SecondHandTofu

They were using their internal artifactory, and as they're the same model, the first place they look is likely to be an automatic schelling point.

This happened at my old company. My manager went away for a holiday and never came back. We never found out why, but it was a Finance company so people suddenly not coming in the next day was a thing.

This completely broke the interview pipeline, and in the disorder no one realised. The company got some bad reviews in that period for just stopping a bunch of processes mid-way.

You can do it via /model and pressing left and right though

Due to the history of the internet, anything ".com" should be assumed to be a commercial entity.

If you are from the US, the only nation who doesn't frequently use a national TLD, the onus is on you to judge if a site is commercial, US-specific, global, or something else entirely.

On the contrary, it is a helpful term. Before the term, it was common to ask "are you a manager", and then you were defined oppositionally, as not-a-manager.

Whereas IC having its own identity means it has many positive connotations. "I'd much rather be an IC, so I can get things done" etc. You can still be very senior without having direct reports or having to do line management, often seen as a necessary evil.

It's the opposite in the UK. Most landlords are individuals, own one or maybe a couple of properties.

It's awful, rogue landlords who do everything they can to not do repairs or improvements and when they do it often comes after a long time. Often as they have underestimated all the expenses they're liable for and find that the profit is not very much.

Give me a company that owns a whole block every day, they've modelled the risk better, have economies of scale, and you have more recourse against them.

Beef, not meat. Surely you jest and you know that that's a huge amount and you're on some high-calorie gym diet?

I'm not in favour of getting rid of the bureaucracy, some of it is necessary, but we're way past the benefit.

I think most regulation is a concave quadratic function of regulations vs benefit. At zero regulation it can be very bad, but there also must be a point at which something is so smothered in regulation that doing anything is impossible. So there must be a maxima somewhere between the two points.

All I think is that the current state of drug regulation quite a long way to the right of that maxima, that doesn't mean I think we should remove it all to zero, or that some other things aren't to the left of it and need more regulation!

Probably most disagreements over this sort of thing are just people who disagree about which side of the maxima we're on.

If we put a $10k tax on beards, that's $600 billion right there!

What's that, people might change their behaviour in response to it, in possibly unintended and negative ways? Nah we can just hand wave that away, who needs liquidity or investment.

Land IS somewhat expensive in LA though.

Plus, you are looking at it purely from a construction cost of the building point of view. If you build more densely, you don't need as many roads and other services, which also cost money, and once you have enough density, agglomeration means that it's economical to have local businesses nearby, fewer people need cars etc.

An alternate way to view the same situation is that the regulatory state being slow and bureaucratic is the cause of those ills. The more you over-regulate and make the official pathways too expensive by adding a million tiny costs, the less unreasonable it seems to abandon the official channel entirely.