fast-math can result in many things you may not expect, e.g. treating FP operations as being associative and distributive, which they aren’t.
1,127 karma · joined November 30, 2022
Ive said:
"Steve established a set of values...with a small team of people [and] Tim was very much part of that team – for that last 15 or 20 years."
And you think in being a part of that team and as CEO he doesn't say "no"?
Sorry, time for you to provide those citations of how Tim Cook green-lights everything.
> Jobs didn't want him gone and didn't seem to find him difficult to work with.
They were friends for nearly two decades. It's not easy to fire friends, and by all accounts they got along. Forstall with the rest of the executive team, not so much.
> This is ridiculous. I'm not going to argue with you after this reply, because you're rewriting history.
You're saying Steve Jobs designed the Apple II? Or had a substantial hand in the design? Sorry, Woz and history disagree.
> I'd suggest not making assumptions. I don't have to "read up [sic] the product release and what happened after", because I was alive at the time. Were you?
Yes, and in fact owned the first generation Mac upon release.
> It wasn't. Cook was purging a rival for power, and Maps was just an excuse.
Steve and the board chose Cook over Forstall. He didn't need to "purge a rival". Forstall was difficult to work with, and people wanted him gone.
>> And again, by every "insider account" I've seen published, Tim Cook is doing the same.
> Citations needed.
https://www.engadget.com/2014-06-16-jony-ive-talks-new-mater...
And what point are you trying to make? Jobs recommended him, the board selected him. Saying the board had to agree doesn't change the fact that Jobs and board felt he was qualified and the best option for a successor, which was the point.
>> If you read the accounts, Jobs didn’t want more than two expansion slots
> I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove?
You said "Jobs was behind Apple II" and a host of other products, but at best in the case of Apple II he saw Woz's good design as something he could take and sell. He was hardly responsible for what that product actually was.
>>> Macintosh
>> Commercial failure.
> Um, no. No it was not.
Yes, it was. I'd suggest actually reading up on the product release and what happened after. If it hadn't been for the cash cow of Apple II, the company could have failed. That's according to numerous accounts, including Woz. I believe it was at least three years before it even matched the sales of (what was then an 11 year old) Apple II.
> Jobs was the leader of a team.
Like Tim Cook.
> By the way, Cook purged Forstall from Apple.
Yes, and if you understand what happened there, it was the right thing to do. And the rest of the exec team, especially Ive, was very happy about that move.
> I never argued that. What I argue is that Tim Cook is not a "product person" like Jobs was. Cook is not making design decisions; Jobs was.
By every account I've read, Jobs primary contribution was as an editor, saying "no" to bad ideas. And again, by every "insider account" I've seen published, Tim Cook is doing the same. Jobs wasn't spending most of his days brainstorming with the design team, although he did do some of that. More than Tim Cook, sure, but most of the idea generation in the company was coming from a large crowd of people, not Steve Jobs.
And why does that matter? Steve Jobs selected him because he felt he would be the best person for the job out of the executive team.
> Jobs was behind Apple II
Woz was behind Apple II. If you read the accounts, Jobs didn’t want more than two expansion slots and fought Woz on that and lost. Woz was ready to walk away with his design.
> Lisa
Commercial failure.
> Macintosh
Commercial failure.
> NeXT
Commercial failure.
> Mac OS X
Jobs was one of several people instrumental in making that happen, but I think you can hardly give him more than 50% credit in that one.
I think you can give Jobs a lot of credit for the vision behind iMac, iPod, and iPhone. But it’s entirely disingenuous to discount the likes of Jony Ive, Scott Forstall, and all the other people who made those products happen.
Jobs vision from the early Apple days was of computers as home appliances. You purchase it, it is complete as is (little to no extensibility), and it’s well-designed (physically) like the products designed by the people Jobs admired (Dieter Rams).
That’s a great vision and what still drives the company today, but he was hardly singularly responsible for the success behind those products.
I found that I was much more interested in how the work impacted customers, how we could work more effectively as a team, building relationships across the company I am at, etc.
At 48 I switched from programming to managing. It was a good move for me. I don’t love managing the way I once loved programming, but I periodically reassess and realize that although it’s fun to take a day and write some code here and there, I would be pretty miserable if I were to go back to it full time. I would constantly have to find ways to motivate myself to get anything done.
I do still take those days sometimes and write code for our product, but keep myself off the critical path at all times.
Management may or may not be for you, but it’s something you may want to consider. I wish I had moved over sooner.
As an aside, I had read in my twenties about a theory that claimed something happens physically in our brains as we age that explains this phenomenon of greater interest in the big picture and less interest in detail-oriented work but I have never gone back and tried to confirm or learn more about that theory.
Some people are hungry a lot. For a variety of reasons. For example, the choice of previous foods they've eaten can result in increased hunger. As can metabolism. And activity level. I suspect microbiome as well, although I don't recall specifically reading anything about that. Depending on the person, stress may increase hunger or decrease it. Depression can have the same impact of either increasing or decreasing hunger. Some of the people experiencing increased hunger may gain weight, some won't.
Different people also get different levels of pleasure from eating. Some very little, some very much. The effects on serotonin, dopamine, and endorphins differs from person to person. I know I saw one study once where they found that the pleasure centers of the brain lit up much more than average in overweight people when they merely thought about their favorite foods, and much less than average in people who had been thin their entire lives.
