Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
I agree it's not a zero-sum game. I wasn't claiming it was. I only claim the distribution of the wealth is now so egregious that a violent revolution to seize back a fair share is warranted for the underclass.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
OWS. There has been violence already... it just hasn't quite boiled over yet.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
There's nothing wrong with a wealth tax. In fact, every so often one becomes vitally necessary because the few have accumulated so much wealth that the many can no longer live reasonable lives. This tax is sometimes known as 'violent revolution'.
The wealthy, were they wise, would get behind a wealth tax now, rather than deal with the alternative that is not far off.
Facebook is selling advertising. They are building more and more infrastructure around allowing users to share/find relevant sites. That business eats directly into Google's search business. If Google can't see that train coming, they are in trouble. And the evidence I saw suggested they are soon to be blindsided.
It doesn't matter to the courts if the patent expires during the course of the case. The damages, if legitimate, were done during the period the patent was active. He just won't accrue any additional damage once the patent expires.
No one needs to search. They need to find. Facebook is enabling finding without search, and the more they do it, the more they will cannibalize Google's core business.
Pfft. Porcelain. There's no future in that. Only pewter unicorns are worth collecting. I have a couple hundred now, and in a few years time they'll be worth millions.
I've interviewed with 10 different people at Google. I asked every one what they thought google would do when facebook took over the search space because people wanted to go to the sites their friends recommended rather than search for pages. No one had an answer. Their other current services are so much smaller, the company is going to have to go through radical downsizing if they can't come up with an answer to this.
Yes, pretty much everyone goes for lunch around noon, so the disruption is minimal, and most people plan for lunch around this time since it is compatible with the meeting. But it's in no way mandated (lunch that is). I know in another part of the organization they have a group that reliably comes in about the same time, so they schedule it before the day gets started.
Earlier this week it came up at the meeting that in the process of working on Y, he was going to have to replace X, which was expected to take him the rest of the day. But as it happens, work by other developers on Z meant the removal of X entirely. This saved ~ 6 hours for the first developer. The cost side of that meeting is 15 minutes * 8 = 2 hours, so we need only find something of that scale every 3 days to balance. But even if we had to eat the entire cost, saving that frustration would be worth it for long term morale. But the meeting serves other purposes as well:
1) Team feeling... helps to maintain knowledge of how each person's contribution fits into the larger puzzle. 2) Gives opportunity for short term prioritization. I've just finished X, what should I work on next? Group can discuss what will avoid conflict, or enable the rest of the team most effectively. 3) Makes it obvious when things are going off the rails earlier. Had one of these recently, where a 1-day estimated task had leaked into a third day. The dev on the task was getting mired in unfamiliar code, getting that person the right help solved the problem. There's a personnel issue there, but having the meeting caught it sooner. Last place I was at had a similar issue run a month without correction because that was the frequency at which such things were monitored. 4) Maintains external visibility into progress. This is something of an adjunct to the fundamentals of stand-up (this is more of a stand-up as a factor in agile issue), but this is also when adjustments to status of work items occurs. It serves as a regular time for people to remember to adjust their work items, ensuring it happens daily, which helps to alleviate the risk of issues like #3.
I think I see their point in that last statement. By "undo-ing" this awful thing, they would pretending like it never happened. It's the same justification why the Nazi concentration were never torn down: as a whole, the human race should never forget the immensely awful things that we were capable of in the past. To do so dooms us to repeat it.
That being said, I am all for the pardoning of Alan Turing. He was a great man, cruelly betrayed by his own nation.
I assure you humans are still capable of these things in the present, and in fact still doing them around the world. Including, for example, keeping slaves in your country.
There's going to be a range of responses. Some will completely discount online learning, possibly even round-filing your resume for taking such a stupid course of action. Others will see a self-improvement motivated self-starter and salivate at the thought of hiring you.
While your second claim is fine, the parallel in your first is not. A hypothesis is a thing we wish to discover the truth of. An axiom is a thing we accept on faith before investigating the 'truth' of other things. If mathematicians want to be taken seriously, they need to acknowledge that they are no better than religious philosophers debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin based on the truth of the bible.
Because maintaining that awareness on a constant basis would be extremely costly. Like many software developers, there is a significant contingent that requires focus time to be able to work effectively. They can't (and I couldn't) do both at the same time, and I've met very very few who could. I'd love to be able to hire 200 of those, but we've hired the 3 out of the last thousand interviews who could, and that's just not enough manpower to build systems on the scale we work with.
I would agree that standup would not work well for a person with a non-obvious disability with an environment with people who would mistreat you for having one. There are many tools you can't use if you have bad employees. But when you have good ones, they can be very effective.
I don't agree that's fundamentally impossible. We have a 100% success rate over the last 7 years in not hiring any assholes. That's in a couple of hundred hires.
