Amasuriel

Both of these extremes to me are both just lack of actual leadership.

A real leader should absolutely value and respect the input of their team, but also know when to just say “of the options, this is what we are going with, here is the trade off we are making and why” and have the mutual respect and trust of their team to make both of those activities successful.

It’s not quite the same, many people with hearing loss only lose hearing on part of the spectrum, so it’s not just about making things louder, it’s about making the specific frequencies louder in ratio to the loudness of the noise.

Decay implies simple neglect, vs deliberate actions that make the platforms or systems worse, sometimes out of incompetence, but often because the companies objectives no longer align with the customers.

  Location: Brantford (Toronto area, Canada) UTC-5
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: No
  Technologies: C#, F#, Scala, Spark, Python, Elasticsearch, 
      Data Engineering in general, some ML, 
      Azure/Aws/Kubernetes, lots of DevOps stuff and more.
  Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesselancaster/
  Email: [email protected]

I'm an experienced small company CTO, though I've worked at a director level in larger organizations. I'm still super hands on, especially in the data engineering space, but with back end in general.

I have a history of building great products with small teams. For example the data platform we built at Terapeak (see my LinkedIn profile) powers much of eBay seller price analytics today.

A lot of my consulting work in the last few years is helping companies that have PMF but are struggling to scale their product or their engineering team move faster.

I good at thinking out of the box, being customer focused in terms of my product thinking and knowing when to invest in areas of code (and when not to).

My startup isn't going to make it, and I'm looking to join a company that has already nailed product market fit. Small large is okay, as long as the focus is on building value rather than meetings and politics. I would be willing to consider IC roles or management roles, I'm trying to be open to the universe about what is next.

I'm extra interested in healthcare / biotech, though I know those are usually US only for legal reasons. Also energy startups.

I'm not interested in Adtech or social media.

Anything else I'm open to.

I'm looking for 300-400k CAD depending on the role and other benefits (which is about 225-300k USD).

Not particularly good though. I did a fair bit of looking at them and tried a few on loan a couple years ago. At the time at least, you have to set up an electronic fence to set boundaries, which is very annoying if you have scattered garden beds or other obstacles it cannot bump into.

Also like Roombas (the brand, not robot vacuums in general) they have poor sensors and no real coverages algorithms, they just semi randomly roam around.

Battery life is also terrible, outdoor charging stations are harder to maintain etc.

All I’m saying is, there is a long way to go before they become defacto better than a person with a mower, they are a fair bit of work and fuss right now to set up and keep running.

I don’t think this is particularly representative, since most Canadian companies that hire outside of Canada (even in the same time zone) are doing it because they can pay less.

Pre pandemic senior roles were usually double that or more. Even government jobs (which would generally be the lowest paying) would be over 100k for a senior.

This seems like either a regional and/or phase of life difference. As a homeowner in Canada for example, I often have need to find contractors for home items for example, like I just replaced a few windows.

Most of those businesses do not operate primarily (or at all) over email or sms so leaving phone messages and receiving calls from unknown numbers is normal. Investment firms also generally need occasional contact etc.

So I guess all I’m saying (as someone who would rather use text whenever possible) is that there is still many legitimate use cases for receiving phone calls.

The tone of your comment seems to indicate you think this is obviously a bad thing?

Prescriptions would just be doctors recommendations in this case. There could still be mechanisms to softly encourage only this usage, like insurance only covering doctor prescribed drugs.

Is your concern about painkiller addiction and abuse or about people hurting themselves by taking drugs without good understanding of them or something else?

Azure has this too, you can have what they somewhat confusingly call subscriptions, which are logical units with their own billing, limits and permissions inside and organizations account.

Do a lot of people really use the UI of any of the cloud services? Most people want managed infra, which means at least cli scripts if not terraform.

Not arguing the Azure UI is amazing, but it’s low on my list of concerns personally for cloud services.

For what it’s worth there is a tabular view that has more item detail. Things like marketplace subscriptions can often appear as Other in the graph.

I’m pretty happy with azure. I’ve not used GCP but vs AWS I find permission management a lot nicer. I have yet to have a billing surprise that didn’t come down to me not reading closely enough.

What I don’t like is they sometimes lock private links (aka the ability to not have a service publically routable, only accessible on a vnet) behind premium SKUs, looking at you service bus.

People often seem to equate retirement, as in you no longer need to do things you don’t want to do just for money, to assume that those people are going to sit around all day.

People need purpose, no doubt. And while I’m sure there are people who imagine retirement as sitting on a beech with a drink all day, for lots of people FIRE just means being able to pursue the things you want without expectation that they will be lucrative.

In the 80s and 90s (when I grew up) there was still a sense that technology was capable and going to be empowering people and making lives better, healthier, more convenient. Even though in many ways this wasn’t really true at the time either, the rise of social media and digital advertising as the primary examples of “big tech” I think really changed how people internal and external to the industry think about how technology intersects our lives.

When you think about science fiction and the promises of technology and then look at what we actually got (mostly platforms to sell us things) I feel like it’s natural people are discouraged.

I agree. The whole article is pinned on the idea that infinite economic growth is not only possible, but critical. Even given that premise, it assumes that population growth is required for that.

I don’t feel like you need to be an economist or mathematician to understand that perpetual economic growth based on finite resources is no achievable.

Maybe instead of doubling down on the old model that has driven us to ecological disaster we should look for a new one.

It’s actually worse than that. I would hardly count myself among the best, but I’m certainly experienced and would absolutely love to try and fix the absolutely appalling state of health care records for example.

But besides there being no money in it, between regulatory hurdles, fragmented ecosystems and lack of incentives for individual doctors or hospitals to be good at sharing or maintaining these types of records, I could give the software away for free and still fail to gain traction.

In all of these spaces I don’t see how it progresses without government regulation and/or incentives, because the incumbents have literally no reason to improve.