xenihn

I think the average person thinks of individual investors (flippers, rich foreign buyers) when they hear "investors". Some of the buyers belong to this group, but most don't.

For most of history, both men and women in any society couldn't do any of the things you just described. The majority of people in any society, of both genders, have belonged to the lower classes. This is still true today, but you have far more rights as a lower class person today than you would have 200 years ago. You're viewing history solely from the perspective of the upper classes (which includes the middle class).

I'm now realizing that, yes, I do feel completely entitled to my FAANG bonus. But...the recruiters for all of the companies (FAANG and non-FAANG) involved in my last interview loop all factored target bonuses into total compensation during negotiations. This was 2 months into the pandemic, too, when things were somewhat gloomy. So how am I not supposed to feel entitled to it?

I don't see it any differently from my salary or RSUs in terms of deserving it. The only thing I see different is the potential to exceed the target, and get more than 100% of the original target %.

>But not front-end.

im going to go out on a limb and guess that it's because non-mobile front-end work sucks. few people who have options would have it as their top pick.

I don't know how to define prostitution. Is any form of exchanging sex for money ("sex work") prostitution? Like acting in porn, escorting, sex therapy, sugar daddying, etc.. Or is prostitution simply the lowest rung on the sex work ladder, defined by things like the speed of the transaction, the quality of clients and providers, the cost, and the environments where the transaction occurs?

The biggest issue with autonomous travel is that it needs a 0% failure rate. Anything worse than that is not good enough, even if it's safer than non-autonomous driving by an order of magnitude.

In the United States, "Asian" really means something more like "Sino". Maybe not the right word, but originally within varying degrees of the Chinese sphere of influence throughout history. In the UK, an Indian or Pakistani person would be considered Asian. This is not true in the United States.

For medicine, it's easier to balance the ratios when you can fully control the pipeline, and also control the total number of new practitioners entering the workforce regardless of demand.

If you only have 28,000 residency slots a year, institutions can pick whoever they want, and get the diversity numbers that they want. They decide who eventually gets to work in the field. Employers and customers don't have any real choice. They're going to get whatever the schools provide, and if they don't like it, they can go without doctors.

Modern tech is nothing like that, but it could be someday. Imagine if schools decided who could be professionally employed as a software engineer.

Not them, but people physically similar to them. An important distinction. The people you're actually describing are generally retired or dead.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681390/Cooper-Harr...

Search for 'reddit' on both pages

I don't think this feeling will ever go away, even though it''s completely unfounded. I also can't bring myself to commit to a mortgage even though I can more than afford it at this point. I should have bought my first home years ago, but couldn't bring myself to do it because I always feel like the economy is on the brink of collapse.

I feel so much compassion for people who have trouble finding their first jobs, or lose their jobs during all of this, because I went through that. You feel so helpless and worthless. At least we have the stimulus checks and rent moratoriums this time around. But I feel like we're going to need them for years if we actually want to take care of those who have been affected.

I understand if it's not practical to offer a smaller/cheaper license. This is the first set of fonts I've ever been interested in paying money for, so great job!

This is a big part of it. Let's look at what "academic skills" means specifically in the US:

- you perform well on standardized tests - you perform well on rubric-graded essays - you do all of your homework, and you get As on every assignment

this leads to:

- you get into a good university - you (presumably) perform adequately or well at said university

Every student who performs well academically has a similar path to this point, but then there's divergency.

Tech is the only top tier job where your educational pedigree is not going to hold you back throughout your entire career. It's not going to hurt to have a degree from a top school, but it won't cripple your opportunities, unlike finance, law, and medicine.

Based on how top tier tech companies hire for engineering positions that aren't internships, it seems that they do not see a link between academic performance and engineering competency.

I agree with the approach taken by said companies. Thus (imo) for tech, it is fully expected for there to be no correlation between academic performance and representation in the top tier of jobs, because tech is the most meritocratic top tier industry. It's obviously not perfect, but it's leagues ahead of the other big industries.

you could make the argument that neither of them belong on the list, but I would disagree with that too

i would look at these things when deciding which companies should be on the list:

is TC for the position (on average) in the top 5%?

is the company considered to be a potential terminal/apex in one's tech career? as in you could work there until retirement (potentially an early one if you are making enough money)

for the employees who don't stay forever, do they typically go between other employers in the set when switching jobs? (google <-> fb is the main example i think about for this)

i want to include perceived prestige on this list too, but that seems way too difficult and subjective when it comes to quantifying it. one measurement would be how appealing your experience at a member of the set would make you to the rest of the industry as a candidate.

are you asking "would an ordinary person encounter events in which game theory would be applicable on a normal, day-to-day basis?"

or are you asking "would an ordinary person who has studied game theory (but is not especially well versed or practiced) be capable of using it when it comes to making decisions?"

also can you please specify what you mean by an "ordinary person". how good are they at linear algebra and probability?