This is a great question, and useful to many others as well!
In my experience (25+ years), the first step is to realize what your main objective is if you had the big picture in your head. Then you can apply what you want to learn and work backward from there. Effective integration work might be best served by focusing on software contracts. Performance improvements might force you to think about which parts are better or worse than the required capabilities.
I sometimes take on bug fixes, UAT to force myself down paths which I would normally not encounter. This helps me dive in deeper to new areas as well as avoid those that aren’t my cup o’ tea.
I used to be able to keep a lot in my head, now I prefer only to keep the index in my head, but do the actual look updirectly in code. :-)
Quite frankly, it’s hard to recommend any Cloud Service nowadays. Technical issues apart, the strategy _everywhere_ is to maximize picking the customers’ pockets. AWS is super expensive, Azure is super unreliable and GCP … well, it’s reliable yet features on it could vanish at a moments notice.
Most should just own their infrastructure, or use a more simple hosting service. Most companies could go very far with that.
Unless youf business is a global one with hundreds of millions of users in many jurisdictions, there is really no reason to go for cloud services. They tend to be much more expensive then the alternative, and have many ways to lock you in by making migration very expensive and time consuming.
For a medium size biz, I'd probably still recommend using GKE or EKS. A smallish EKS cluster of a few nodes will cost <1k a month for everything, it's fully managed so you don't need to pay anyone except for the initial setup.
Otw the cheaper operational cost would be to setup a few hetzner servers and manage your own infra via kubernetes or docker/ansible runbooks. But you should budget a few days each month for maintenance and general support, plus you'll need someone skilled in server maintenance to set it all up (becoming a rarish skill these days).
If on a ramen budget, you can set it up and let it rot until everything breaks, then migrate to EKS. :)
Tried it, alas, without success -Two big factors:
1. the infrastructure that made this possible in the 90s isn’t there anymore (at least in my part of the world).
2. The surrounding world requires information exchange at physical boundaries. These too have now been “digitized”.
The family could all get their amateur radio certification/license and communicate over great distances, for free, without any subscription fees, tracking, etc. :) Sounds like I'm joking but honestly with the presence of repeaters everywhere around any metropolitan area, establishing communication would be trivially easy (especially with agreed-upon "time windows" during which to listen for each other and/or to check in).
The article focuses on Productivity as a sole cause for employers insisting on RTO. Yet, In some cases, we have CEOs on video record stating how remote work options help them hire and retain top talent.
I feel there are other factors such as government tax write offs/subsidies related to RTOs - eg employees cause retail around offices to have lowered traffic… hence lower sales tax revenues.
Why won’t employers just come out and say it? Your guess is as good as mine.
My companies CEO just a few years ago was talking about just this - how remote was good because we could now pull from a greater pool of talent and how he couldn't imagine going back to full-time in office.
Complete about-take to now where the same person and all the execs can't help but mention at every opportunity how good being in-office is despite no company metric having improved since RTO, team morale and trust in execs at an all-time low, attrition higher than it basically has ever been and every company survey having outright negative results in every single metric.
Well, yes and no. The wealthy have not experienced a hard landing, and at the same time, the wealth inequality has never been greater. An entire generation now has no prospects of buying a house, even renting is hard, etc.
I don't know where you got this impression from, but that's not what the official data says. In relative terms, the bottom 50% hold a larger share of the total net worth than they have since 2003 (ignoring the obviously temporary Cantillon spike), which is over 5 times as much as they did in 2011, and finally comfortably above 50% of their record in 1993 (since 1990) [1]. In absolute terms, they hold twice as many real dollars as they did in 1990 [2], which they got to through the largest relative spike and smallest relative fall of all the tracked tranches. Meanwhile the relative wealth of the two rich segments of 99-100 and 90-99 have been flat for a decade and hardest-landed slightly above the all time low in 1996 [3].
It's truly remarkable to me that people don't remember just how bad things used to be. It's not even been eighteen years; what's the excuse for such short institutional memory? I even doubled the standard graph height and it still pretty much disappears both absolutely and relatively. Or perhaps the talking points are just a little under eighteen years out of date? In that case, there's some good news on the horizon: The yield curve has risen dangerously close to un-inverted [0], which has precipitated or tracked with every recession since the mid 50s, and will probably rise more soon as the market prices back out Powell's flinch in the face of thirty-five months of inflation over 3%; the poor usually take it on the chin the hardest during malinvestment blowups as they scramble to underbid each other for the remaining jobs that didn't fold under the weight of unprofitable compassion, so we can expect the reality of poverty to give wealth inequality rhetoric a comeback. Give it two good years and we can all join Alan Kay in complaining about "That [second] time the bankers stole all our money" once again when the data refresh our memories on just how bad they can get.