Standups are typically a part of agile/scrum. The intention is to increase team situational awareness, check in to make sure that everyone is working on the right short term objectives, no one is blocked, and avoid collisions. Done right, it can definitely work. We've been doing them for ~7 years, and I can say without a doubt they are a net productivity win for us (that is, we save more employee minutes with them than we lose do to having them).
The point of agile is to be productive without ever having good requirements. Take a best guess at what your customers want. Get a little piece of it done. Ask them: is it this? No? Why not? It enables successive approximation to the goal, where the goal is unknown.
It also deals with the issue of changing requirements. Don't spend a year building something, only to find out the requirements have changed. Instead, build a little piece in two weeks. Get that out there. Have the requirements changed? Okay, we lost two weeks (instead of a year), and now we're working on the new right thing. The requirements can change continuously, and yet you'll always be delivering something that someone wanted no more than a short time ago. The likelihood of delivering something useful goes way up.
Indeed, science itself is poorly defined! (Or perhaps, there are just a lot of opinions about what it is.)
I have only a BS level math background, and so I struggle on the issue myself... Math is very different from everything else 'science', almost a category unto itself. If you throw everything else out of the science category for being probability based, why not just call math math (seems more convenient), and put everything else in a new category. Which we could call science for the sake of argument.;-)
As an aside, many have been the days I wished my brain had enough aptitude for math to get to a phd. Math is beautiful, but apparently not destined for me.
The stand-up meeting is typically a part of agile development, which is a tool targeted fairly specifically at teams that do not have access to good requirements. If you have them, that's great. For the rest of us, agile can be a very effective tool. In the world of good requirements, waterfall is king.
Bad meetings are a symptom of poor leadership. Meetings are a tool. As you can use a screwdriver to screw, so can you use it to stab people. Meetings are exactly the same. They can be used effectively, to improve productivity. They can be used ineffectively, and waste productivity. They can be used maliciously, to make people miserable. If you want your organization to succeed to the greatest degree possible, you want to have the maximum number of productivity enhancing meetings you can, and not one more (which practically speaking means you probably aim to come in low rather than high).
Slashdot Mirror
I agree it's not a zero-sum game. I wasn't claiming it was. I only claim the distribution of the wealth is now so egregious that a violent revolution to seize back a fair share is warranted for the underclass.
OWS. There has been violence already ... it just hasn't quite boiled over yet.
There's nothing wrong with a wealth tax. In fact, every so often one becomes vitally necessary because the few have accumulated so much wealth that the many can no longer live reasonable lives. This tax is sometimes known as 'violent revolution'.
The wealthy, were they wise, would get behind a wealth tax now, rather than deal with the alternative that is not far off.
Facebook is selling advertising. They are building more and more infrastructure around allowing users to share/find relevant sites. That business eats directly into Google's search business. If Google can't see that train coming, they are in trouble. And the evidence I saw suggested they are soon to be blindsided.
It doesn't matter to the courts if the patent expires during the course of the case. The damages, if legitimate, were done during the period the patent was active. He just won't accrue any additional damage once the patent expires.
I interviewed on 3 occasions. 4/4/2. Different groups were interested in meeting me because I have a varied background.
No one needs to search. They need to find. Facebook is enabling finding without search, and the more they do it, the more they will cannibalize Google's core business.
Somewhere in that big campus off Charleston Road, there's gotta be someone who asks the question, "Is it right for our users?"
and is listened to.
I'd say the evidence suggests otherwise. (Though I know you meant this as a recommendation rather than a statement of fact). ;-)
Pfft. Porcelain. There's no future in that. Only pewter unicorns are worth collecting. I have a couple hundred now, and in a few years time they'll be worth millions.
Porcelain. LOL.
I've interviewed with 10 different people at Google. I asked every one what they thought google would do when facebook took over the search space because people wanted to go to the sites their friends recommended rather than search for pages. No one had an answer. Their other current services are so much smaller, the company is going to have to go through radical downsizing if they can't come up with an answer to this.
Yes, pretty much everyone goes for lunch around noon, so the disruption is minimal, and most people plan for lunch around this time since it is compatible with the meeting. But it's in no way mandated (lunch that is). I know in another part of the organization they have a group that reliably comes in about the same time, so they schedule it before the day gets started.
Earlier this week it came up at the meeting that in the process of working on Y, he was going to have to replace X, which was expected to take him the rest of the day. But as it happens, work by other developers on Z meant the removal of X entirely. This saved ~ 6 hours for the first developer. The cost side of that meeting is 15 minutes * 8 = 2 hours, so we need only find something of that scale every 3 days to balance. But even if we had to eat the entire cost, saving that frustration would be worth it for long term morale. But the meeting serves other purposes as well:
1) Team feeling ... helps to maintain knowledge of how each person's contribution fits into the larger puzzle.
