>Moral of the story: if the interview feels wrong, email them and decline going forward right away. Give yourself the satisfaction of consciously dodging a bullet.
I wished I had known this earlier in my life.
I once interviewed at a healthcare startup ran by the brother of someone very closely related to the current occupant of the White House. This was 3 weeks after I graduated college.
I went through the first round, no problem. 2nd round, it was Halloween, and a nurse dressed up as a cow (spotted makeup and all) comes into the room and asks me to role play a situation where I have to deny life-saving insurance claims to a cancer patient who's been given a life threatening diagnosis.
Halfway through the exercise I asked the interviewer - "so, this is an insurance company, and the insured has been paying premiums for a while, probably 10s of thousands of dollars, and they have what is otherwise effectively a terminal diagnosis...and you're asking me to deny this person their only chance at survival?". I was given the response of "that's how insurance works"
I believe this thinking can be abstracted to software design via AI in general. If you are thoroughly prepared, and keep things simple, it's incredible what help Claude or GPT can be.
I have Claude basically doing all the coding for me for a simple game I am making. However I don't consider this vibe coding. I spent several hours thinking out the design on a piece of paper, playtesting it in person. I came up with a list of potential mechanical issues within the game, and asked Claude to come up with more. It found more issues, and we solved them all together. Once the game was mechanically sound and edgecases were solved for, it built an MVP. I ran the program, and found more bugs. I came up with my own solutions, and Claude did the same, and we figured out which were best to implement. Claude then wrote more code, and raised issues when they came up, and we worked through them together. I'm incredibly happy with how its turned out so far.
It will likely play out exactly like California’s disastrous special $20/hr fast food minimum wage[1]: a near immediate reduction in the number of people employed. They replaced a couple of $20/hr workers that were present taking orders with $3000 kiosks that run for $0.10/hour of electricity. And chains also closed locations whose fiscal viability were already close to the line, since “the line” jumped.
I don’t really blame the drivers for trying, I just think it’s probably not a viable long-term career, unfortunately.
[1] except of course if you’re Panera, coincidentally owned by a Newsom friend/donor. Good ol’ Bake-bread-on-premises exception!
The fast-food worker being replaced by a kiosk is inevitable and not limited to California, but even the kiosk is mostly transitory and destined to be largely replaced by a phone app.
I'm not sure. It may be cheaper for Uber to offload the insurance, depreciation and maintensnce of the vehicles to their human driver/owners, than for Uber to own, lease, and maintain autonomous cars. I haven't seen any analysis of that idea (not that I've looked very hard).
I get my GF pasta from a local italian food importer. the quality of the pasta is out of this world. i've done blind tasting tests with said importer and he couldn't tell the difference between GF and non GF.
there are crappy brands out there for sure and definitely some GF products are bad. some aren't.
>The reason these CEOs go to NYC is because that is where the talent and economic clustering is: if these high-net-worth individuals could get the talent they need to run their firms in Miami and Austin, they would have done so already. They have tried and they have failed up until this point.
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
I am from NYC and live in Miami.
I have seen hedge funds try and fail to bring talent down here, and paying talent through the nose to convince them. It has failed, because 1. local private schools won't let Ken Griffin buy his way to the front of the line; and 2. there's no local talent pipelines to recruit from that come even remotely close to what is found in the Northeast, or in the Bay Area.
UM pales in comparison to the fact that almost every Ivy League school is within a 3 hour drive of NYC, not counting other strong school (NYU, NEASC colleges, MIT, etc). FIU or UF isn't even in the same stratosphere.
Taxes pay for the establishment of a strong educational foundation so that even local public schools can send kids to Ivies or top colleges. Taxes pay to keep that going.
What does it say for mixed-handed folks like myself (different skillsets per hand - in other words, throw and write with different hands)? What about cross-dominance (different body parts differ on dominant side - in other words, a right-handed person being left-foot dominant)?
I've been told that it's effectively a mental illness if discovered during childhood (as is ambidexterity). Yet I can't help but think that it is not a mental illness, but rather something else.
In order to present it as a mental illness there would have to be some kind of negative effect, wouldn't there? These differences you mention don't stand out as harmful or even disadvantageous.
southpaws are more common where at least one parent has schizophrenia. i believe it to be caused by an epigenetic change, where damage to the brain in a parent leads to the parent rewiring their brain to use the opposite hemisphere.
In short, it's hardly an illness, more of an antibody to one.
I'm otherwise a lefty but I use computer mice right handed, because when I first started using a computer in elementary school all of the computer labs were set up right handed.
FWIW, I'm a righty, but relearned to use a mouse left handed for ergo benefits at my first real job; now I left mouse for work and right mouse for home. I prefer ambidextrous mice anyway, but it's really hard to find a left hand mouse if you want that. Even the ambidextrous mice often have thumb buttons for the right thumb. It's not to hard to learn to use a pointer with either hand; IMHO as someone who can't do a lot of complex motion with my non-dominant hand. I think there's a lot of convenience gained by accepting right mousing, although it is a longer reach if you have a keyboard with stuff to the right of your letters.
