I 100% notice when ppl are slacking - especially at the levels you mentioned. I'm a team lead - it's to much of a pain in the ass to fire people so it's easier to just keep them and give them the minimal salary increase possible. If someone is from a protected class 100% forget about firing them but I realize not all companies are like mine but I suspect a lot are.
Are you sure you notice? I don't think there's any way to tell how long a coding problem really took to solve, unless you're literally standing behind them the whole time. The same bug can sometimes be super fast to fix, sometimes take ages, depending on the ideas I have while tracking it down. No one apart from me can say if I really was as fast as I could've been.
It’s pretty easy to tell. One mid level dev on my team will work on a trivial change to a PR for a full day when it would take me literally 15-30 minutes. Trivial stuff like changing a few names and adding a basic test case. It’s kind of annoying to make multiple deploys of useful things per day and then get given more work when other people can maybe get a small thing out every few weeks. I’m trying to scale my effort back since it’s not really noticed
Do you give feedback to these employees? Because if you work 10 hours a week and yet every review the feedback is "good" with no indication of any need for improvement I don't see why they should try doing more.
People have an equally hard time realizing that there is very little genuinely 'new' under the Sun, and today's 'wizbang' was yesterday's 'vozalm' with a superficial change to it.
I've never read Shakespeare but so I'm curious to hear what you think makes it outstanding? I've tried reading a bit before but I was weighed down by words and phrases that we no longer use and found myself losing the meaning.
> I was weighed down by words and phrases that we no longer use and found myself losing the meaning.
I have the same problem. I found a used physical copy of "No Fear Shakespeare - Macbeth" to be very helpful. On the left page is the original text, on the right page is are notes and a translation. I was able to get through the book and understand it.
The language takes some getting used to. Watching a performance is easier than reading it, since (again) you have the context of the actor's physical performance, delivery, the setting of the scene, et c., to inform your understanding. Another thing is that often his plays rely on some historical understanding for full effect. For example, most people reading the beginning of Hamlet might not fully grasp what's going on, while someone with a good understanding of feudal politics (or anyone who's played much Crusader Kings) will be going "oh shit, this is really bad". This is where something like Asimov's guide to Shakespeare, or any number of free online lectures about the plays, can be helpful.
As for what's great:
1) Masterful plotting, leaving just enough up to the audience to figure out (and, more often than not, leveraging that for ironic purposes).
2) Outstanding characterization.
3) A hard-to-pin-down quality that makes relating episodes, characters, and exchanges in his plays to real life the most natural thing in the world. There's a reason we've ended up with so many of his characters and phrases as parts of the English language itself.
Nah, any technique that gets people thinking about root cause analysis is worthwhile, but like most lean techniques they require a level of psychological safety in the organization to be effectively used.
Exactly. No methodology can overcome a low enough baseline of trust. Over time, cynicism gets equally distributed and the justification for literally any process or technique becomes vapid corporate kool-aid. You're just left with thinly-disguised attempts to assert power met with toxic resentfulness.
The way I see it, there's a spectrum of trust that goes from one extreme where almost no process works well, and the other extreme where almost any process works well.
So there's the easy discussion of how your technique is supposed to work, and then the hard discussion of how much trust it requires of the people involved.
Fun fact but the gov basically stole gold from ppl b4 in the good ole USA. They made it illegal to hold - if you were caught having gold it was a 10k fine. PPL were forced to go to their banks and sell their gold at a loss.
That article uses the term hoarding but don't be fooled they made holding any relevant amount of gold for investment illegal. You were still allowed to have gold necklaces and the like though
I have heard mixed things about the historical event you're mentioning. I've heard it was a law that wasn't strongly enforced. Of course just having the law in the books probably served its purpose of reducing gold transactions. But that's different than the government actively fining people $10K. Which would be like $200K today by the way.
Also, I'm not sure if it is an apples-to-apples comparison. Back then the main money of the society was associated to gold. There is no such link today. I.e. the value of USD isn't associated to BTC. The government had a existential need to reduce gold transactions. You can argue the government is threatened by crypto etc. but like I said it's not apples-to-apples.
