relix

I read worryingly little (no?) counter to the sentiment expressed by the lyrics as part of your message and the comments here. And the implication that people in other countries wouldn't spend $10MM of government funds to save a family instead of watching them ditch in the water is ridiculous.

- "The World" has jumped in to help Americans often. It's just that USA, due to their advantageous geographical position, never being bombed to bits, and having economic and military absolute supremacy, hasn't often been in a position of need where other countries can help out significantly.

- An example of where the world has helped significantly: Post 9/11 wars

- A recent example of when the world has helped: Californian wild fires

- And separately from that, of those "five thousand times" where the USA has helped other people in trouble, I guarantee a lot of those actually had considerable benefits for USA, meaning it wasn't a charity thing but the USA got something they wanted out of it, as well. Which is fine but let's not kid ourselves about those motives.

Just opening Wikipedia on the San Francisco earthquake, under the heading "Relief" it gives some indication of the international support given:

> During the first few days after news of the disaster reached the rest of the world, relief efforts reached over $5,000,000, equivalent to $169,560,000 in 2023. London raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individual citizens and businesses donated large sums of money for the relief effort: Standard Oil and Andrew Carnegie each gave $100,000; the Dominion of Canada made a special appropriation of $100,000; and even the Bank of Canada in Ottawa gave $25,000.

And if we're allowed to go back as far as the San Francisco earthquake to "judge" the world, maybe we can extend that just a little further towards independence, where France provided significant support to the fledgling nation.

"The Americans", is frankly, ridiculous, and anyone subscribing to the sentiments within betrays the same (and wrong) isolationist understanding of the world as they ironically indeed blame others to have.

Turboprops are awesome and underrated. They have some advantages over jet engines such as faster response times (they can angle the blades instead of having to rev up RPMs), easy reversing (no pushback mule needed), and higher efficiency. They fill a niche really well.

I don’t think this makes much sense in the real world. Shit happens and plans change. What if an aircraft needs to do a go-around, do they suddenly face 45m of delay or immediately need to divert, because The Sequence is immutable?

No, they’d move things around a bit. SFO decided that this plane wasn’t going to land there as soon as they asked for ILS, instead of doing their job and making a gap.

Of course. My point is that this exact same situation, at a different company, may have surfaced a Tim that actually should be PIPed because he wasn't doing what he was asked to do, or his contributions weren't as valuable from an objective point of view (but of course all his peers love him taking some load off and them being able to get all the credit), or he was forcing a team dynamic that should be "fixed" because Tim is actually a Brent (from Phoenix Project) that had to have his hand in everything and the team couldn't survive without him, yet it may be difficult to discern these situations from the situation described in the article where Tim (sounds like) he was definitely bringing more value to the team than a replacement would.

Yeah it's a few hypotheticals onwards, and there's probably better ways to surface those problems, but companies are messy and no one is without flaw or 100% competent, no engineer and no manager.

(Note that I'm not saying evaluating a person based on delivering story points is optimal, or even useful)

I agree that firing people based on delivered story points is probably wrong. I disagree that measuring the amount of story points someone delivers has no benefits. In this case, it surfaced a very interesting dynamic in a team that apparently the company wasn't aware of, and now that it is surfaced, it can align that team better to the goals of the company. I would really wonder, for instance, how Tim was evaluated on performance, if the expectations of him didn't align with the role he was doing.

I think the part in the article where a manager wanted to fire Tim because he delivered 0 story points, and the teamlead (?) refused, is made up for dramatic effect. I can't imagine any manager seeing those type of results and instead of asking the teamlead what's going on there, jumping to the conclusion that Tim should be fired.

As a manager in technology I'm starting to really detest stories like this, because they are often bandied around by IC's with a very narrow view or opinion of why it's bad to do new change X or Y "because here is a story", which on the surface may be similar to what happened here but is in fact a good idea. In reality things are always so much more nuanced, or require much more context to judge, than what people naively think.

In this particular case, I can think of a few reasons why the original scenario that this team was in would still be considered "bad". For example, maybe Tim received tasks to do and he didn't do them, now the company is behind on things. Maybe the other people are not as good as their job as they should be, but because of Tim's interference that's being hidden. Maybe the expectation is that the other people are as good as Tim, so why are they not helping each other out as much as Tim is? Should Tim get a promotion, or are the other people performing badly compared to their position and salary? Maybe the tasks that Tim was supposed to do are more important than the ones he's helping others with. Maybe the company didn't budget this much investment (2 people) for a specific thing that needs doing, and as there's just so much engineering time going around, what other tasks are now receiving less time than budgetted?

There's so many ways where this story may fall apart in a real context. Obviously, something has to change (expectations, budgetting, salaries, job levels, etc...) to align reality with the direction that the company wants to go into, and that change is not necessarily (limited to) "keep Tim around and have him help everyone out and everyone will be OK and this is the optimal scenario and management bad".

The implication also being that "evaluating people on story points is bad", but that completely disregards the fact that doing this has surfaced an issue in the department that needs resolving (and before I get pitchforks thrown at me - that issue may very well be that Tim needs a change of job title and a promotion) - but obviously expectations and reality didn't align beforehand, and the story point metric surfaced it and allows for resolving it. In that sense, the story point thing yielded benefits that otherwise wouldn't have been had.

No, that's not the thing, they are already a business. They sell three tiers of the app, one of which is a subscription. The current price of the subscription is $13/year.

> Additionally the outrage, as far as I am aware, has less to do with Reddit needing to make money rather it's way of going about making money is killing the user experience which kills the point of the website.

It's not killing the user experience, it's making the nice user experience "just" more expensive, which I covered in my first comment.

I personally don’t understand the outrage. Reddit obviously has costs, and if it wants to make a profit it should not subsidise third party apps that cost double - both no revenue and no ad views.

The cost of 0,00024 per request seems reasonable, and according to Apollo’s creator the cost per app user would be just 2,5 a month. Keep in mind that currently this app probably has no incentive to go light on the requests, so with some tinkering the creator could probably get that down. Maybe some proxy caching or what not.

Of course free is going away, but paying users at say 5/mo or 50/yr should still work for Apollo.

It’s 0,00024 per request

This is a very naive, simplified, and wrong take on a generally well accepted concept.

Point 1: increased demand for stocks will increase the price of it and thus the market cap. Point 2: the higher the market cap of a company the more capital it has available.

I often encounter the opposite. I would have a complex problem that I can legitimately solve by something reasonably simple yet I don’t posses the expertise on. Asking how to do Y, I need to spend an godawful amount of time wasting to convince people that no, it really is not an XY problem, and could we just focus on the literal problem description, which you could answer in like 3 minutes, instead of you trying to score points by being able to claim it’s an XY problem.

This is because I was not up front about all of the context of course, but to fully explain the context and constraints that I’m working in, which I have already synthesised into my original question, would take two days due to complexity of the problem.

Let’s just get on with the problem solving instead of playing the meta game.

(I understand that knowing more context might be necessary to answer the question. I am referring to situations where that is not the case)

The extensive lack of database consideration in many decisions is indeed concerning, and obviously integrity checks should be standard and default.