I don't understand this comment. The graphic states that this is based on an analysis of over 50,000 engineers from 100s of companies. What are you proposing they control for (and how would they control for it)? The dataset seems large and the correlation they draw is directly between two parameters: their measurement/evaluation of work and work from home vs hybrid vs in office.
You are trying to make up an excuse for why the correlation it exists, but that seems orthogonal to the analysis.
I haven't looked at the study, just the thread, and I'm just pointing out that there is more to work than just raw contributions, at least if we want to treat people like people and not just machines that are meant to just increase the value of a company.
Remote work showing low contributions is a symptom of something else and I don't see this being addressed. Working from home allows a certain subset of engineers to get away with coping with certain org issues... sure they are not working, but that tends to be a problem with leadership and how orgs are structured. If you want to contribute, if you like the job, working from home should have no impact (aside from uncontrollable environment issues, which often are worse in the office).
>> Remote work showing low contributions is a symptom of something else and I don't see this being addressed.
That isn't the purpose of the analysis though. The analysis just provides data that more remote workers contribute nearly zero as compared to those in office.
It seems like you are trying to explain why remote workers underperforming is an organizational problem rather than something that can be put on the workers. Which might be true, but it seems kind of like the "it's always management's fault" argument.
> The analysis just provides data that more remote workers contribute nearly zero as compared to those in office.
Sure, that's fine, and I'm just giving my opinion on how that correlation isn't interesting unless there are more reasons to think it's a cause. The way it's presented seems to put the spotlight on remote work, whether intentional or not. I suspect there isn't as much of a gap if there was a clear delineation between those who like their job and those who don't. Maybe it would still be the same result, it would be more interesting either way.
Because they win with the same tired argument? Maybe the better question is why do plaintiffs keep rehashing the same tired argument that Apple’s control of iOS and the App Store is illegal?
I have always assumed that a focus on stock tickers is the natural result when your primary user base is a group of people hyper focused on “total compensation” and stock grants. The name hackernews is merely a playful reference to the history of the site. Like the name “Patriot Act.”
There is only one correct way to calculate 5/2+3. The order is PEMDAS[0]. You divide before adding. Maybe you are thinking that 5/(2+3) is the same as 5/2+3, which is not the case. Improper math syntax doesn’t mean there are two potential answers, but rather that the person that wrote it did so improperly.
So we agree that there is more than one way to interpret 5/2+3 (a correct and an incorrect way) and therefore that the GP statement below is wrong.
“Which is a question that can be interpreted in only one way. And done only one way.”
The question for calculators is then the same as the question for LLMs: can you trust the calculator? How do you know if it’s correct when you never learned the “correct” way and you’re just blindly believing the tool?
>>How do you know if it’s correct when you never learned the “correct” way and you’re just blindly believing the tool?
This is just splitting hairs. People who use calculators interpret it in only one way. You are making a different and a more broad argument that words/symbols can have various meanings, hence anything can be interpreted in many ways.
While these are fun arguments to be made. They are not relevant to practical use of the calculator or LLMs.
> So we agree that there is more than one way to interpret 5/2+3 (a correct and an incorrect way) and therefore that the GP statement below is wrong.
No. There being "more than one way" to interpret implies the meaning is ambiguous. It's not.
There's not one incorrect way to interpret that math statement, there are infinite incorrect ways to do so. For example, you could interpret as being a poem about cats.
Maybe user means the difference between a simple calculator that does everything as you type it in and one that can figure out the correct order. We used those simpler ones in school when I was young. The new fancy ones were quite something after that :)
>> There was zero chance we'd have landed a house that year without her help
Of course there was zero chance. Real estate agents regularly refuse to show homes to or entertain offers from buyers that are not represented by a real estate agent (unless they’re hoping to represent the buyer too - then they get both commissions!).
“I never would have been able to do business in a monopolized market without doing business with a monopolist.”
First, as noted by lotsofpulp, this isn't accurate: seller agents were always perfectly happy to deal with lone buyers because there's no other agent to share the commission with.
Second, to the extent there is monopolistic behavior that gets in the way (and there definitely is), that's not what I'm talking about. The market that year was completely insane because of the interest rates, and there is no way we could have navigated it ourselves, real estate agent monopoly or no monopoly.
I'm very glad that they've been forced to allow competition, and most real estate agents are horrible and should be avoided. All I'm saying is that in some markets a good real estate agent is absolutely worth their commission.
It was the opposite. Home sellers paid both the home buyer’s agent’s commission and the seller’s agent’s commission, so buyers’ agents would not show houses they wouldn’t earn commission on, and simultaneously, buyers would choose to use an agent because they would not save any money by not using an agent.
Now, I believe since the National Association of Realtors is not allowed to require their selling agents to share their commission with buyers’ agents, that everything is up for negotiation, and home buyers can save money by not using agents.
>> Plenty of us would get fired from our jobs for less.
