you have to continue the conversation if they respond. You can if you want, but don’t feel obligated.

So why reach out at all? Solely for the (mentioned) networking off-chance they remember that you messaged them in the future? Seems pretty self-serving

> Don’t trash your employer, nor respond if they do. If they start that, say “I’m sorry, I can imagine why you’d feel that way, but I can’t continue this conversation.”

Imagine their perspective here (that is, use empathy) if you just cut off the conversation at the mention of the actor responsible for the reason you're messaging them at all. They would just feel even more isolated at this, and wonder why you reached out in the first place. So bizarre.

> Finally, don’t do this if you are the manager who laid them off.

Well, for a layoffs, not a pip, definitely do reach out to them as a manager. I can't think of anyone they'd like to hear from more than their manager to explain the situation and offer some sort of solace.

> Don’t say things that might cause you trouble like “wish we could have kept you” or “you were such a great performer, I don’t know why they laid you off”. You don’t know the full details and you don’t want to expose yourself or your company to any legal issues.

That's right - don't show any actual empathy, lest you put the company in any negative light!!

NGL, this honestly reads like a satirical take on a sociopath submitting an assignment on how to show empathy. (Obviously OP is not a sociopath, I'm just saying if The Onion released this as written by one, I'd get a good chuckle).

> If you marvel at the output of generative AI be it pictures, logo, music, 3D models, prose or code - you probably are yourself way too under-skilled to be gainfully employed or not yourself capable of generating similar or better output.

Interesting take. I am continuously impressed by these models. I also train these models for a living, and have worked on some of the highest profile models of the last few years.

Is anyone acting on this? E.g. selling index funds, moving to HYSAs/bonds, etc.?

I will repeat again, this is in direct opposition to the author's thesis: "It’s the loud person who’s wrong getting their way because the quiet person who’s right won’t speak up."

Given that, I'm not sure what your message is in response to. I will say that 'learn to parcipate in the hierarchy' and 'everything is a choice, just quit!' are hardly solutions at all, and read more as truisms.

I'll add that I'm not sure what VCs have to do with anything here, though as someone who formally took VC funding, I wouldn't want them making technical or strategic decisions on my behalf, and I suspect the majority of founders (and others on my cap table) would agree.

You're right that there are two sides to every story, things aren't black-and-white.

To your first point, I've already agreed that the numbers seem faulty. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're asking me to consider, beyond suspending belief. 60k people did die on the low end, many of them children.

From an outsider's perspective, the killing of 60k people in a small, corralled environment, many of which are children, says everything that can be said about the actor in question. This is without the additional context of years of West Bank occupations, experiencing the crazy two-tiered apartheid like system that is Israel (I've visited and was personally quite shocked), and other things.

Is Hamas terrible? Certainly. Would they do the same to Israel if they had the capabilities? Probably. But that doesn't change the facts on the ground.

This is awesome. One of the great outcomes of the datafication of baseball is the timely availability/accessibility of game info.

Well, these numbers are from July, and from that very first article:

"Official Palestinian tallies of direct deaths in the Gaza war likely undercounted the number of casualties by around 40% in the first nine months of the war as Gaza's healthcare infrastructure unravelled, according to a peer-reviewed study published in The Lancet journal in January."

Still, from those numbers, it seems difficult to stretch from 60k to 600k.

That said, even if you take the absolute tail number, 60k, how anyone can defend a genocide of 60k people in a land area smaller than Portland, in less than a year, is reprehensible. Especially when many of those are children. Almost one child murdered every 10 minutes, at the low end, for an entire year?

Small thought exercise: What if the numbers were real? Would that change any of your stances/views? Would you self-reflect and consider that you had been tricked into spreading lies at the expense of thousands of lives?

Maybe it helps to start smaller. Many (Israeli's) have told me that the IDF is the world's most 'honest' military - one that even warns buildings before they're bombed!

Then, you can imagine how difficult it was for me to reconcile that with many facts from the ground. Here's one. Only one. The Rafah paramedic massacre:

"Israel at first claimed that the medics' vehicles did not have emergency signals on when troops opened fire but later backtracked. Cellphone video recovered from one of the medics contradicted Israel's initial account."[0]

Is that a one-off lie?

0: https://www.npr.org/2025/04/20/nx-s1-5370617/israeli-probe-k...

