akhmatova
Joined 4 years ago
Karma
420
Submissions
382
Member since
Mar 22
Recent submissions
Comment · 3 years ago
Title changed to something less clickbait-y
Comment · 3 years ago
Turns out the guy in question was in fact a jackass (based on this clip).
I didn't read it that way.
But the far bigger point is that Musk was even more uncivil and obnoxious in his response to that situation.
That was no less than an outright personal attack. As an attempt to wiggle out of a perfectly valid line of questioning (aside from the "fucking mike" part) that he apparently has no intelligent answer for. Unfortunately the clip cuts conspicuously short after that point, so we can't know for sure. But that does seem to be the long and short of this exchange.
Comment · 3 years ago
Having happy employees is very good for business profitability.
It's what these companies pretend to believe, at least.
Whether they actually, in reality, act in a way that make their employees happy -- or in a manner that is even fair or rational, by any detached observation -- is an entirely different matter.
Comment · 3 years ago
Unstaffed hotels have a major (in my view, fatal) flaw staring you right in the face: poor security.
The one and only time I stayed in such a place - an intruder was caught entering my room and diddling with a phone I left there - and he only got caught because I happened to double back to get something, and just happened to do so while he was in there.
Never again. And the best part about staffed hotels? "I never have to use my phone, if I don't want to."
Comment · 3 years ago
"Hotels turn to robots to keep wages down" is the title they meant to use.
Comment · 3 years ago
Would at least be a lot harder to simply cram one's way through than the algorithm stuff.
Comment · 3 years ago
My mistake for joining a conversation in which the local neighborhood improvement association was literally compared with the Gestapo.
Comment · 3 years ago
It's absolutely a slippery slope.
Except that it isn't - and you yourself have slipped into a classic fallacy:
Comment · 3 years ago
We lost Julie Cruise earlier in the year, too. It's almost too much.
Comment · 3 years ago
A quick search confirms that are -plenty- of nice, boutique hotels (in downtown areas of the usual fancy cities) offering perfectly decent rooms in the under $300/night range, even on short notice. The only reason we go for the Ritz's price range ($600-$900) is to tell ourselves (or others) that we stayed at the Ritz.
The ability to distinguish between the cost-value ratios of the two categories -- and to understand that yes, even for a large, successful company, unnecessary expenses of this sort do add up -- is precisely the sensibility that GitLab[*] is looking for.
[*] Again, a hypothetical GitLab - the Ritz-Carlton example comes from the blogpost author, and not from GitLab.
Comment · 3 years ago
The latter essentially translates to the former. They're just trying to drive the point home.
Comment · 3 years ago
If I’d spend my own money to stay at the Ritz-Carlton (I like nice places, I have the money to pay for it, etc.), then why does this make me a bad fit for GitLab?
Because you missed the crucial qualifying phrase, "every night".
The point of the policy wasn't that one should never, ever go out treat oneself to nice things. But that at some point, it get to be objectively (and grossly) inefficient and, to put it bluntly, reckless.
In fact, most people I know who in fact can afford to stay at the Ritz-Carlton every night (when traveling) don't, just as a matter of principle.
And yeah, they seem to also expect you to have a sense for what's called sound judgement, or shall we say business sense. That is, to know (at least approximately) where to draw the line, without an explicit policy for every last expense category.
And if you don't agree with this philosophy (or it isn't basically obvious to you) - then it would seem you probably aren't a good fit for GitLab.
(In the OP author's point of view, that is. The Ritz-Carlton analogy comes from them, not GitLab).