> 35% of Americans say they are better off now than they were a year ago, while 50% are worse off. Since Gallup first asked this question in 1976, it has been rare for half or more of Americans to say they are worse off. The only other times this occurred was during the Great Recession era in 2008 and 2009.
If you had read my graph before commenting, you would have noticed that the bottom 50% had 1.289 million millions in Q3 2022, and have 1.189 million millions in Q3 2023, which is indeed a smaller number.
You should also be aware that consumer sentiment surveys that drill down into concrete sentiments usually find consumers are very negative about the current price of durables, which are indeed quite high compared to historically [1]. They also tend to come down slowly without a inciting crash.
I'm not commenting to dispute your numbers, which I trust are correct.
I'm considering the possibility that the measures you've chosen don't reflect the impact of the economy on people's lives. As GP said "entire generation now has no prospects of buying a house, even renting is hard, etc.".
You've convinced me that the phrase "wealth inequality" is a ghost of the past, a lingering rally cry from 2011, when wealth inequality truly was historically high.
We need a new term for the current situation. The data shows that the wealth of the bottom 50% has recovered - but their lifestyles and happiness have not.
Shifting cultural norms is a really hard and takes a long time. Lifestyles and happiness are a reflection of culture in combination with environment. We've managed to shift cultural norms in a direction where it's fashionable to dwell on and complain about your current situation.
I think there is a balance to be struck between wishing to make forward progress and obsessing about how far behind you are as compared to someone else. Learning to live within your means while charting a course to a better life is not a core cultural value anymore. This results in more people complaining about their situation and asking their environment to change in some way to make it better.
>We need a new term for the current situation. The data shows that the wealth of the bottom 50% has recovered - but their lifestyles and happiness have not.
>the bottom 50% hold a larger share of the total net worth than they have since 2003
>while 50% are worse off.
Well 2003 is a long time ago so these are not supposed to be exactly simultaneous.
But when you do the math, statistically there is very little chance of either of these statistics being 100% accurate ;)
But the numbers are right there in the most plausible ball park, why else would anyone ever lacking prosperity been envious of "how the other half lives"?
So might as well take the figures at face value anyway.
Well what it tells us is that the bottom 50% is getting a marginal amount more trickling down, which obviously isn't doing any good since it's far too little too late and the full amount they were getting wasn't even enough to give them the economic ballast to keep the ship from capsizing.
Maybe more accurately said to keep the ship from being able to capsize.
"The economy" is solely a measure of how rich people are doing financially.
Any other concerns aren't captured there no matter how important we keep saying they are. I think we ought to track a "bloody revolution index" but that would probably just give people ideas.
Which is exactly why the things that are tracked are the things that are.
To keep from giving people ideas.
I mentioned this not long ago, but by far most people don't know when GDP began to be calculated, plus how & why it got to be that way then, and the way it is now.
Truly a sad event. I never met him but found his work to be so well explained, even in writing and practice. Wrote him an email once and got an informative and kind response. Highly recommend folks to read his website to get to know how to write well and convey complexity in detail, as a story.
Same here. I know that a fair bit of the data they have on me is inaccurate. Yet, to delete that, along with accurate data, I’m being asked to enrich their data with even more accurate data. It feels like the old “click here to unsubscribe” scam that actually just confirms a real person behind an email.
I would love to know who sold them my data though. That would allow me to stop the flow more effectively before I felt okay deleting at the terminal data broker.
I've started to give services domain-specific email addresses as a sort of reverse-tracking identifier. So I give google@mydomain.com and apple@mydomain.com and so on. I figure I'm using a password manager for all of my passwords anyway. It obviously won't work in all situations, but it might provide some leads.
I've done the same thing for years (yikes-- 20 as of last year-- I'm old!), albeit sometimes I use an opaque identifier for the username portion (because some sites treat addresses with their own domain name in then funnily and I've had humans question it). As a bonus I've identified and reported two previously unknown data breaches by reporting the date I started receiving spam to a one-off address.
Previously I was using service@service.myname.com, and I realized that's leaking a bit too much info.