2) Gives opportunity for short term prioritization. I've just finished X, what should I work on next? Group can discuss what will avoid conflict, or enable the rest of the team most effectively.
3) Makes it obvious when things are going off the rails earlier. Had one of these recently, where a 1-day estimated task had leaked into a third day. The dev on the task was getting mired in unfamiliar code, getting that person the right help solved the problem. There's a personnel issue there, but having the meeting caught it sooner. Last place I was at had a similar issue run a month without correction because that was the frequency at which such things were monitored.
4) Maintains external visibility into progress. This is something of an adjunct to the fundamentals of stand-up (this is more of a stand-up as a factor in agile issue), but this is also when adjustments to status of work items occurs. It serves as a regular time for people to remember to adjust their work items, ensuring it happens daily, which helps to alleviate the risk of issues like #3.
It's not for everyone, but it can work well.
I think I see their point in that last statement. By "undo-ing" this awful thing, they would pretending like it never happened. It's the same justification why the Nazi concentration were never torn down: as a whole, the human race should never forget the immensely awful things that we were capable of in the past. To do so dooms us to repeat it.
That being said, I am all for the pardoning of Alan Turing. He was a great man, cruelly betrayed by his own nation.
I assure you humans are still capable of these things in the present, and in fact still doing them around the world. Including, for example, keeping slaves in your country.
We schedule ours (as you're supposed to) for an existing schedule break (in our case the lead-up to lunch).
There's going to be a range of responses. Some will completely discount online learning, possibly even round-filing your resume for taking such a stupid course of action. Others will see a self-improvement motivated self-starter and salivate at the thought of hiring you.
I suggest you aim to work for the second kind.
While your second claim is fine, the parallel in your first is not.
A hypothesis is a thing we wish to discover the truth of. An axiom is a thing we accept on faith before investigating the 'truth' of other things. If mathematicians want to be taken seriously, they need to acknowledge that they are no better than religious philosophers debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin based on the truth of the bible.
Because maintaining that awareness on a constant basis would be extremely costly. Like many software developers, there is a significant contingent that requires focus time to be able to work effectively. They can't (and I couldn't) do both at the same time, and I've met very very few who could. I'd love to be able to hire 200 of those, but we've hired the 3 out of the last thousand interviews who could, and that's just not enough manpower to build systems on the scale we work with.
I would agree that standup would not work well for a person with a non-obvious disability with an environment with people who would mistreat you for having one. There are many tools you can't use if you have bad employees. But when you have good ones, they can be very effective.
I don't agree that's fundamentally impossible. We have a 100% success rate over the last 7 years in not hiring any assholes. That's in a couple of hundred hires.
Standups are typically a part of agile/scrum. The intention is to increase team situational awareness, check in to make sure that everyone is working on the right short term objectives, no one is blocked, and avoid collisions. Done right, it can definitely work. We've been doing them for ~7 years, and I can say without a doubt they are a net productivity win for us (that is, we save more employee minutes with them than we lose do to having them).
Axioms are unproven, that's what I have against them.
The point of agile is to be productive without ever having good requirements. Take a best guess at what your customers want. Get a little piece of it done. Ask them: is it this? No? Why not? It enables successive approximation to the goal, where the goal is unknown.
It also deals with the issue of changing requirements. Don't spend a year building something, only to find out the requirements have changed. Instead, build a little piece in two weeks. Get that out there. Have the requirements changed? Okay, we lost two weeks (instead of a year), and now we're working on the new right thing. The requirements can change continuously, and yet you'll always be delivering something that someone wanted no more than a short time ago. The likelihood of delivering something useful goes way up.
Indeed, science itself is poorly defined! (Or perhaps, there are just a lot of opinions about what it is.)
I have only a BS level math background, and so I struggle on the issue myself ... Math is very different from everything else 'science', almost a category unto itself. If you throw everything else out of the science category for being probability based, why not just call math math (seems more convenient), and put everything else in a new category. Which we could call science for the sake of argument. ;-)
As an aside, many have been the days I wished my brain had enough aptitude for math to get to a phd. Math is beautiful, but apparently not destined for me.
The stand-up meeting is typically a part of agile development, which is a tool targeted fairly specifically at teams that do not have access to good requirements. If you have them, that's great. For the rest of us, agile can be a very effective tool. In the world of good requirements, waterfall is king.
How would they find out? Are you confident that no one you've hired has ever consulted a lawyer against their previous employer?
Bad meetings are a symptom of poor leadership. Meetings are a tool. As you can use a screwdriver to screw, so can you use it to stab people. Meetings are exactly the same. They can be used effectively, to improve productivity. They can be used ineffectively, and waste productivity. They can be used maliciously, to make people miserable. If you want your organization to succeed to the greatest degree possible, you want to have the maximum number of productivity enhancing meetings you can, and not one more (which practically speaking means you probably aim to come in low rather than high).