Weirdly enough, I don't know why I use the mouse right-handed. I was forced into doing it in any particular way, and beside the fact that I was already an adult when I learned of the existence of left-handed mice, I can't think of any reason why I'd naturally gravitate towards right-handed mouse use.
Probably because it didn't happen to you, or kindergarteners don't know better and just play along. I only remember it because I was a little shit and got into a big fight about it. It would have been late 80s.
An elementary school teacher of mine had this happen to her (this was in the early '90s, so her experience I'm guessing would have been in the late '60s).
One day she wrote her name twice on the whiteboard and asked us to identify the difference between the two; visually they were identical, but she wrote one with her left hand and one with her right. She said as a kid she was made to use her right hand when she started showing signs of left-hand dominance.
I didn't know what difference it made and there was one left handed scissors so it went to the kid who knew. I'm left eyed and often wonder if I should have learned to write left handed.
wait, you just gave me an extreme epiphany about my significantly worse right eye myopia. the divergence definitely snowballed from the "use it or lose it" thing and me not wearing my glasses as much as possible
Every study in scientific examination that concept says that for myopia and such things use it or lose it does not apply. Use it or lose it does apply to some things but not that case.
it happened to me, and when my parents found out they flipped out.
i found out about my parents reaction like everyone else,, suddenly there was a bunch of screaming profanity and acoustic violence coming from the principals office
My parents generation is maybe a bit older than you, one of my mom's siblings was forced to right handedness. My mom is left handed and says they tried a little with her, but it only took for some things.
I don't know - my grandmother (father's mom) was fully left handed. My dad writes left handed but everything else right handed.
I am left handed for fine motor skills (writing, fork/knife) but throw righty and play single handed sports with my right (except for table tennis which i can do either hand at a good level). I can play two handed sports (hockey, lacrosse, golf) pretty much with either hand with little issue. Right footed, but can kick with my left pretty confidently.
I'm sorta here too. I'm right handed, no external pressure to use one hand or the other in early age. Mother is a lefty, father is a righty. As a result I often used the computer mouse on either side as a kid, really wherever it was left by the last user.
Learned to shoot a bow as a kid but only learned as an adult I'm left eye dominant, and to take advantage would require re-learning the bow in my left hand(many many strikes on my arm sent be back to a righty). Shooting guns is a similar situation, but I'm a fairly good shot regardless. It definitely makes using sights weird.
I'm semi-ambidextrous too, with enough focus I can somewhat cleanly write with either hand, and I'm generally good with my hands in fine tasks, with only a minor preference to pick up a tool with my right hand.
I wonder how common this is. People seem surprised when I demonstrate my left handed writing.
> I've been told that it's effectively a mental illness if discovered during childhood (as is ambidexterity). Yet I can't help but think that it is not a mental illness, but rather something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness#Types: “Mixed-handedness or cross-dominance is the change of hand preference between different tasks. This is about as widespread as left-handedness.”
⇒ about 20% of the population is not strictly right-handed. That’s not a majority, but I think the word to use for that is “normal”.
Seriously. Instead of using that land to build a $250 million penthouse Ken Griffin only spends 10 days a year in, they could probably build enough housing for 500+ middle class families.
Who will build those homes? Who will pay for them? If it were a lucrative business to build those homes I'd assume someone would be building them but that does not seem to be the case. Why is this?
Upvoting you for a great question! Not everything has to be lucrative amigo. The city could build multifamily housing and finance it through municipal bonds that pay a reasonable rate (tax free, booyakasha).
He's also a non-white immigrant. The amount of brown skinned nutjobs try to cosplay as white so they'll be accepted as "one of the good ones" is too high.
Hey brown or yellow immigrants - the conservatives will gladly accept your vote, but the second you walk away they won't even refer to you by name in conversation, they'll refer you to with every slur in the book. I grew up with some very far-right types who had money...nice to "the help" in person, but soon as earshot is out of range, you hear the n-word like it's as common as the word "the". And just because you're not black, doesn't mean they don't hate you too. I've heard some horrid things said to Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Pakistanis, etc.
Anyone remember the young republicans club at Florida International University scandal? Lots of young male Cuban immigrants (or kids of immigrants) desperate to be seen as white. Problem is, you pull any one of those kids out of Dade county, they'll be called a Mexican and told to go make tacos.
Garry's actions on social media remind me of those kids, albeit someone with a bit more money, and a little less perspective on things.
break up Apple, Meta, MSFT, etc... while we're at it.
Or, keep it simpler - if a company passes a market cap of 1 trillion dollars, they must forgo lobbying and "government relations". if you're worth a trillion dollars or more, you don't need the government to hold your hand.
Unproven, really. I don't think I'd argue that most people think that the individuals in a company (even its CEO) have the right to influence government. But the question is whether the corporation ("are people too, my friend) itself has this right. I'm not clear that most agree with that.
