gernb

I don't consider that a normal nor a healthy opinion. I'd choose happiness over money. Sure there is some level of money that's so low I wouldn't be happy but that just again means I'd choose happiness.

Happiness isn't making the most money possible, at least not for most people. Happiness, for most people, is having a life of people, relationships, meaning and a big part of all of that is working with people you love on something you love.

You're likely to spend 80,000hrs working. It would be nice not to just have to endure those 80,000hrs but actually enjoy them.

Is a paying github user it's not the lowest touch option. For me they just bill me on the card I'm already paying them with so easier than paypal.

What does "touchless" mean? Who cleans the place up each day? Who maintains the building? (cleaning the toilets, fixing broken doors and windows, and other general maintenance) Who decides which iof the 95 people who want a booth get one of the 20 available spaces? Who polices that the items sold are safe? etc.. etc..

No, I'm only trying to claim that a government run farmers market is not incorruptible nor likely would it be any more fair.

Interestingly the link above is not to a government run farmers market. It's to a a government site that then links to a non-government, non-profit organization. So that farmers market is not government run

How is that evidence it's efficient and incorruptible?

for one, there's a limited number of stalls. It certainly wouldn't be shocking if whoever bribed the government coordinator the most got one of the stalls or if people the coordinators closest friends got priority access to the stalls etc...

I don't know the ideal solution. It might be more fair if there was a raffle for stalls each week. Instead we see the same people in the same stalls. Curious how a new farmer gets in to the market. Do they offer more money than someone already there?

> What's the purpose of your math?

To show that $100b in reserves may not be that much if you need to keep the company afloat for 168k people.

Mostly I do. Anyone can be a coal miner. Just show up and start digging. I'm not saying coal miners don't have their expertise and maybe their salary would go up if no one wanted to do the job but "in general" you get paid by how hard it is to find someone qualified to do the job.

All these companies are in layoff mode but because they are trying to be frugal during the recession but none of them actually want to layoff that talent, each of which was one of 100 or of 1000 resumes sent to the company. Google gets 3 million applications a year and still has trouble finding people that can do the jobs they're hiring for.

Queue rant about how the interviewing process sucks.

Maybe it does, but of the people I've interviewed only about 1 in 10 is a clear "yes, this person can code well", 2 are "probably ok" and 7 are "based on the performance/style/etc... from the leetcode question I wouldn't let you near my code base..... maybe you'd rock but you didn't show me you'd rock. You made all kinds of basic mistakes that makes it seem like you don't actually code much or you write lots of bugs. Sorry, I was totally routing for you. I would 100% love to hire you but you failed to show me you can code". That's irrespective of if they "solved it".

CEOs general work harder than workers. They're on 24/7. I don't think I'd ever want to be a CEO of a company as big as Google. They have to deal with 100s of teams as well as 100s of outside companies, governments, etc, all over the world. I really doubt they have it "easy"

Just off the cuff guessing but 12000 people cost $1.2 to $4.8 billon a year

Google has 180k people, minus 12k = 168k. That means their burn rate is 16.8 to 84 billon a year

I'm speaking out of my ass because I don't know the average salary and overhead of a google employee but the low numbers assume $100k a year no zero overhead.

Please check my math

12000 * $100k = 1.2 billon

168k * $100k = 16.8 billon

tagging is 99.9999% a bad thing. I challenge you to walk down Mission St in san francisco and find a single instance of Bansky level commentary. Also, I don't define what Bansky does as tagging. Tagging is basically writing your name/nickname/logo or just writing something meaningless like "fuck the man".

That is not to say I think Bansky's property destruction is ok. I'm happy to see the art, not happy to have someone's property destroyed. I'm really happy when artist get permission (and sponsored) to make street art. Plenty of that in SF.

To anyone that disagrees tell me where you live and I'll be happy to come tag your house and your car and your laptop PC and see if you really find it ok

So they're the ones I need to punch in the face for "pull-to-refresh"? (jk)

Actually though, I absolutely hate that Chrome iOS has pull-to-refresh. I've never in my life wanted to refresh a page by pulling and instead what happens is once or twice a month I'm filling out a form or typing a post and I need to scroll up. I do it instinctively, chrome refreshes, I lose everything I just typed. Thanks Chrome

> You become confident by taking on challenges, repeatedly coming out on top, and providing your brain undeniable evidence you are who you say you are.

It's not enough for many people, including myself