spicebox

The whole reason that hooks were created was that they could composed, as opposed to stuff like renderprops or mixins. When you create a custom hook that uses a useState and a useEffect, that's composition. They have the caveat that they can only be composed into new hooks, but that's just like async functions only being able to be called from other async functions.

Matt Levine has talked about how this is how PE firms work too. No Harvard MBA wants to work for a midsize manufacturing firm, but they’d kill to work for a PE firm that going to make them work for their PortCo that’s a midsize manufacturer (but they get to say they work for Apollo)

Monads don’t compose, effects do. ‘IO a’ works great until until you need to add another effect, for example ‘Maybe’. Then you need to bring in monad transformers and create your own monad combining the two, then rewrite all your code to lift the effects from one monad to the other. And you have to do this every time you want to add a new effect.

Being able to change the ordering of effects on the fly is a benefit of algebraic-effect systems. As you mentioned `State<S, Result<E, T>>` and `Result<E, State<S, T>>`have very different effects. Algebraic-effects let you switch between the two behaviors when you run the effects, whereas with monad transformers you have to refactor all your code to use `State<S, Result<E, T>>` instead of `Result<E, State<S, T>>` or vice-versa

“They will still be able to bring their own alcohol to drink at the bars … The current alcohol ration allows Antarctic workers to buy up to the equivalent of 18 beers each week, or three bottles of wine, or a 750 milliliter (25 ounce) bottle of spirits.“ It seems like they’ll still be able to get plenty of alcohol

It’s not JavaScript, it looks like JavaScript but it works differently

It’s not espionage, it’s an expert network!

In defense of consulting the “sales pitch” on consulting is that the people on top, the partners and managers, have the industry experience to guide the more junior employees who don’t have experience but have good analytical skills. How true that is is up to interpretation but that’s the steel man version

Like most good satire it’s based on reality

As someone with firsthand experience at a “top” consulting firm this article is pretty accurate, albeit with a definite negative slant. A couple parts that really ring true for me are:

> The work will mostly be done by clever but pimply 20-somethings, armed with two-by-two matrix frameworks … What they lack in wisdom will be made up for in long hours.

The structure of consulting firms is that a partner (who does actually have a lot of experience with the industry) will “sell” the work to the client and oversee the team that actually does the work. Partners will sell multiple cases at a time and most of time is spent doing sales so most of the work is done by the consulting team with some guidance from the partner. The consulting team will be comprised of a couple of consultants 1-3 years out of undergrad and couple of consultants 1-3 years out of their MBA and a manager who has maybe 5 years of consulting experience. Usually none of them will have any specific domain knowledge.

> Question everything

Since most of the work is done by (nearly) fresh grads they won’t have a lot of specific industry experience. At the same time it’s hard to find information on the obscure topics they’re researching so the actual information they find will be iffy. Sometimes it will even be made up (they’ll tell the client it’s based on “industry experience” or something but it was probably invented by 23 year old in excel). Regardless the information will be presented to the client as rock solid and scientific (with maybe a little disclaimer at the bottom)

In short: The people you’re talking to aren’t the people who are doing the actual work, The people who are doing the work have no industry experience And the numbers they’re basing their analysis on are probably whatever they found on google.

I know this comment sounds really critical but I do think there is some value in consultants and they are really good at structuring out a problem but the analysis they do is probably 75% accurate at best

Neither Accenture nor McKinsey are Big 4. The Big 4 are PwC, EY, KPMG, and Deloitte. Despite what the name suggests they aren’t actually the top consulting firms (the name comes mostly from their accounting work.The three consulting firms, at least in terms of cost/prestige, are McKinsey, BCG, and Bain (MBB for short).

The issue is that lobbying has two different meanings. The literal meaning is trying to influence politicians but the common usage refers to when companies and special interest groups spend hundreds of millions of dollars on donations and advertising to get politicians to pass laws that benefit them. The first meaning, which is what you’re talking about, is fine. But the second meaning, which is what people mean when they talk about banning lobbying, is the opposite of democracy.

> There is no good democratic outcome for $175K a year jobs that cost half a billion dollars to apply for.

I would argue that this is a reason to reform our electoral system rather than just resign ourselves to a corrupt system. If it didn’t cost half a billion dollars to become a politician and the pay better reflected the job responsibilities (along with other reforms) we’d probably see less corruption

> Generally industries are much better than random politicians at predicting the consequences of rules

This is true but when people are talking about restricting lobbying the kind of lobbying they want to restrict isn’t companies saying “hey this policy isn’t good for us”. It’s companies spending millions of dollars on donations and advertising to force politicians to make laws that benefit them. It’s possible to restrict the second kind without impacting the first kind, for example by implementing spending limits.