David

That sentence confused me, too, but it's clarified in the next paragraph:

> Children who grow up with high economic connectedness earn 20 percent more as adults on average than otherwise similar children who do not, a gap equal to growing up in a family making 47,000 dollars a year instead of 27,000.

ie: knowing wealthier people has as much impact on your income as growing up in a family making $47k/year instead of $27k/year

This bothered me at first but I think it's about ease of implementation. If you've built a good harness with access to lots of tools, it's very easy to plug in a request like "if the linked PR is approved, please react to the slack message with :checkmark:". For a lot of things I can see how it'd actually be harder to generate a script that uses the APIs correctly than to rely on the LLM to figure it out, and maybe that lets you figure out if it's worth spending an hour automating properly.

Of course the specific example in the post seems like it could be one-shotted pretty easily, so it's a strange motivating example.

> We still start all workflows using the LLM, which works for many cases. When we do rewrite, Claude Code can almost always rewrite the prompt into the code workflow in one-shot.

Why always start with an LLM to solve problems? Using an LLM adds a judgment call, and (at least for now) those judgment calls are not reliable. For something like the motivating example in this article of "is this PR approved" it seems straightforward to get the deterministic right answer using the github API without muddying the waters with an LLM.

No, they've been doing "managing stacks of dependent pull requests" for a lot longer than AI code review. I've mostly been a happy user, they simplify a lot of the git pain of continually rebasing and the UI makes stacks much easier to work with than Github's own interface.

Bandwidth is the limiting factor in a lot of circumstances, and networks are very challenging to manage. Especially with an increasing number of users on mobile connections, reducing network usage can be the right call.

But performance matters, too, of course. It's tricky to balance them.

Video encoding and decoding is expensive! Especially as cameras improve and users' expectations of quality increase.

On the other hand, tls/443 is pretty undesirable for media delivery in videoconferencing because a) it's tcp-based and the required ACKs mean a big reduction in throughput and increase in latency, especially in the presence of packet loss, and b) most video services these days (and open source servers) use webrtc which encrypts the data in transit already--so the tls encryption is a waste of resources

Though tls/443 is usually still supported because it's most often allowed by even restrictive firewalls and networks

I read the article as saying you can't solve everything yourself. That's different than saying you should ignore problems. Instead you need to communicate when you see a problem that you're not positioned to solve, because you don't have the bandwidth or you're not in a position of authority for that domain

> you should be working on properly communicating the gap and its risk to the business (and risk to which part of the business) and NOT attempting to solve everything.

That's way more computationally expensive and only available if the camera is on (and the user's mouth is visible).

Very much this, it takes time to recapture the microphone and it's really annoying to lose the first part of what you say every time you unmute. I lead the video team at a videoconferencing app (gather.town) and we keep the microphone active when you mute for this reason.

As seems to be pretty common, for the sake of privacy we do stop sending audio to the media server. That's a tradeoff, since we're still susceptible to losing a little bit while the audio connection resumes.

Edit: as others have mentioned, also useful to keep bluetooth headsets in two-way audio mode rather than reverting to audio output mode, since that's really disruptive.

As an alternative to a daily chat message, a teammate and I have been meeting for ~15 minutes at the end of the day to talk about what we did and how productive we were. It's been pretty helpful a few different ways. First, it forces me to think about what it is I'm supposed to be doing and figure out the next step. Not knowing how to approach my next task is a huge cause of procrastination for me. Second, it's a chance to notice when I've gone astray, and identify factors that lead to low productivity. (Like that I procrastinate when I haven't broken down my next task into small enough pieces.)

I think for this to work well, it needs to be with someone you don't feel the need to impress. Maybe you have a teammate you trust like that, or maybe you can find a coworker on a different team who doesn't impact your performance assessments. If you have that, this feels different than a standup. Standups easily devolve into signaling to the team that you've done work. Instead, a 1:1 meeting with a coworker who you don't feel the need to impress makes it way easier to be vulnerable and admit when you screwed around on the internet for a lot of the day.

Or: Focus on finding impactful early customers that increase your visibility (and then make them happy). Finding such a great customer may require luck, but that doesn't mean the odds are fixed.

Can you cite some sources for your responses to 1 and 4? Re: 5, there's clearly a distinction between typical mutations, which have no particular effect on the virus' behavior but do allow us to trace infections, and behavioral mutations, which might allow reinfection or make the virus more or less contagious or deadly. I think GP is asking about the second kind, since they're also asking about reinfection. Maybe that's obvious, but considering that, are there sources saying that the evidence so far is that there is only one strain?

Re 6: this is an interesting question. My layman's understanding is that heat usually reduces the spread of disease in temperate climates both because the disease can't survive as well and because people spend more time outdoors and in less people-dense spaces. In somewhere really hot like Qatar, we would expect to see the opposite of the second effect; I'd think people would spend more time indoors with A/C when it's excessively hot outside, increasing transmission rates as the outside temperature rises.

Can you point to a source here? I work on Google Cloud and I don't think I've heard anything like that.