unholyguy001

[flagged]

I’ve found a good counter is “imagine I am the person repressing the other side of this disagreement. What would you say to me”

Historically speaking the most reliable bridge has always been the edge of a sword

The thing he has spent his whole career doing unto others he finally did into himself

I mean there is certainly tons of evidence that some fossil fuels (coal most notably) are on the way out. Fossil fuels as a class? Maybe but still a bit early to make that call

No validation versus some kind of ground truth . His training data set is very small and geographically limited. His model is likely pretty inaccurate

There was an oversupply of officers. At any particular point in time many of the officers were “on the bench” at half pay.

This made it easy to replace underperforming officers with those on the bench

Grady over on Practical Engineering is going to be so excited (-;

I read Sabres of Paradise and it absolutely had a lot of parallels with Dune, and was a major source. Good book too

You should go to the funeral if you think the right thing is to go to the funeral

You should do it for yourself, out of respect for the person who died and respect for the loved ones remaining. Not out of societal obligation

The corollary to that is there are plenty of times where the right thing is to not go to the funeral. If you lack those things.

There have been times I don’t go the funeral. Because the dead person was a horrible person. When people asked, I said exactly that and many times the response I got was “man I wish I had not gone”

That’s been a way of doing interviews in the Valley for at least 20 years if not longer

That was just what I was thinking. This approach will have the same issues that materialized views have as well

In a lot of companies the root cause of this kind of thing is not being willing to spend the kind of money needed to achieve the desired result

You need to be honest with yourself about whether you can actually afford what you what to do.

The other side is it’s not unusual to see a company getting bled by an entrenched third party

Whichever case you are in, start small and prove the value with something tangible

One of the problems with the article is BigQuery becomes astronomically expensive at mid to high volumes. So there is a strong incentive to keep the data in BigQuery manageable or to even move off it as data volumes get higher.

Also larger enterprises don’t even use gcp all that much to begin with

This was the plot of Termination Shock by Neal Stephenson

Generally in a healthy org it’s more like 8-10 direct reports per line manager.

At 200 people you should probably be still at around 3 levels deep. The VP Eng with 8 line managers could easily run a 70 person engineering team

Maybe throw in a single director to help share the load and for succession planning

But I agree likely what is happening is too many managers with smallish numbers of directs creating a lot of unnecessary layers and then all the extra management work that comes with that

Sure toe dipping. At 200 people you’ve hit a Dunbar number and you need some process.

Some kind of lightweight performance cycle for instance. If it takes more then a day offsite you are probably overkilling it

Similarity for quarterly planning. You better be doing it at 200 people but the people that need to be there for that will fit in a room and you should get it done in a day

This doesn’t sound like toe dipping it reads more like a full on swan dive. Like someone said “hey shit is getting crazy we need some processes” and just whole hog adopted “what google does” or some such. The processes that are evolved for a 20,000 person org are overkill for a 200 person one

Yeah exactly. 200 is still a level where everyone knows everyone in their team and all the leaders know each other personally.

I mean spending a lot of time aligning with other leaders. How many director + leaders can there be? Five?

Similarly how heavyweight can the planning and performance process be when you are that small?

This section describes a tremendous amount of bureaucratic overhead for a company that appears to only have 200 employees.

It feels like they have adopted processes that are really only needed for much larger orgs

It’s fascinating that the conclusion / forecast is that tools will abstract engineering problems and DE will move closer to the business . While over the last 20 years the exact opposite has happened and the toolset has actually become harder (not easier to use) but orders of magnitude more powerful and DE has moved closer to engineering, to the point where a good data engineer basically is a specialized software engineer.

The absolute pinnacle of “easy to use” was probably the Informatica / Oracle stack of the late 90’s and early 00’s. It just wasn’t powerful or scalable enough to meet the needs of the Big Data shift

Of course I guess this makes sense given the author works for a company with a vested interest in reversing that trend.

Actually your numbers are wrong

Elevation gain during walks matter hugely. Walk up a few pretty decent hills and your 400 number becomes a 600 number

Why do I want to end this statement with “what could possibly go wrong ?”

Well, inevitably you die ?

Betting the OP doesn’t have kids. Until you have kids you are playing the game on easy mode

The biggest problem with the approach is large, optional purchases that effect quality of life. Things that are too big for “fun money”

Remodeling or Upgrading a house Private school for kids Vacations Vacation property Nice cars College savings Rainy day funds

One way to handle such is for both partners to agree on % saved out of the joint account and/or minimum balance

Guess that didn’t last cause look they are hiring data engineers

https://www.stitchfix.com/careers?gh_jid=1252958&gh_jid=1252...