I think you're correct in that many people eat out of habit. They also eat from boredom. Some people begin to feel hungry merely at the mention of food.
So I don't think it's as simple as telling people to only eat when they are hungry. Although that's a good rule of thumb, you may need to also address some of the other factors (like food choice, depression, etc.) if you want a given individual to remain at a healthy weight.
At the Walgreens near where I live they sometimes have a security guard at the door, sometimes not. They only allow one of the two doors to open.
If the guard isn’t there you’ll see teenagers walk in, dump a bunch of their stuff in a backpack, grab as much as they can carry, and walk out. They come back five minutes later and do it again.
This is with a lot of staff on the floor, who recognize them when they come back in.
The staff have likely been told not to try to stop them, because it’s a liability for Walgreens. The security does seem to help but even that doesn’t completely stop people from trying. I have seen the security follow people they recognize into the store and then end up chasing them out but the perpetrators still get away. Even more security might help to block the door in that case, but that’s the only useful mitigation I’ve seen in these cases.
> During seasonal influenza epidemics, diagnosis on the basis of clinical presentation has reasonable accuracy in previously healthy young and middle-aged adults, in whom the presence of fever with either cough or sore throat is associated with influenza virus infection in ~80% of patients.
So Wikipedia doesn’t add that this statement is about the accuracy of diagnosis by a clinician, and completely ignores the important symptom of a fever.
Just prior to the statement referring to 80%, Wikipedia also states the following, with references:
> In a typical year, influenza viruses infect 5–15% of the global population
I have 20+ hours because I work cross-functionally across a huge company that is both designing hardware and writing software for it. The complexity of what we build and ship is many times that of anything I've worked on during most of my career. As a result, there are a large number of moving parts and a lot of coordination that needs to happen across teams.
No, my comment doesn't boil down to that. It boils down to many (not all) ICs, especially ones without a lot of experience, are more interested in focusing on problems that interest them than actual issues that customers want solved. So they go off and start working on interesting problems rather than important ones.
I'm not sure why you think that is "by definition" not a priority. Of course it is if it's impacting being able to do new work that adds value.
The question is, is that a priority at the moment it's noticed, or something that should be added to a backlog to be addressed later?
If it's a small amount of code clean-up, it's usually easy to squeeze into current work without disruption. We always try to refactor as we go along. If it's "This 3000 lines needs to be redesigned and rewritten", it really amounts to feature work and should be added to a backlog and prioritized along with all the other work.
The phenomenon I'm talking about is ICs seeing something for the first time, and then deciding that must be the priority because it's so bad, and dropping everything else to fix that thing even if it's weeks worth of work. They see what's in front of them as the thing that's most important.
That’s after a very-long (nearly three decade) career as an IC in “big tech”.
I think my take on this is not surprisingly different than yours.
As a first-level manager my job is all about execution and getting things done. Being in 20+ hours of meetings a week gives me a lot more perspective on the big picture than the ICs on my team.
They often think certain work is important because they have a very myopic view of what we do. I am always looking for the ICs to drive our work, and expect the more senior people to come to the table with ideas. Sometimes those ideas are great, and they have a low-level perspective that I am missing because my nose isn’t in the code as much as it once was (it still is, and I still commit code, but it’s opportunistic and not that frequent). But often they get stuck on fixing whatever the most recent thing that bothered them about our code rather than on what actually impacts customers in the long or short term.
There is a lot of management above first-level that doesn’t seem to add a lot of value, but I’m not sure how much of that is inherent versus the specifics of who is in those roles. I expect my manager to be focused on strategy, long-term direction, team composition, building relationships with other orgs, etc. Up a level from that, again an even broader perspective. Depending on who is filling those roles I may or may not see those behaviors.
It’s very common and convenient to focus on personal productivity as an IC, but if 25% or 50% or 90% of that effort is going towards things that ultimately don’t have impact for customers, it’s not very productive after all.
Based on the descriptions I have read of influenza, I’m relatively certain I have either never had it or have had it maybe once in my adult life.
Most years I get a bad cold that lasts 5 days or so (plus some time for my sinuses to completely return to normal) and maybe a couple lesser colds. None of these are “the flu”.
I get the flu vaccine every year, but only started that around age 35 or so. I’m in my early 50’s now.
A non-solicitation agreement is not strictly the same as collusion between companies to agree to not hire away each other’s employees.
If I sign a non-solicitation agreement, I as an employee cannot move anywhere else and try to hire former coworkers for some period of time.
The scandal that happened among multiple tech firms (not just the ones you mention) was that several companies agreed at the top level not to recruit and/or hire one another’s employees.
I believe HN policy is to post actual titles if possible, is that right @dang?
I know some companies are now working to ensure that they no longer have a single listing for a job into which you could hire people at different levels, so that they can better honor the spirit of the law. It would be nice if the law itself ensured had a way to enforce or ensure that sort of behavior, but I don’t know what that would look like.
However, you may need to be tested earlier than 45, or more often than other people, if you have—
Inflammatory bowel disease such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.
A personal or family history of colorectal cancer or colorectal polyps.
A genetic syndrome such as familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)external icon or hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome).