Some parts of this are probably good advise, at least with respect to clocking titular promotions. No disagreement around visibility of delivered "big wins" being key.
However, I feel like this article is subliminally pro-management, with the thesis statement essentially being just make your manager (and their manager) happy. But what happens when there's no clear direction from management on what the team's goals are? Or when priorities shift on a weekly, or even daily basis? It seems pretty hard to deliver anything meaningful, if by the time you're finished they've already moved on to the next shiny thing.
Additionally, in my experience this "make your manager happy" approach goes hand-in-hand with a "yes boss" manager-subordinate relationship. Managers are empowered to flurry out executive dispatches on what, when, and how things ought to be done, and engineers are encouraged to follow orders. Results are normally not great.
The solution to this is pretty simple: when you find yourself working for idiots, just quit. It’ll suck for a little while, and then it will get better. Which is much better than spending months trying to make stupid and under-qualified people understand things that smarter people would understand intuitively.
On the flip side, when you have a manager who's genuinely on your side and wants to help you produce value (seems rare, I've been lucky enough to land one or two), "pleasing your manager" can accelerate career advancement and actually delivering working software you're proud of.
Seems there's a lot of comments in here expressing discontent with the dismantling of GT programs. I won't speak as to where/how GT programs should be implemented, I have no idea.
However, I did attend a GT program during elementary school. This school was a "regular" public elementary school in the sense it had a local geographic boundary, and kids in the area attended this as their default public school. However, then kids who qualified for GT would be bussed in from around the county to go to this school.
Within the school, past the 3rd grade classes were segmented into GT and "base" classes (i.e. non-GT). The "base" classes were local kids who did not qualify for the GT program. GT qualification was based off a single test score, taken in the second grade. Kids in the GT and base classes were often respectively referred to as GT or base kids.
In retrospect, it's always appeared super detrimental to me that those kids were called "base" as if they were a somehow more basic version of the GT kids. The name "base" in itself was probably intended as a kind euphemism, to not otherwise default to calling them non-GT kids, i.e. non Gifted nor Talented.
Anyway, all of this to say GT programs probably have a place, but in my own anecdotal experience they were not always executed flawlessly.
Yup. There's definitely some neighborhoods like Great Falls where it seems like everyone is either a corporate exec, a federal politician, or a pro athlete.
I'm 29 years old, and I have definitely noticed my memory getting worse over the last ~5 years. I've always wondered if this is something to do with sleep deprivation, increased stress from work/school, or just the natural effects of getting older.
Try doing a 24 hour water fast. It will feel awful during the fast, but you may notice your mind is sharper the next day after a good sleep. Cleans out the cobwebs at a cellular level (autophagy). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
EDIT: I'm getting rate limited so cannot reply to the comment below.
Water fast means only drinking water. Tea or coffee is acceptable if black (meaning without milk or sugar).
"Water fasting is a type of fast during which you're not allowed to consume anything except water."
I would never do a fast that cuts out water/liquids. That is stupid.
The problem is not a lack of will or capability to sleep for 8 hours a day. It's usually the lack of ability to allocate 8 hours, because of various commitments and other circumstances.
(It's like telling a poor guy to start saving some money. While it's technically absolutely correct, the problem is usually not the lack of the desire to have savings.)
Water fasting means only drinking water. A dry fast is no water, no food. An absolute dry fast is no water, no food, no showers. A 24 hour dry fast won't kill a healthy person - but I wouldn't advise it.
Given no knowledge beforehand, "water fast" can mean either of two things:
* You only consume water.
* You consume anything but water.
Both understandings can be inferred at face value, but only one is correct.
I too understood this as the latter before subsequent comments specified it is the former, and the name isn't even accurate since apparently consuming tea or black coffee is also acceptable.
Using as few words as possible is often the hallmark of a talented orator, but sometimes it pays off to be verbose and specific.
Water Fast means only drinking water. Standard terminology. You can verify that with a quick Google search.
1 - 2 month survival estimate is for an ordinary person. If you're obese then you can survive up to a year without food.
For an ordinary person in reasonably good health, a 24 hour water fast only provides health benefits. Up to 3 days of water fasting is beneficial. I wouldn't recommend any longer than that.
The more frequently you fast, the easier it gets. Your body adapts to burning stored fat as fuel and the hormonal hunger triggers become less severe. I've reached the stage where 24 hours is easy.
My experience from an increasingly long time ago was that starting at around age 24 (which was ~5 years ago for you), I got worse at staying up late or going with little sleep. I would try to pull all nighters for work, and it would absolutely kill me, whereas younger than that I could do it.
