Hi HN! We are launching Fable Security today! We are tackling bad AI attacks such as deep fakes with AI generated highly targetd just-in-time security training! http://www.fablesecurity.com/
"technical leader" for a 0-50 org is VERY different job than >100 org.
The CTO is probably very good at 0-1 type of start up work, and probably a cofounder and inexperienced eng leader.
But a experienced VP of eng is required to build teams and process later on. But usually those VP of eng are not good at building startups from the ground up.
So the solution here is either:
- fire the CTO co-founder and replace them with a VP of eng type of talents
- hire VP of eng and let the cofounder CTO focus on other works
- CTO is like a Chief Science Officer at a biotech or seniormost Principal/Fellow Engineer at a bigger tech co: ~No boss and ~no reports. The more boring the core tech & scale, the less important to have.
- VP.E might do more on internal people processes, like run overall technical recruiting, while CTO stays involved like helping close candidates & joins bigger sales calls, but is overall more peripheral to the people management. They are not fully removed -- they might focus more on say code culture due to being an experienced technologist & deeply familiar with the core code.
- Both VP.E & CTO might say fix little bugs to make sure code culture is sane and help add productivity tools to the stack, but CTO will more likely run major arch advances & new system prototypes, while VP.E will help trains run on time by seeing ahead around coordination issues. Both need to be leaders (consensus building, ...), but one leads the company's technology and reads deeply on technology, and the other, its technologists, and reads deeply on management.
Lacking a good VP.E. leads to inability to ship: cannot execute tactically. Lacking a good CTO leads to a stagnant technology org: cannot execute strategically.
I suspect this changes at bigger scales, where my cynical side suspects, at most orgs, corp dev (M&A) > Office of CTO for technical leadership :(
It is normal for Chinese to sleep/take a nap by the desk during the day.. Pretty sure they are catching up because of other reasons than being most of their waking hours at work..
As someone who has worked in a dev office in Beijing for a bit - no. Devs routinely took up to 2 hours for lunch breaks, and took numerous breaks in a day. I didn't blame them, mind, because the reason was obvious - for most people, it's just not possible to be completely engaged and invested for 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, forever. I'd estimate there was about 4-5 hours a day of properly productive work going on.
Winning what? A totalitarian government where the people are all treated like shit? They may be winning the GDP game but that's not translating to any improvements for their citizens or the world.
The only people winning in China are the people at the top of the communist party.
China has been going through cycles of partially reopening followed by regional lockdowns when flare-ups happen. They are nowhere near "reopened".
South Korea is one of the poster children for "manage to stop the virus entering your country". They have been aggressively responding to each and every case because they are able to identify each case that enters the country. Even then, they are still not fully "reopened".
I agree that neither has reached the level of "destroying international travel and your economy", but let's not understate the impact that their measures are having either.
The Dabbawalas "secret" is: - built on top of public transit: dramatically lower cost, no need to pay for gas - have a pre set schedule and demand / not on-demand: enable huge supply chain optimization.
These 2 are the key differences between the dabbawalas and uber eats supply chains.
Uber can also does similar optimizations if they offer a lunch subscription service that u pre-book ur lunches.
- uses vanes to do batch pick up / drop off: restaurants (small van)-> local hub (large van)-> destination local hub -> final mile delivery on bike / foot.
This will provide efficient supply chain to keep cost down and reliable if theres enough demand.
However, demand might be low because US customers looking to save money are used to pack their own lunch and microwave at work. This is not an option in Mumbai because of crowed train in rush hour.
Dabbawalas are getting paid in good salary because they are a lot more efficient comparing to Uber drivers.
From other reports / business review I am reading, there are about 200k customers with 5k Dabbawalas workers. That is avg 40 lunch deliveries per person. That is a LOT more efficient than Uber drivers.
The Dabbawalas is more efficient because:
- built on top of public transit: dramatically lower cost, no need to pay for gas
- have a pre set schedule and demand / not on-demand: enable huge supply chain optimization.
Like many other Chinese have replied, we do use and learned pinyin in school and use it to learn how to pronounce new characters. All the Chinese dictionary has pinyin in it.
This is especially important because each region in China speak their own dialect of Chinese and sometimes it is almost an complete different language.
As an Cantonese growing up, pinyin was my way of learning Chinese.
They are basically different languages (calling them dialects of one Chinese language is really more a political thing -- a bit like calling the languages of Europe dialects of Latin).
Born in a Hakka family, growing up in Cantonese-speaking region, having studied in places where ~50% of the students are Teochew people, and working with people who speak Wenzhounese, I consider Cantonese, Hakka language, Teochew, Wenzhounese, Mandarin Chinese all dialects of the Chinese language, and can't see why it is so special about Cantonese. At least Wenzhounese is much more different from Mandarin Chinese than Cantonese is, but why use the deviation from Mandarin Chinese as a standard anyway? Mandarin Chinese itself should be a dialect.
To be counted as a different language, I would say it should be as different as Zhuang language, Tibetan, Uyghur, Manchu, Hmong, etc. People who speak these languages might or might not come from politically controversial regions, but I don't think anyone would consider these languages Chinese for a second.
They share the majority of the syntactic and grammar. Their written form are all the same. Pronunciation is the major difference. This level of unity is established probably since the Qin dynasty.
Easiest way to see this difference is watch the news in Cantonese -- it is mostly 书面语 (standard) mandarin but pronounced as Cantonese, whereas day-to-day spoken Cantonese is completely different in structure and vocabulary. What do you think gets written in HK movie scripts? Definitely not standard written mandarin.
