okabat

If you stick with it, I would recommend you spend a lot more time talking to customers, thinking about distribution channels, and getting creative with narrowing your target audience. And build after, not before, you do those things

Formatting is hard to read, and too many details on specific technologies. Focus more on impact (results) and leadership. “Pushed to AWS weekly” and “wrote unit tests” lines in particular aren’t helping you look like a senior candidate. Did you iterate on the overall process for deploys? Teach others how to do it? Help set standards and norms around testing and quality? Reach for those stories if you have

How are roles/employees mapped to the seniority level which corresponds to the 45/95 percentile bounds? Is this a sliding scale or a binary distinction?

Growth rate is an output metric. I would recommend de-emphasizing the output by revisiting infrequently and stopping comparisons with others, in favor of concentrating on the inputs. The poster you respond to has a very good set of things to look for. What’s holding you back from making progress on one of those? How fast are you building trust with individuals you work with and how can you accelerate that (think about specific relationships to make it less abstract)?

Cool concept, matches how I want to play Mindsweeper (though others are pointing out some interesting parts of the game that this approach removes).

Played through it once and was confused by why a bomb exploded. Can somebody help me interpret? I'm especially having trouble figuring out what the dashes are in this end-of-game explainer text. Take the space diagonally top-right from the one flagged bomb (the asterix). This had a visible "1" on the board, but is marked as a dash here.

Made a mine because the user clicked it when there was a safe space at 6, 2. Can't be a mine because

  011--1?????????
  12*101?????????
  ??2211?????????
  ???????????????
  [6 rows clipped]
  + 29 mines left to find becomes

  011--1-????????
  12*101-????????
  ??2211*????????
  ????---????????
  [6 rows clipped]
  + 28 mines left to find)

Training as a separate activity from normal work activities is not my mental model, and I expect many others. Rather, training should be interwoven in all of the daily activities that allow people with more or differentiated experience to share what they know with the others around them.

Code review is training. Do you consider training one of the primary purposes of code review? In my experience, different teams are highly variable on this. But avoiding bike shedding, explaining context and knowledge without dictating direction, and asking good questions shares knowledge and makes everyone improve.

Postmortems are training. Learning what went wrong and what could be done better next time is close to the definition of training.

Performance / peer reviews (when done well - a rarity) are training - they are a time to step back and think at a higher level about where there's room for improvement and what to concentrate on. Andy Grove explicitly talks about performance reviews as training: "giving reviews is the single most important form of task-relevant feedback"

If your definition of training only includes classrooms, learning budgets, conferences, etc than I encourage you to broaden your view as to what constitutes training. If these venues help you learn, then I hope your organization supports you access them. But don't mistake their absence or their low prominence for a lack of training with an organization

As a SAML service provider, what's the easiest way to tell if my implementation has this problem?

I'm guessing I should: 1) Go into my Okta dev account, create a 2nd "okta app" (SP instance) pointing at my hosted application, which should create a new entity ID 2) Start an IDP-initiated login attempt from this 2nd okta app, and verify I get an audience mismatch error

Slack is great at managing "read/unread" state across my 4 devices even in messy mobile networking situations. Good threading tools allow conversations to remain sandboxed and not gum up entire channels. Do these improvements justify the valuation? Maybe not, especially given how many other comms apps have a similar feature set. But for the vast majority of realtime modern workplace communication use-cases, IRC or a bulletin board will not cut it

The fastest way to make progress on these business questions is often to build hacky MVPs that look like they're doing something smart, but behind the scenes are powered by humans or dead-simple algorithms, and get them in front of customers ASAP.

I recently joined a seed-stage startup solving a business problem via audio analysis in the manner I described above. I'm not spending much time doing ML yet, but I'm banking on my belief that we're solving a valuable problem (customers want to buy our hacky MVP) and that ML can and will be needed to scale our solution. By deeply understanding the customer as a first step, I think the ML systems we build will be business critical and enduring. Time will tell

I think their point is that when changing engine output is labor-intensive, it made perfect sense to have an officer giving orders and somebody else implementing them. Why the command structure hasn't shifted to accommodate modern technology is an interesting question

You pay the operational burden of keeping your computer networked 24/7, and likely receive cents in exchange.

I see nothing of the sort in his original document. Could you add some quotes to back up your claim?

I don't agree with what Coinbase did, but that's because not all forks are equivalent. Hashing power (necessary for transactions to clear) and trading price are not fuzzy and make a fork legitimate. It's only because BCC has both (at least so far) that I'd argue Coinbase has an obligation to disburse BCC to holders of BTC at the time of the fork.