The corporation is the primary structure for individuals to organize - from soul crushing businesses to chess clubs, environmental non-profits, or labor unition.
Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds.
When framed this way, I dont think most people would agree that groups should be prevented from getting their message out.
Are there actually chess clubs that are incorporated?
Coops, unions, guilds, non-profit societies, knitting circles, meetups, etc. are all non-corporations.
> Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds.
Lobbying, and superpacs are not about getting a message out - they are about spending money on ads to buy votes. That’s different from advocating for your hobby or interest.
Not to mention the asymmetry. If 20,000 grain farmers want to lobby about wheat by spending $10 each, that’s different from one man spending the same $200,000k on getting a candidate in. Or millions - e.g. elon, etc last election.
Interesting.i was wrong about unions. You are wrong about co-ops and non-profits, both of which are almost universally Incorporated. So much so that I've never seen a non Incorporated Co-op.
That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech.
How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes? Also where do I go to collect my vote payments? Getting the message out usually cost money. If you like some but not others, is it the content of the messaage you find disagreeable?
> That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech.
Money is not speech.
Speech is free, everybody can speak. Money lets some people amplify their speech proportional to how rich they are. Thus the rich get richer and democracy goes hungry.
> How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes
“Grain is good” getting your message out.
“Vote for jeff, a message from big grain” buying votes
Are you playing dense on purpose here? There are lots of ways forward.
E.g. Spending limits. Each person can spend up to $2000 on political speech. Individually or as part of a group, company, whatever. After that, all you’ve got is your time - go knock on doors.
Sure, $2000 is nothing to a jeff bezos, and too much to someone making $18k/year - but it levels the field so that jeffy, or the nra, or aipac, or oil and gas can’t throw their weight around in the way they do now.
There are other ways, that’d just be a return to how things were pre-citizens united
That seems to contradict you position above where speech is free and money isn't speech.
That said, I think it's a position that someone could take that they'll political speech should be limited when it involves money, provided they are honest about it.
I do think it would give more power to those who owned the megaphones, but maybe that's worth it.
That said, I don't think that pac spending are that big of a problem. The bigger problem is lobbying, aka the sharing of thoughts and ideas with politicians to educate them and inform their positions.
Speech is free, as in part of freedom, so speech should not be regulated by the government.
Spending money to amplify speech is not a right or a freedom, it should be heavily regulated.
> That said, I don't think that pac spending are that big of a problem
Look at aipac, there are only a handful of politicians who don’t take their money (or how every you want to phrase pac money being spent on you “independently”). And yet something like 60% of americans have an unfavorable view of israel. If those politicans taking aipac money take the wrong position on israel, that money disappears, and goes to an opponent of theirs. That’s just lobbying. Pac money is lobbying.
The failure to differentiate different categories of corporation is at the heart of the error that is Citizens United.
Sure, most people would agree that the various kinds of corporations formed for the purpose of doing something other than making money should be able to play a political role.
But I do not believe that most people would agree that corporations formed for the explicit and (generally) sole purpose of making money should have this ability.
Unfortunately for this project, the First Amendment puts the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” alongside freedoms of speech, the press, and religious exercise.
Corporations might be "people" but they aren't citizens. Especially if they participate in shenanigans designed to "minimize" their tax exposure that involve shell corporations in other countries.
The Constitution applies to the People of the United States. Not only citizens, and not only people who haven’t formed certain kinds of voluntary associations (another right protected up front!)
This is being disingenuous. Maybe not deliberately so, but still.
There's a difference between a few people getting together and petitioning the government for redress; versus, a multitrillion dollar corporation (that pays little to no tax, and is the recipient of very generous government contracts) buying its way to the front of the line and whining until it gets its way.
I thought we were talking about free speach? If so, I dont think it is off topic at all. People literally advocate that.
In citizens united, the government’s position was that, under their interpretation of the law, the government had the authority to prohibit a corporation or a non-profit organization of any size from publishing a book or pamphlets if they had political implications.
Where would you draw the line?
what does "buying its way to the front of the line and whining until it gets its way" mean in practice?
It isnt just "hand holding", but legitimate information as well. X law will have y consequences.
I think people seriously missunderstand what lobbying is.
I wished I had known this earlier in my life.
I once interviewed at a healthcare startup ran by the brother of someone very closely related to the current occupant of the White House. This was 3 weeks after I graduated college.
I went through the first round, no problem. 2nd round, it was Halloween, and a nurse dressed up as a cow (spotted makeup and all) comes into the room and asks me to role play a situation where I have to deny life-saving insurance claims to a cancer patient who's been given a life threatening diagnosis.
Halfway through the exercise I asked the interviewer - "so, this is an insurance company, and the insured has been paying premiums for a while, probably 10s of thousands of dollars, and they have what is otherwise effectively a terminal diagnosis...and you're asking me to deny this person their only chance at survival?". I was given the response of "that's how insurance works"
Sad.
reply