My productivity has skyrocketed after our company moved remote, I think in large part because my home monitor is good and my office monitor was garbage. Staring at blurry text all day messes with your brain a lot more than you realize.
This is sad but also extremely true. At my company, Zoom was suddenly rolled out en masse to everyone, despite the fact that we are a technology company and should know better.
Definitely agree with the latter part here about execs, but I feel like anxiety around compensation doesn't tie back to material needs as much as to the extent to which people measure their self-worth by compensation.
Years ago, these studies were going around saying that people are happier when they make more money up to about $70k, at which point more money doesn't make you happier anymore. I'm sure that has to be adjusted for inflation etc by now, but very few devs make less money than they need to live comfortably by most people's standards.
It was conducted in 2010, so I wonder if anything would change if it was conducted again today. The current tech industry was in its infancy 10 years ago, and a lot of high paying jobs have been created since.
I wish I could find back the article that I read, years ago, that demolished the $75k claim of that paper, simply by having a different look at the same numbers.
Of course, but what about Austin or Denver? The tech industry has brought high paying jobs to a lot of smaller cities that weren't accustomed to such high salaries.
It definitely starts there, it misses on a key aspect: 70k for how long and how assuredly? Usually once you start making that, your next goal would be
- To ensure that is true for your life time. (at 4% reasonable return, that would mean $1.75MM in savings) assuming you don't want to bite into the principal.
- Then you want to account for inflation. (Add a buffer to the above)
- Then you want to ensure this is on top of your car, house, child costs. (Depending on where you like to live and your car choice, add anywhere between 200k -> 2MM)
- Then you realize this car/ house kinda bumps into the 70k limit - especially if you went for a giant house because reasons.
And so on. So yes, folks can definitely start to feel 'safe' at 70k, but that's nowhere close to the checkout point. Once you figure out a target number based on above, you will realize you need to make so much more than 70k to get to that comfort state.
> To ensure that is true for your life time. (at 4% reasonable return, that would mean $1.75MM in savings) assuming you don't want to bite into the principal.
> Then you want to account for inflation. (Add a buffer to the above)
A buffer?? Assuming 2% inflation, the "buffer" you're adding is just over 100% of the original amount.
It is worth noting that "happiness" is distinct from "life satisfaction" in these studies. The latter does scale with income up to very high levels. Just being happy on a day to day basis is a low standard, many people aspire to more in life somewhat independent of happiness.
It's not like Amazon is bad at AI. The problem they're solving for is legitimately hard, which is why it's so frustrating that it's been put in production in a way that can really harm people.
truly wild that the fight over whether social media platforms should be held liable for speech happens the one time they actually do make a feeble attempt at moderation.
It's almost as if this is about optics and politics, and not a good faith discussion about the power that private companies have and whether or not they're doing a good job with it.
My sense is that moderation has been around since virtually the beginning but has been getting more heavy-handed as time goes on. Moderating political views on international-scale open fora, though, seems far newer, and far more troubling.
Most of us are appalled at the censorship in China, and yet we seem to be galloping in that direction. I'd like to feel that people will get sick of it and drop off of these platforms themselves, but I'm not sure that that will happen.
Without getting into the weeds of the discussion, is it really dangerous to suggest that there may be potential for election fraud through mail-in ballots?
Is it simply assumed that this is some kind of hack-proof process?
Strange to find that kind of sentiment in this community, assuming that's what being suggested.
This is an election with multiple candidates, if he is lying, his political opponent can reply and point out his point-of-view as well as the lies. Given that this is possible, how is it better for the platform itself to start participating in the debate on a topic requiring some other domain knowledge?
It's fine to suggest it if you have evidence, but fearmongering baseless claims is extremely dangerous. I believe they already have terms to avoid lots of dangerous language that incites hate/violence, do you disagree with those too?
I think when these platforms become mouthpieces for one way communications, like this case, they deserve criticism for what is said.
Is it not sufficient to discuss the potential for abuse in such a scenario? Does one necessarily need evidence of prior abuse to voice their concern about a potentially broken system?
For instance, in this case the ballots are being automatically mailed to everyone who is registered to vote. Today my roommate is registered to vote. Tomorrow he hypothetically dies of COVID-19. Day after tomorrow, his ballot arrives in the mail. I sign his signature and cast his vote. Fraud.
We are in a status quo where otherwise healthy people are dying by the hundreds and thousands on a weekly basis, plus the other hundreds and thousands dying of typical causes. Their ballots are all being mailed out. Can you explain how the system will be protected from the abuse I am describing? Do I need to provide you with evidence that this is happening before I am allowed to criticize the proposed system?
Anyway - now I have described some hypothetical ways in which the system can be abused. Now I reckon that someone who is better informed about this can reply to this comment and correct wherever I am mistaken and provide references as to how what I am saying is incorrect.
Should a technology company that is running a social media platform now network with expert committees of all topics to provide arguments against electoral candidates whenever they posit something similar to what I have outlined above?
Why is it not better to let their opposing candidates do it themselves? How about a feature where the opponents' replies are pinned below the tweet?
no one denies that voter fraud is possible. the more important question is whether voter fraud is a serious threat to the voting process, and there's no evidence of this.
collecting ballots from the mailboxes of dead people is not exactly a scalable enough way to rig an election for the democrats to warrant serious concern — especially considering how the hardest-struck communities vote democratic anyway. and besides, if you wanted to request a ballot for your sick roommate to perpetuate voter fraud, you could already pull that off in most states.
mail-in-ballot fraud concern-trolling is a long-established propaganda effort that doesn't have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis
That's a point. But it might be that large-scale fraud hasn't really happened yet because the opportunity hasn't really happened yet.
We're starting to hear a few accounts of "ballot harvesting", and I suspect we'll go through several generations of fixes before this becomes as reliable as in-person voting.
(Personally, I don't really care. I give my ballot to my wife to vote anyway.)
Considering the market share of iPhone in this demographic, it's inexcusable not to correct for this — even if you disagree with Apple's decision on this.
I've definitely spent a lot of time in standups that are effectively pure micromanage-y accountability plays — what are you working on today. Those were a huge waste of time. In the instances where people could actually help me out, though, they've been very helpful.
yeah, it doesn't necessarily seem like a lot for those affected. that said, an upper band of $50k for damages feels like it could be enough to motivate content moderation orgs to take this stuff more seriously?