No we wouldn’t. The contention that “plenty of us” would be fired for going on a fishing trip is farcical on its face and even more laughable when you consider how much is given away in the private sector for “business development” or “marketing” reasons.
We get it. You don’t like the conservative justices. There’s no reason to start making ridiculous statements that make you look like an ideological chicken little. While you’re all over this thread hating on Alito and Thomas, I don’t see you saying much about Kagan and Breyer. Why is that?
> No we wouldn’t. The contention that “plenty of us” would be fired for going on a fishing trip is farcical on its face
If someone did business with our company and I was in any way connected with decisions regarding that, and it turned out they’d spent tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on gifts for me, yeah, I would, even if there was no straight line between the gifts and them later getting what they want, and even if I said I didn’t know, because I should have known. And there are industries with far more scrutiny and stricter rules than the one I’m in. Millions of employees are in the same boat.
These aren’t branded bic pens or a box of doughnuts. C’mon. What’s farcical is pretending this isn’t naked corruption that would get smacked down despite any protestations of “lol it’s fine, trust me” or “oh sorry I didn’t know” from the perpetrators in any other context.
> While you’re all over this thread hating on Alito and Thomas, I don’t see you saying much about Kagan and Breyer. Why is that?
Because the topic has been Alito, and because the known gifts the two you name have received in the last 20 years are under $20,000 combined while Alito’s alone is 10x their combined total(!) and Thomas has received gifts amounting to at least $4m(!!!) in the same time frame. There are two outliers and they both happen to be Republicans, who also have both failed to report really large gifts, not just “whoops I forgot about that $50 lunch”
Let’s absolutely audit the shit out of all of them, I’m entirely on board. Let’s get an investigation right up in these too-powerful-to-touch folks’ finances and see what we find for all of them. Definitely would love to see that. Several of the sub-six-figure gift totals seem too high, too. Drag them all before Congress, subpoena their bank records, by all means, and to all of them, sure.
But what we know now is that two are exceptionally-bad even by lax Supreme Court standards. Maybe more are, too, and I’d say what we know already is enough that they should all have their lives turned upside down to see how far this goes.
>> If someone did business with our company and I was in any way connected with decisions regarding that, and it turned out they’d spent tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on gifts for me, yeah, I would, even if there was no straight line between the gifts and them later getting what they want, and even if I said I didn’t know, because I should have known. And there are industries with far more scrutiny and stricter rules than the one I’m in. Millions of employees are in the same boat.
Nahhh.
>> Because the topic has been Alito
You elsewhere in this comment section: “I'll be upset with liberal justices, too, if evidence turns up that any of them are being bribed on a grand scale by billionaires.”
Y—yes, though? I’m dead certain I’d be out the door over that. It’s a pretty common set of policies and that wouldn’t be considered a grey area, or even in sight of a grey area. I’d need serious company-politics pull to have any hope. Have you worked for large companies? Small ones may not emphasize this as much (the ones I’ve been at didn’t)
> You elsewhere in this comment section: “I'll be upset with liberal justices, too, if evidence turns up that any of them are being bribed on a grand scale by billionaires.”
Yes. Got something you want to bring up? Not sure if the relevance of your quoting me there to any of the rest of this, but if you’re trying to broach that topic, absolutely, show me the reporting.
> Your partisanship is showing.
I’m beginning to think this isn’t exactly a good faith discussion, though.
It depends on the person. Major depressive disorder is an inexplicable depression that is not brought on by the circumstances of your life, I think SSRIs are a suitable treatment for that. I think that it's important to consider all factors of a persons life when deciding whether or not they should be prescribed medication that suppresses ALL emotion, not just negative emotion. Positive constructive therapy to help people better their lives ought to be considered in cases that may not necessarily be a disordered condition (i.e., they have a shitty life and need to be a better person to themself and others to be happy and feel good about themself)
Not to be rude but you're arguing with somebody that works in what I would assume is a highly mathematical space and asserting your opinion on how quickly that highly mathematical space can advance while your own profile admits that you were unable to understand "advanced calculus or group theory" and your own github indicates that you are stuck on "the hard stuff — abelian groups, curls, wedge products, Hessians and Laplacians" because you "don't understand the notation." Your opinion on the speed of advancement just doesn't seem informed?
Maybe this is an old post and your understanding has dramatically improved to the point where you're able to offer useful insight on ML/AI/self-driving?
2. Most ML is basic calculus and basic linear algebra — to the extent that people who don't follow it, use that fact itself as a shallow argument.
3. I'm not asserting how fast it can advance, I'm asserting that the comparison with "6 million years of evolution" is a as much a shallow hand-wave as saying it's trivial, as evidenced by what we've done so far.
The poster claimed to be a ex patent examiner. Most USPTO examiners aren’t lawyers, they’re people with technical degrees and most of them are there because they couldn’t make it in industry right out of school and are trying to bulk up their resume before trying to pivot.
You are trying to make up an excuse for why the correlation it exists, but that seems orthogonal to the analysis.
reply