I admit I'm trying to be a little provocative here. But to be clear, that's not what the tool is arguing. It doesn't say companies should do what you are saying. It takes a big abstract number and puts it on a per-person scale so you can actually feel the size of it. I don't know how much profit should go to buybacks an dividends and workers, but we need the numbers to have the discussion.

"$22 billion in profit" means nothing to most people. "$10,000 per employee" does. That's it. The tool is a framing device, not a policy proposal.

What you do with that number is up to you. Maybe you think the current split is fair. Maybe you think you should ask for a raise. Maybe you just find it interesting. All fine.

Yeah, I read TFA, and my eyes were rolling the whole time. Some people really have a bee in their bonnet that "cat" is named that way because it was originally for concatenating files. Nobody fucking cares. It's the standard way for writing a file to standard out, and the general pattern of "cat file.txt | somecommand | othercommand | anothercommand" is so useful because it follows the pipeline pattern so well - read from standard in, write to standard out - that is the cornerstone of Unix shell commands IMO.

"Oh no, it spawns another process!!" Again, nobody cares.

The simpler and better way to write your pipeline is:

"< file.txt somecommand | othercommand | anothercommand"

There is never any need for "cat".

When such a pipeline is used repeatedly in a script, the time for executing the redundant process "cat" can easily add up to a noticeable delay.

That’s neither simpler, nor better.

> "cat" can easily add up to a noticeable delay.

If you have a slow script, you will have more useful places to optimize than removing calls to cat.

Not to mention text messages to existing Apple employees saying he could still access Apple servers after being term'ed and bragging about it "lol"!

I think the other thing folks underestimate is how important Jobs was as an editor for Ive's designs. Ive always leaned more to form over function IMO, and Jobs (or the Apple environment in general as it existed under Jobs) helped temper that. I don't think the butterfly keyboard would have seen the light of day under Jobs, and the released Ferrari interior doesn't seem like a stroke of genius to me. Easy to say from the peanut gallery I know, but I still think Jobs was best able to harness Ive's greatness.

Ive has potential that needs to be steered, and if Altman has shown one thing it's that he can't direct this employees.

The entire thing was cringeworthy to the core. I kind of enjoyed it though because it perfectly epitomized "AI slop" in the first 30 seconds so wonderfully. "Michelle Pfeiffer, that white gold" - show a blonde woman in a gold sequined top! "Livin' it up in the city" - show a shot of a big city!

If anything, the absurd literalism of the video contrasted so perfectly with the (IMO) brilliant clever originality of the lyrics. E.g. "Michelle Pfeiffer, that white gold" is actually a not-so-subtle reference to cocaine. Imagine if the lyrics were as stupidly unoriginal as the video ("Now we're all snorting cocaine!!").

Do you have examples? Because besides the other reasons mentioned about huge earning potential and being part of an important moment in history, the not-so-hidden secret is that any management position below C-level and above small team manager is usually extremely shitty. You are responsible for cat herding but rarely get to make the decisions in the first place. There are very few people IMO who desire or excel at "mid-high level" management positions (again, levels from director to anything below CTO) - I've seen people who enjoy and are good at leading small teams, but people at the director level are either there because it's lucrative or with the hope to get to CTO level ASAP, but otherwise it's one of the worst jobs in the "stress to moments of enjoyment" ratio.

So I could imagine tons of people in those roles who would love to be ICs again if there was also a chance at outsized wealth.

This is just dumb clickbait. "Needs" in the title is not correct - some guy just took a picture of the bios screen that says that the computer has a Core i5 and 8G ram. Your average IPad has higher specs than that, and for these "fancy" elevator touch screens it seems like the cheapest option would just to use an existing reasonably spec'ed device. An 8G ram stick is still on the order of 50 bucks - does the author really think that's where the elevator company should be optimizing their spend?

Observational studies can have synthetic controls. The term, as such, doesn’t mean precisely what you think it means.

I understand that. But saying "they had a control" in any case implies an "intervention" group of some sort, whether synthetic or natural, and this is very different from saying "they controlled for other factors", which is what they did in this study.

The study authors aren't even purporting to show a casual relationship (i.e. that improving sleep would necessarily reduce mortality), just that irregular sleep predicts mortality.

Yeah, this type of observational data often falls over when you dig into the details. And yes, they say they adjusted for a number of variables, but even if hypothetically they perfectly adjusted for all possible confounding variables (highly unlikely IMO), it's possible that the causation simply runs in the other direction: poorer quality sleep and variable sleep cycles could just be a symptom of illness or being generally unhealthy, not the root underlying cause.

Nobody doubts all this. What the bond market is saying is that even with all of that, there are plenty of viable scenarios where bond holders aren't paid back.

After all, if you truly believe what you say with conviction, the sensible thing to do would be to buy up as many SpaceX bonds as you can if you think they're so undervalued.