I actually think going the tokenization route is a good idea. As a positive side effect of the cryptocurrency boom, a lot of good research on POW/POS secured distributed systems was done and it would be a waste to not at least consider using this research.
As long as you hide the details in the depths of documentation of the protocol, make up alternative terms to those that have been tainted by cryptobros and don't mention any relation to cryptocurrency-originated technology, you would probably successfully avoid having parallels drawn between your project and cryptocurrencies.
Sure, someone might cobble together an API and put your token on a cryptocurrency exchange against your best wishes, but I think the risk of that is low. It's easy enough to launch your own crypto and if I'm looking to run a pump and dump scheme, why attach myself to a project that openly distances itself from the crypto scene?
If it can be done, it will be done. Non-consenting projects have been hijacked for pump-and-dumps countless of times. Better design the economics of the token with that in mind rather than having them broken once the wrapped token inevitably hits DeFi markets and gets spammed across Discord and Telegram chats.
The value of a HN post lies not so much in the article itself, but in the surrounding discussion. While notable, a discussion about Prigozhin’s rebellion would have likely dissolved into low-value political squabbling.
On the other hand, an interesting, but unimportant happening such as the one in this post is fertile ground for quality comments.
And yet the comments on the thread I saw were quite useful — many from Russian speaking people confirming that the same news was being shown in Russia, etc.
"The problem doesn't exist for the very best" is really not much of an answer. Besides, even the best may not have much luck right now. Tons of employees from what are considered the top companies are looking for a new job. I have a very solid CV and I'm getting ghosted when applying for jobs I could have taken for granted a year ago.
I’ll give you the point of view you won’t like but it’s the truth: Candidates from “top companies” come with a lot of baggage. They’re going to expect a continuance of the massive inflated salaries they enjoyed at those top companies along with all the associated perks and amenities. They tend to be very egotistical, don’t want to be burdened with doing interview tests, white boards, or take-homes, and generally have this annoying holier-than-thou HN-level of arrogance.
So why in the world would I want to hire an overpriced ex-rest-and-vester when I can instead hire someone hungry with a track record of making a difference at small to medium companies?
I actually agree totally. My experiences doing hiring and then subsequently working alongside folks for the past decade or so have led me to view FAANG experience on a resume as a moderate negative signal. It’s not at all that I don’t think the folks who work there aren’t smart or talented- they have just disproportionately been difficult in the interview process and had impossible salary demands while being not being stronger performers than their peers.
Are those “with a track record of making a difference” also ok with interview tests, white boards, and/or take homes? I don’t know if viewing excessive tests with disdain is a characteristic solely exhibited by ex top tech; I feel like that’s a universal sentiment among top talent regardless of their background. Not wanting to be burdened with unnecessary burden is a good thing!!
I also don’t think people generally have a problem with interviews. You have to be assessed somehow, obviously, and people at top companies still get interviewed when jumping to other top companies. I’ve really only seen serious complaints (that is, beyond mild grumbling) when interviewing is a huge time sink for a specific company, especially when that company’s compensation is lower and/or the communication process is poor (e.g. ghosting).
Why in the world would anyone interview with you if your company offers less than top tech for equal or harder interviews? (Spinning your rhetoric back at you for added effect. I don’t know what your hiring is like.)
Why in the world would anyone interview with you if your company offers less than top tech for equal or harder interviews?
People who need job will apply. Its not like some one is forced to apply when otherwise they could get million dollar a year job to develop deep machine learning AI at Google.
I'm actually dealing with this right now. I have a previous-FAANG new hire into my organization and when they came for their drug test they started complaining and "providing feedback" about the package they signed (pay, benefits, WFH policies, etc.) to the poor recruiting person who was just performing the test.
If that attitude persists, it doesn't matter how good they are, their toxicity will override that skill and they'll be out before long.
I'm saying this as someone who came here from FAANG companies and put in a lot of personal effort to not become the FAANG brat.
Let me preface this by saying I also dislike Musk and do not think he is managing twitter well.
Yes, they were not necessary.
Please, before you call me ignorant and downvote, just let me elaborate.
I have seen the issue first-hand, it is subtle and specific to large companies.
First, companies want their stock price to go up. This is more important to them than profit margins, because the people making decisions (as are most employees) are renumerated largely in stock. Simply keeping a business profitable and stable will not increase stock prices, you need to convince investors that you have great plans which will make the company stronger. Hiring more employees makes this look more convincing.
Secondly, the best way for managers on all levels to increase their standing and compensation is to manage more people. As a result, it doesn't matter if your team is running optimally with 20 people and there's no point in starting new big projects, you must come up with reasons to hire more people to progress your career. Therefore, every manager is adamant about having perpetually understaffed teams.