No strongly enforced means it will be selectively enforced. And there are many such opportunities to do so for a government if they need some leverage on certain individuals. And these days, a Jury can be bypassed making Jury nullifications immaterial. Essentially it is government or more like unelected bureaucrats becoming overloads over private individuals.
Yes. Root comment states that government regulation protects wealth by giving examples of several situations in which a government regulation protects wealth. Root-1 comment gives an example of government regulation destroying wealth, by giving a concrete example involving an asset class referenced in root comment.
I would say that the two comments together point towards a complex relationship between governments and the wealth of it’s citizens.
you should spend sometime in special education classrooms in America. You'd be shocked what is considered a disability. You have to realize once you have a documented disability it opens up things like lifelong disability payments.
Imagine you have an E student, 16 years old. You have major anxiety over the thought of supporting them for the remainder of your life as it seems unlikely they'll ever be able to able to hold a job/achieve financial independence. Disability can be your ticket and parents hire what's know in the industry as advocates who you guessed it advocate for their student to be labeled and receive support for having a disability. I can tell you it's a surefire way to ensure your child receives passing grades w/ out doing anything at all b/c you can relabel the lack of effort as due to their disability.
It's akin to drug addicts learning the in's and out's of the hospital system to receive pain medications. Pain has a lot of wiggle room and ppl will milk it just they like do disabilities.
I just looked it up and the number of kids on disability started to skyrocket in the early 90s. In 1980 there were about 260k kids on disability. By 1990, there was ~300k kids on disability. In 2000 there was nearly 900k.
> Let's imagine that happens. Jahleel starts doing better in school, overcomes some of his disabilities. He doesn't need the disability program anymore. That would seem to be great for everyone, except for one thing: It would threaten his family's livelihood. Jahleel's family primarily survives off the monthly $700 check they get for his disability.
You should read the rebuttals to the NPR piece which I think is one of the worst reports NPR has ever done. The journalist should have done better research. This was something I would expect out of a conservative think tank and completely missed the boat.
I mean yea - another way to look at is if you're making $700 per month doing nothing you'd need make at least $701 to even consider from a pure economic perspective - realistically more like $1000+ to be motivated enough to go to work.
So many will write that off but then you have the a ha moment of what if I do work under the table so that's what you do - best of both worlds free money and extra cash. Problem obviously is a lot of ppl choose illegal options especially considering how profitable they are.
> Imagine you have an E student, 16 years old ... it seems unlikely they'll ever be able to able to hold a job/achieve financial independence.
I'm confused; that sounds like a disability to me. If someone loses the genetic lottery and can't hold a job or achieve financial independence then that does seem like a pretty good use of disability funds. What is the alternative?
You have no idea what you are talking about and frankly your understanding of special education and people with disabilities is obscene.
Schools aren't necessarily even the best place to get that help and that's a big problem despite the provisions of the IDEA or your local state laws and programs.
I fail to see what good it is to own a mansion and have a bunch of toys if you live in a dangerous area where you have to put up a gate, have armed guards and in general worry about someone knocking you over the head and stealing your shit. Being the richest person in the ghetto is like being tallest midget - who cares.
Have you personally tried moving from a stable, developed country to somewhere with much lower cost of living?
I lived for some years in a "good" suburb of a pretty well-known third-world city. Everyone had security bars on the windows and razor wire (or similar) atop their walls. Many of our neighbours employed round-the-clock armed guards.
I personally witnessed a police-vs-robbers shootout (leaving at least one dead on the ground) from my office window. For a while, carrying a pillion passenger on a motorcycle was banned because it was such a popular way to do drive-by shootings.
The majority of the expatriate community I knew there had personally experienced violent crime of some form (armed break-ins, hold-ups, car-jacking, etc). So had some of my local friends, of course, though many of them were much less well-off and therefore less of a target (you can't snatch someone's car at gunpoint if they don't have one).
When disorder and violence is that pervasive in a society, it can be pretty hard to live with.
But many aspects of the cost of living were indeed lower.
Present day Lagos is not that much unlike the Los Angeles of the 1990s or the NYC of the 1970s and 80s.
Problem , of course there'll always be a safer place, by the same token people who live in present day LA or NYC are suicidal considering they could live in Montana or Utah, or Zurich.