Your assertion is a political one, and not universally shared. The Central Party has incentives to make that claim for nationalist reasons, and has been doing so for decades, but that does not necessarily make it true. In my personal opinion, whether it is a dialect or not should be answered by the people who speak it, not by the people who rule them.
Well, you sort of prove my point, that it's a political thing, about the unity of the country.
Here's what linguists say:
1. From "Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems" by John DeFrancis:
"Chinese [...] is an umbrella designation for at least eight present-day varieties of what are usually called "dialects" but, since they are mutually unintelligible, might better be considered parallel to the various languages that make up the Romance group of languages."
2. From "Asia's Orthographic Dilemma" by Wm. C. Hannas:
"some eighty million or more people living in China [...] speak non-Chinese languages written in alphabetic or indigenous systems. [...] If we ignore this inconvenient phenomenon and focus on the speech of China's Han population, we find a collection of at least seven or eight mutually unintelligible varieties that in any other context would be called "languages," but which are "dialects" in China, in part for political reasons and in part because of a problem with the translation of the Chinese term fāngyán. The political motivation for claiming that these distinct varieties constitute a single language is fairly obvious: it is easier to govern a country in which the majority believe they are speaking one "language" (whatever the linguistic reality) composed of several "dialects" instead of several related languages.
[...]
Most linguists familiar with the classification problem acknowledge that the major Chinese varieties differ from each other at least on the order of the different languages of the Romance family.
[..]
We have seen that the Chinese languages differ not just in pronunciation but also in vocabulary and grammar, and that these differences are realized through unique morphemes (or unique uses of shared morphemes) for which characters do not exist at all, do not exist in Mandarin, or are used with different meanings and functions. Consequently, character texts in Cantonese and (where available) in Taiwanese are largely unintelligible to Mandarin readers. Many characters are completely unfamiliar; others are recognizable but make no sense in context. This occurs where conventions exist for writing the non-Mandarin variety in characters. Actually, most of these languages have no established writing system and hence lack even the possibility of being understood by readers of other varieties.
This is also true of Spanish and Portuguese but they are still considered different languages. If two people speaking different dailects couldn't understand each other they are surely different languages
To take a different perspective, calling them separate languages helps reinforce a nationalist agenda. It gives your citizenry another reason to feel separate from, and maybe superior to, other nations. Calling Spanish and Portuguese separate languages, instead of two Iberian dialects of modern Latin, helps reinforce the idea that Spain and Portugal are separate nations, and not just different regions of the same peninsula.
It's not really by default, more like by necessity. Almost all categorization schemes for human cultural artifacts are necessarily blurry at the edges, and just because someone has provided a definition that is useful for one purpose (the study of linguistic differences across cultures) does not mean that it is suited for another purpose (rhetorically implying solidarity or separation between two sets of people).
To be consistent with the linguistic facts, one should speak of the Chinese languages. You could also consistently speak of a Chinese language with dialects, and then also consider Romanian, French, Spanish, Portuguese different dialects of the Romance language; but that would redefine the terms from how they're currently commonly understood.
It is a subject of argument because there is no clear definition what is a language. There is spoken language and there is written language, then there is culture behind the language. Chinese dialects resemble complete different spoken languages. However, they all share the same written language. Chinese were rarely written down exactly as the way it was spoken, and this is being practiced since two thousand years ago (probably ever since the unification of the First Emperor). In fact, because of this written language, it reflects back to spoken language as well. Chinese may speak the way they write -- that is, they may speak the same way as their written form, with their various dialect pronunciations. In a way, there is spoken Chinese for the illiterate people, and there is spoken Chinese for literate people. Last, with a common written language, Chinese shares a culture. A language communicates meaning and the meaning is the meaning of the culture. With the same culture, there is little barrier communicating (even between people who speak different dialect). It is weird, but it is not unusual to have two people communicate in two different Chinese dialect -- won't that be the practical definition of a language?
And by politics, I think one really means culture. It is the need of communicating with each other on a daily basis forges a language.
Well, I was mostly commenting on the traditional Chinese. Traditionally most population are illiterate so there is little problem having disconnected spoken language and written language. With the modernization and majority of population becoming literate, there is a unification between spoken language and written language. That has updated both Chinese spoken language and written language to a common form -- dialects are becoming merely a different pronunciation form. Today, with schools mandate speaking of mandarin, dialects (the spoken languages) are on the way out.
This process take place in both the main land and Hong Kong and Taiwan. But due to the isolation, they took slightly different form. That is how to a foreigner's view, Chinese dialects appears to be different languages. This is not fundamentally different from between French and Spanish, only the extent of time differs. With only decades, the Chinese in Hong Kong and main land, e.g., are still viewed by most Chinese as the same language.
I genuinely enjoy working in open office after working in both settings to the point that I would never never work in a company that is not open office aganin. All the noise points are valid here though.
For me personally, I like it because:
- Better/Faster communications. I can ask and answer questions on the spots vs. scheduling a meeting. This is gaming changing. For the same type of question, I can get answered within 10 mins vs more than 1 day. This is a HUGE productivity boost.
- Better team culture. Sitting next to each other make the team much closer. More likely to go to lunch/dinner, hang out, and become friends outside of work. This will give people empathy to each other and more willingly to help/unblock you.
For the noise issues, I get around it by blocking heads down time in my schedule and find a quiet corner in a office.