The result is that more projects will be started - regardless of whether they make sense - and more people will be hired to work on those projects. At all levels, perpetually.
It is debatable how bad this inflation is, but the case of twitter shows that even a horribly abrupt and mismanaged exodus of 75% of employees will have no discernible mid-term effects on the product.
At risk of sounding extreme, I'd say that if the layoffs happened in an organised fashion and none of Musks's ill-conceived ideas were implemented, such loss of workforce would not have affected income. I also believe that if most large, established tech companies were built with efficiency in mind rather than perpetual stock growth, they could be effectively ran with 10% of the workforce.
> First, companies want their stock price to go up. This is more important to them than profit margins, because the people making decisions (as are most employees) are renumerated largely in stock. Simply keeping a business profitable and stable will not increase stock prices, you need to convince investors that you have great plans which will make the company stronger. Hiring more employees makes this look more convincing.
Your other points are valid but this part is completely incorrect - Wall Street investors are extremely sensitive to costs and love high-margin businesses. No investor believes that just because you're hiring and increasing costs, that you will magically grow revenue. The cause and effect are almost in the opposite direction - strong past revenue growth (and consequent high stock prices) cause executives to be over optimistic about other opportunities, which lead to overhiring, which then allows the other effects you mention (which are valid) to take hold. But the root cause isn't stock prices going up because of overhiring, but as a rational response to past success.
It's plausible that this is a fake, but consider that what you described is based on reasonably simple physics, something than AI that's capable of generating human faces could likely figure out.
What makes me believe this is actually AI generated art is the hands. They're all fucked up, in every image. I don't know why, but all image generation AIs I've seen struggle with the human hand.
Quite surprised by the amount of pitchforks here. I certainly don't think of AirBNB as a failure and I doubt most others would. Is there a problem with scams? Totally. But that's hardly exclusive to AirBNB, wherever there's a market, digital or physical, there will be scammers. This was the case for all of human history and it's on you to vet your stuff.
I've used AirBNB for long and short term stays, in Europe and in the US. Each time I stayed in a delightful places that was a genuine passion project for the hosts. Those places would not exist without AirBNB and similar services.
If you're on a tight budget and just need a place to stay at for a bit, it's obviously easier to go with a Marriott. But if you're willing to spend some time on searching the best place to complement your trip, AirBNB can get you the best experience.
The problem is that Airbnb is the scammer here. They've intentionally misleading customers thinking they will be protected against scams of this type while in reality they are not.
Problem is not scam itself, but how airbnb handles it. If customer with 10 years old history, reports problem, it should by treated seriously. Not stole with "more proof needed" tactics.
If hotel chain electricuted people in shower, it would get fined and closed pronto.
This looks really cool! I've written a music bot with Serenity before and have been hosting it on a VPS. I was looking on migrating to serverless infra, but Cloudflare workers sadly didn't work with streaming audio over a voice channel for a sustained period. Is this use case supported by Shuttle?
I haven't lost my phone yet, but it's only a matter of time before I get unlucky enough.
I'm prepared for it by using ProtonMail for my main email with (strong, memorized) password only, no 2FA and Starling for my bank, which allows you to log in with password + video of yourself.
Probably a decade or so. I imagine it was always a possibility, with steps being taken towards it over time, even if it wasn't a well defined goal yet. Requirement of uploading App Store apps as LLVM IR instead of machine code comes to mind.
>watching everyone on the internet complain
What's especially amusing in hindsight are the (then justified) complaints about thermal throttling in the last Intel Macbooks. They knew damn well those chassis would not be good enough for Intel CPUs, but they didn't care, it was designed from ground up for Apple silicon.
The advice given is sound and I try to practice it myself. As opposed to adhering to strict, specialised routines I just move and work out when I can in various ways, I avoid sugar and try to eat more greens. It works really well for me.
But the article doesn’t do a good job of debunking the “trendy” wellness. Yeah, if it has the word detox in it it’s probably bullshit, but that’s about all they have to say. There absolutely are modern practices that are effective and worthwhile. Mindfulness is a big one. Massages, yoga etc are also genuinely effective.
As long as you hide the details in the depths of documentation of the protocol, make up alternative terms to those that have been tainted by cryptobros and don't mention any relation to cryptocurrency-originated technology, you would probably successfully avoid having parallels drawn between your project and cryptocurrencies.
Sure, someone might cobble together an API and put your token on a cryptocurrency exchange against your best wishes, but I think the risk of that is low. It's easy enough to launch your own crypto and if I'm looking to run a pump and dump scheme, why attach myself to a project that openly distances itself from the crypto scene?