Do you mean that they were dinged if a PR they opened received too many comments? Can you elaborate on how the communication style changed after this? Like they were more willing to seek clarification/discussion?
> Can you elaborate on how the communication style changed after this? Like they were more willing to seek clarification/discussion?
More willing to seek clarification and less likely to try to defend choices with 'This is what the scope of work said'. And also more willing to jump in on colleagues and my own PRs to provide feedback.
Which was also an important part of how to frame the communication "I'm not telling them they are doing their jobs wrong, I am telling them how to do it better to make all the stakeholders happier."
> Do you mean that they were dinged if a PR they opened received too many comments?
It was never explicitly said at first, however the communication was inspired by past work experiences where yes, too many comments on a PR or similar review could get held against you for far longer than was productive or even healthy, and yes it was something the whole team had to deal with (i.e. very much a shared experience amongst colleagues.)
In fact I'd argue that the time I've been at shops where people weren't afraid to give feedback has been about 50-50, while also noting that the shops that had a culture shift where giving feedback became OK and safe for all parties, quickly became more productive.
Cause, the other thing to consider, is that people don't necessarily want to risk causing animosity by jumping into a colleague's PR and pointing out a problem, they don't want to be the guy that makes their colleague "look bad". Which is of course unhealthy, but again by re-framing the context of PR feedback for Taylorist robot management, you get better response from their management as far as buy in.
Exactly. And guess what would happen if 1 million was divided between 100'000 people ? This would mean 10k per person and it's fair to say that at least half would spend (some of) it. Therefore, the velocity has increased.
A person having 200 billion is not spending a big percentage of their wealth nor using it. Yes it's not cash but it doesn't mean it's unusable.
I'm not against the ability to be rich; I'm against the ability to be that rich. The system isn't made to have such wealthy people. My country is one of the rare ones that has wealth tax and you just have to see where the progressive tax rate stops to see what I mean.
This would probably get me sent to an American prison.
>A person having 200 billion is not spending a big percentage of their wealth nor using it
How is it not being used? Walk me step by step where you think this money 'is'. It really seems like you're not understanding here, or maybe i'm just not understanding, so please go slow, explain EXACTLY where you think the money is and why it's not being used like you say.
If I have the equivalent of $100B in shares and keep them for a very long time, the $100B exchanged hands about 0 times. Therefore, the vast majority of the wealth did not move one bit (literally).
I don't know how you imagine that billionaires use their money but I think we have very different ideas.
JFC do you not know how the modern banking system works? Do you understand how market caps are calculated??? (surely not, why am I even asking).
Do you not know how the fucking STOCK MARKET works? Why are you having this discussion about things waaaay over your head?
The only "money" that is not moving is the company cash they store in a vault somewhere. If Amazon has 40 million dollars in the bank, it is exchanging hand MANY times. It's being loaned out by the bank. This is fucking basic stuff that's embarrassing for people not to know.
Now onto stocks.
Let me explain really really simply: If I start a company and someone invests 10 million in the company, i'm. using that to hire some engineers and buy some servers, etc. The money is exchanging hands. My 'wealth' is now a billion dollars because I only gave up 1% of the company for that ten million. What money am I hoarding? That billion is literally created from nothing, there was no 'billion' before I took that investment. Do you understand something that basic?
This pretty much matches my preferred workflow for scripting with LLMs: don't ask it to do the task, ask it to write a script that does the task, then validate and execute or refine.
I think that a lot of the assholes behaved that way because they were naturally charismatic and people wanted to be their friends despite their being assholes. They were never socially punished for their behavior because they could turn on the charm at will. In other words, they were assholes because they could afford to be.
That doesn't have anything to do with grammatical gender, it's because of noun declension that that is possible. It's only incidental that nouns of each of the three genders decline differently; case distinctions could still be made even if there was only one gender.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for this or trying to suggest it's a good thing. That's just reality as I see it.
If my site's offline at the same time as the BBC has front page articles about how AWS is down and it's broken half the internet... it makes it _really_ easy for me to avoid blame without actually addressing the problem.
I don't need to deflect blame from my customers. Chances are they've already run into several other broken services today, they've seen news articles about it, and all from third parties. By the time they notice my service is down, they probably won't even bother asking me about it.
I can definitely see this encouraging more centralization, yes.
reply