So, I bought genericname.com and switched to using service@service.genericname.com
Slightly less leakage, although I really doubt anyone is looking. I still have occasional issues with companies rejecting emails with their name in them, but that's easy to work around.
It's great in stores when they ask you to sign up for something and you give them an email that's obviously their name. Raises some eyebrows but most people working the checkout really don't care. A few just comment that it's cool, most are skeptical.
It's all hosted on fastmail and routes via wildcards to my central inbox anyway.
Unless mydomain[.]com is used by more people than just you and maybe your family, doesn’t the domain itself serve as a unique(ish) identifier? I think public aliasing services offer better anonymity, but they’re also blocked by some services.
For humans who are paying attention, sure. In practice, not really, because it's all done by scripts without an easy way to query "is this domain shared".
The way to determine who sold them the data is a service and agent I've envisioned for a long time, but never had the wherewithal to produce. (I won't go into all the hurdles.)
Everyone should have their own email domain, and an agent that also serves as your email client will generate a proper looking (for some definition of that) email address within your domain for every new correspondent.
Now, whenever you see your identity (email address) associated with anything at all you can determine the original source.
Maybe the data is sold from some of the apps on our smartphones. Also, pretty sure most of the payment providers folk e-shops use on their checkouts sell the data to Google (and I am dead certain Google were bragging about knowing about almost any transaction which happens on the on the web). That is a part in the chain which not even most online shops would even be aware of.
Yup, I often speculate that for me, perhaps for many others, apps (and the Android/iOS platforms) are the source.
I’ve been slowly switching to web/desktop based alternatives- those too have their issues (eg correlating all the traffic out of my single home NAT’d IP address.
Mulling deleting apps off my phone as well, but many non-app “mobile” experiences are completely unusable.
So long as it first, and only applies to the plebes, most of whom are too caught up in just surviving, these arguments will just remain as doublespeak.
Problems in any institution are systemic to large degrees. From hiring to training and culture. Those take time to change too.
Checks and Balances, the Supreme courts etc are just the tail end of the endemic issues. Add the military-corporate-oligarchy complex and you have what we got here.
And in spite of saying all this, I too am juggling with high rent and trying to secure a future for my family. Ie no “time” to do anything but offer just words. I suspect many are in situations like me.
Quote from the paper:
“Relativistic principles and effects which must be considered include the constancy of the speed of light, the equivalence principle, the Sagnac effect, time dilation, gravitational frequency shifts, and relativity of synchronization.“
So many factors to unpack yet the solution is right there.
Interestingly while all those points factor in it would be possible to have a working GPS system without "understanding" the error or having any grasp of relativity.
To expand on that, consider if the satellites went up (with ideas of basic triangulation from beacons orbiting) and then the drifting error for a supposedly fixed ground position was noticed what could be done?
The 'unknown cause' error function over time twixt fixed position and uncorrected GPS calculation can be fed into a Kalman filter to derive weights that eliminate the error.
Typically what happens in many instrumentation applications is models are created to derive functions to emit answers, errors are noticed, people think hard to add extra terms to account for errors and eventually either all errors are accounted for or some residual 'wobble' remains which can be smoothed away by an adaptive error model.
To this day in high precision GPS applications post processing runs are used to improve accuracy that account for relativity factors, atmospheric twinkle factors, (other factors I'd have to look up), and still there's a bit or error left over that can be sweep away (for a time) with a Kalman filter.
The intriguing part of such stuff is how the impact of these things is both short and long, such asymmetry of the individual vs the state. At the (population) scale of India, this is particularly heinous.
In the near term, it is designed to mislead the public perception. In the long term, it both creates a chilling effect of what consequences protesting may have… and will anyone remember that these pictures were manipulated “for effect” decades from now? Will they fuel other echo chambers?
I very much doubt the public understands the precipice (and precedents) that these malicious actions lead us all down.
In my experience (25+ years), the first step is to realize what your main objective is if you had the big picture in your head. Then you can apply what you want to learn and work backward from there. Effective integration work might be best served by focusing on software contracts. Performance improvements might force you to think about which parts are better or worse than the required capabilities.
I sometimes take on bug fixes, UAT to force myself down paths which I would normally not encounter. This helps me dive in deeper to new areas as well as avoid those that aren’t my cup o’ tea.
I used to be able to keep a lot in my head, now I prefer only to keep the index in my head, but do the actual look updirectly in code. :-)