alex504

You are doing what you are accusing the author of this piece of doing.

Do you have anything to add about the total lack of evidence of the Bulstrode piece?

Are you claiming that the 18% number the Museum of London piece is claiming is anything less than fantastical? Can you engage with the argument with any evidence?

The reason the author couldn't find hard evidence about the number of black people in London in the 1300s is because there were so few that in this context it is a silly question.

A 100% salary boost is pretty large.

If they are doubling your salary at the start up your compensation at your previous role is probably at about the bottom or even below the bottom of what you would make on the market if the startup goes bust.

If the economy gets so bad that you get laid off from the startup and (seems unlikely at this point) that you would be unable to get any job at your current low salary, there is a decent chance you would have been laid off at the first job regardless.

I would say go for it, completely ignoring all quality of life variables like work life balance, getting along with your team, doing interesting work, and so forth. These things matter a lot as well so it's worth thinking about those. In terms of money it seems like a no brainer to me.

Its funny because my experience has been the exact opposite. I have sold three cars to them in the past 2 years (long story) and all of them were several thousand above what other dealers in the area or carvana/shift/vroom were willing to pay. Every time I got one of their offers I was like, "Huh. Ok".

However in buying cars from them, everything seems a overpriced compared to the local market.

My understanding of it is that they make money by doing used car arbitrage. They knew they could make money on the cars I sold them by shipping them across the country. And I think people are willing to pay a little more to buy a car from them because of all of the guarantees and how painless it is.

Bobby Fischer was one of the greatest players in history, and he was EXTREMELY paranoid.

As soon as I see the JSX critique I roll my eyes. This has been around since reacts inception and it just doesn't hold any water for me. I remember interviewing with a company in 2019 that was still on Angular 1 because they didn't like JSX, and didn't want to learn typescript. It just "looked yucky" to them.

Very very poor reasoning. I have never thought to myself, man I wish this wasn't JSX and just normal Javascript, to myself in the 6 or so years I've been using React. It just isn't something that anyone should care about and it shows the author has probably been biased against React forever, for no good reason.

That's the thing about react, there basically are no edges or very very few edges left. There were edges in like 2018, but the team has made it relatively easy to do anything you want to do, while writing scalable and maintainable code.

So if these fields weren't highly regulated demanding personal projects from candidates would be a good approach for hiring?

Its the drugs fault.

If the drug causes negative effects on a large subset of the people who use them, that is a problem with the drug.

This seems like it was more or less just a straight-up scam. They told customers that they were investing their funds in a diversified set of stablecoins. They promised the customers they could not lose money because the stablecoins were all backed. They then put all of the money into Terra, an algorithmic stablecoin, which is not backed by anything.

Terra gave yields near 20%, but Stablegains gave 15%, so they were basically just skimming 5% off the top. I wonder if it will be possible to sue or even prosecute.

In my experience none of what you are talking about is necessary to have a successful tech career. In my case I have an English degree, went to a boot camp, and worked fairly hard at medium sized companies for a few years. I work at a company where I make as much or more than a lot of doctors. A lot of my colleagues are from places like Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc.

I could probably not have even gone to college, it was just getting the first job that mattered. Probably wouldn't have gotten into Google or whatever with that first job, but it isn't hard to work your way up if you interview well.

Maybe we disagree about what "really successful" means. I personally feel that the way things are now if I was actually motivated to make as much as possible I could get promoted and ladder my way up about as far as I wanted to in this industry, but I have no desire to do this because I make plenty of money and only work about 25 hours a week. If I wanted to I could also go work for some exciting startup, but I would have to work a lot harder which is something I don't want to do.

The point being that what you do in high school, college, or even most of your career doesn't really matter that much if you are smart and can actually figure out what you are doing.

I am definitely not an expert, don't know about the data around shelters. My understanding of shelters is that they make it a lot harder to do drugs and that is why a lot of the homeless prefer camps. My understanding is that abuse, violence and drug use are reduced at shelters and that is the main advantage of them.

Please kill me

They can look at the ledger, and show up to your house, take ownership of your house and put you in jail.

You have to hire people that don't have big egos, and are also high performers. Some people will obviously be higher performers than others but without egos communication works. If someone is not performing well, everyone should feel open and trusted enough to communicate about it and find a resolution.

If you hire even one person with a big ego communication breaks down and you are in for a really bad time. Pretty much every high performance team knows this and put a lot of effort at weeding these people out.

A lot of it is also setting a good example once you've made the hire through your team and company culture. Hopefully when someone joins the team they will see how others communicate and carry themselves and it will rub off on them. Everyone should have enough respect and trust in everyone else not to have a huge ego even if they might have had one at their previous job where people treated one another poorly.

> It is possible to be disagreeable in a constructive way, combined with a “disagree-and-commit” attitude where the team’s success is the priority.

Disagreement is absolutely key to making a team work. Disagreeing with humility, and trusting others to take disagreement without having their egos involved, is what is needed. Being overly agreeable happens when you don't trust the other person to take your disagreement without ego.