Sure,though this stands in contrast to the author's thesis: "It’s the loud person who’s wrong getting their way because the quiet person who’s right won’t speak up."

What about RTO? New 'ai-first' genai initiatives?

"Think about the last time a terrible technical decision got pushed through at your company. Maybe it was adopting some overcomplicated architecture, or choosing a vendor that everyone knew was wrong, or killing a project that was actually working. I bet if you dig into what happened, you’ll find it wasn’t because the decision-makers were stupid. It’s because the people with the right information weren’t in the room."

This stands in stark contrast to the genai, ai-first nature of every company today.

In fact, almost every point made in this article is completely wrong from my experience in FAANG. It's almost always, 'my way or the highway' from leadership. Jump aboard or get left behind.

"The alternative to good politics isn’t no politics. It’s bad politics winning by default. It’s the loud person who’s wrong getting their way because the quiet person who’s right won’t speak up. It’s good projects dying because nobody advocated for them."

- again, genai - Amazon RTO - Meta's metaverse forray. - etc.

In 2025 a "tripping balls at ..." feels derivative of even the HST derivatives of the 2010s...

Have you ever heard of second-order effects?

I've never seen one?

I agree, and have the same experience, minus the date my career started.

That said, there's still something to be said for the fact that this is the only field that requires so much outside work, constant upskilling, etc.

True, it's almost certainly for show and will amount to nothing, as with most things in this/every administration.

> I think this is a terrible idea that only helps those like your friends

Well, it will also help the tens of thousands let go from top tech companies over the last two years, many of which do care about the field. I can assure you the fact that someone has an H1B says almost nothing about how much they 'care about the field'.

I know a few people who graduated with a CS degree in the last 2 years who have given up completely, at least in the short-term, on finding tech jobs. A few tried pivoting to tech sales but found difficulties there as well. I also know a few who landed tech jobs. Those with more success were definitely more interested in the subject, and continued coding during the (+6 month) job search, while those who ended up giving up seemed pretty sour on coding from the get go, lamenting their choice of degree.

I suspect an H1B decision reduction is a step in the correct direction here, but

NVIDIA published the Illustrated Evo2 a few days ago, walking through the architecture of their genetics foundation model:

https://research.nvidia.com/labs/dbr/blog/illustrated-evo2/

It's nice to see more and more labs using ai for drug discovery, something truly net positive for society.

""" REV Chief Operating Officer Maya Burkenroad is also accused of aiding Lopez and Mehr's alleged crimes. On REV's website, Burkenroad, who is Lopez's cousin, was described as having "over 10 years of experience managing multi-million-dollar companies," according to the complaint.

But the SEC claims Lopez and Mehr misrepresented her experience. Before joining REV, she had worked as a substitute preschool teacher, a promoter at a radio station, and as an assistant to Lopez at a prior endeavor, the complaint alleges. """

Nice family. Hopefully they get lots of jail time.

I first found Gelman from this wonderful visual explanation of Linear Regression:

https://mlu-explain.github.io/linear-regression/

It cited Regression and Other Stories (though not the Bayesian chapters, which I'm now inspired to dig into before checking this out).

What were they reluctant to learn? Why do they need to learn it?

Plenty of engineers have to take an introductory stats course, but it's not clear why you'd want your engineers to learn bayesian statistics? I would be surprised if they could correctly interpret a p-value or regression coefficient, let alone one with interaction effects. (It'd be wholly useless if they could, fwiw).

It'd be nice if the statisticians/'data scientists' on my team learned their way around the CI/CD pipelines, understood kubernetes pods, and could write their own distributed training versions of their pytorch models, but division-of-labor is a thing for a reason, and I don't expect them to nor need them to.

This is true these days. The biggest calling card for the non-hacker pg callback founder is a forbes 30u30 inclusion - almost nothing worse.

Can you quote this thread where somebody said any of that? If you can't, can you explain how you came to those conclusions? And finally, what are you trying to "win," and why? lol

Please stray from the meta "why am I downvoted!". It's low-effort, reddit-esque commentary that only serves yourself. You can edit your other comment.

You're being downvoted because you're not responding to the comment in earnest. The comment says,

"You could do it for the intrinsic satisfaction of being a decent human and creating a better world."

Obviously, that implies good intention. Your contrarian take sidesteps this for no real reason: you present no argument other than being contrarian for contrarian-sake. Maybe try explaning why you think the logic is flawed.