> When a major new technology comes out, huge new opportunities open up for founders that get in on the ground floor.
> Moments like these don’t happen often. When they do, it’s the people that put themselves right at the bleeding edge that find the opportunities
I hate this framing, and the associated mindset. This "creating a sense of urgency" is a tactic employed by car salesman and phishing emails.
Nothing but respect for the people doing cutting edge on LLMs/GenAI, but this post and video exude a sleazy, get-rich-quick vibe. It feels similar to the crypto hype-rush, which is unfortunate because in contrast to crypto, it seems there's real utility in LLMs/GenAI.
I think the part that rubs me the wrong way is they don't even pretend to care about the technology itself, how people might use it, or build businesses around it. They even directly acknowledge this at 3:00 with "we're not even saying we know the ideas".
It's all just "I smell money" and a rush to try and cut yourself a slice of the pie. I've never founded a startup so maybe I know nothing, but if a founder was asked why are you starting this business and their answer was "to get rich before anyone else", I don't know if I'd bet on that business.
Southwest is my favorite airline for domestic US travel. Two free checked bags by default is amazing. I also personally like the no assigned seats, and no first class.
I also had an experience with a delayed bag once, which took about an hour to come out on the carousel. It was long enough that I went to the help desk to get help and potentially report the bag as lost. I got a 300 dollar travel credit, and my bag turned up shortly after.
For something kind of in the same vein, a youtuber Chad Caruso rode a skateboard all the way across America from Venice Beach, CA to Virginia Beach, VA:
As I understand the bill is solely focused with the national security implications of ByteDance being China-based, and not the social impacts of short form video platforms on mental health, attention span, etc. Good news for Instagram Reels.
I also wonder if this goes through, does this set a precedent for enforcing similar divestment expectations for any companies operating in China. Is this isolated to social media platform, or could this also eventually extend in to other industries like manufacturing?
The government already forced Grindr to be sold back in 2019 , so this isn’t a new precedent.
The only difference is scale and user base — and this time around it was even included in a bill.
The Government has a long history of interfering with foreign businesses in the name of national security. Feds have blocked sale of infrastructure like ports many times
They seem to heavily invest in their social media presence with things like the YouTube channel, but then also use social media indicators (likes/follows/subs/etc) as a measure of success. Seems a little circular.
The plot of Github Stars over Time: Supabase vs. MongoDB seems particularly silly (imo).
Not a hater by the way, I think their YouTube channel is actually pretty good, and I think it will become increasingly common for startups/businesses to have something like this for product/brand awareness, getting users up and running, etc.
I think if the goal of the post was focusing on platform maturation and growth, it might have been better to focus exclusively on the plots of database/users over time, and simply link out to the various social channels.
Overall though still cool to see, and congratulations to the Supabase team!
My personal opinion is that not creating a for-profit wing would have made a even bigger mess.
(But then I also think this suit is very obviously without merit and the complaint is written in a way that it sounds like lawyers sucking up to Musk to take his money - but people seem to be taking it very seriously!)
I don't think the problem is with having a for-profit wing. The problem is that only the for-profit wing got to use the technology developed by the non-profit, when the non-profit was explicitly tasked with releasing the technology to the public, allowing competition.
I would say you are using the words "explicitly tasked" when the articles of incorporation use the words "seek to" and "when applicable". (And also the "allowing competition" part I don't think is actually in the mix, is there a citation for that?)
""The Founding Agreement was also memorialized, among other places, in OpenAI, Inc.’s December 8, 2015 Certificate of Incorporation, which affirmed that its “resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person.”""
That said, I was only commenting on the idea that creating a for-profit wing was adding to the unusual corporate structure of OpenAI and saying that it really didn't.
Some parts of this are probably good advise, at least with respect to clocking titular promotions. No disagreement around visibility of delivered "big wins" being key.
However, I feel like this article is subliminally pro-management, with the thesis statement essentially being just make your manager (and their manager) happy. But what happens when there's no clear direction from management on what the team's goals are? Or when priorities shift on a weekly, or even daily basis? It seems pretty hard to deliver anything meaningful, if by the time you're finished they've already moved on to the next shiny thing.
Additionally, in my experience this "make your manager happy" approach goes hand-in-hand with a "yes boss" manager-subordinate relationship. Managers are empowered to flurry out executive dispatches on what, when, and how things ought to be done, and engineers are encouraged to follow orders. Results are normally not great.