If you're an engineer capable of holding a $440k/year job then you should care where your talent goes and who benefits from it. There are plenty of places that will pay you a good salary where the boss isn't trying to badly play at world domination.
> There are plenty of places that will pay you a good salary where the boss isn't trying to badly play at world domination.
Ah, yes. Google? Meta? Amazon? Microsoft? Hahaha. You're right, they aren't doing it in the open, and some certainly aren't doing a bad job about it. But they are all playing at world domination.
The competitor would be the efficiency cores on the M-series chips. I don’t know how well they compare though. Apple doesn’t have any skus with only efficiency cores afaik. If they did it would be something like the Apple Watch, but since arm has had big.LITTLE architecture for many years there was no need to have chips with only efficiency cores to achieve efficiency.
This would make for a great blog post: top 10 things that ruined the internet. I nominate generative AI for the version of this post two years from now.
Huh, I think I agree. Not only are the banners slow, obnoxious, have a tendency to being manipulative and are different for every website, a web developer can easily ignore the user's choice and track them anyway. Apple made a big leap with the “ask app not to track” and I think browsers should have this as well. If only to get rid of those infernal banners.
I've been in Europe for almost 2 months now and started seeing the GDPR banners a lot more often. I've yet to feel like I'm missing anything by either clicking reject all, or by avoiding the site if I can't reject all non-required cookies in a few clicks.
Our brains are subject to very different design constraints. Wheels are very efficient, but nature doesn't use them because the environment and the exigencies of biological reproduction and repair indicate other strategies.
Interesting analogy, and I see your point.
What I'm trying to say is, we know that there's way to perform certain computations that's orders of magnitude more efficient than we've ever achieved. We have a working example of it. And yet, we choose to develop a wholly different technology, from scratch, that's unproven, instead of trying to emulate or understand what already have.
We are far from having a model of how the brain really works.
Furthermore, i know it's a really common analogy but the brain is not really comparable to a computer. The brain is not programmable, it only have a single function which is "given x input, what output is more likely to keep the organism alive and well". It's a complex task, for sure.
But that's not a computer.
A computer is a machine on which you can run arbitrary programs. I can't plug some wires in your brain and program it to do what I want. It's not that the sockets for my wires are missing, it's just that the physical structure doesn't allow generic computing. If you really wanted to make an analogy, you could say that the brain is an electric circuit. You cannot program an electric circuit. It does what it's wired to do. You can't say that your electrical circuit is faster than a computer. It makes no sense.
So it's a false assumption to say that brains are faster than computers because it's just something that you cannot compare.
But that is not true, is it? You take a person and train him/her the right way and you will get a fighter pilot, or an equestrian or a poet. The difference between your fingers and the fingers of the finest goldsmith or cellist is thousands of hours of practice. And that didn't change their fingers, it reprogrammed their brain.
So yeah, you can't upload a new program to it with a USB port, but it definitely can be programmed.
Training is feeding the "complex electrical circuit" some input data, repeating it as nauseam in hope that somehow, the machine manages to store and interpret enough of this knowledge to do something with it.
Programming is just throwing data somewhere into some memory and instructing the processor to interpret this data as instructions to follow.
There is no such thing as a processor in the brain that somehow would read some memory somewhere and execute a set of actions.
It’s just « eyes see cake. I know that grabbing it and eating it releases dopamine so I’ll send the required signals to get this into mouth » it’s not ./eat_cake -f --ignore-consequences
I doubt that computers would be as useful as they are if some coach had to train brain-based computers what is Excel and how it should work.
This feels a little bit like a rhetorical trick. You're right that there is _something_ similar about training a person and programming a computer, but I'd hardly call the two things directly analogous. It strains the definition of the word train to say you trained a computer with a python script and it strains the definition of the word programmed to say you programmed a person to play the cello.
Tech people see everything as essentially similar to tech, but its come to be my understanding that biological systems are a fundamentally different kind of thing than technological ones.
Came here to say this. I also don't understand why "secret chats" can't be kept in the cloud. Why can't they store encrypted messages and give them to me to decrypt when I want to?
Good point. I did not consider people relocating for the job. In that case, I would want to try the person out before actually hiring her. If that's not possible, then obviously I wouldn't recommend ruining someone's life logistically for the sake of getting a better hire.
My main point was that after a week you'll probably either get along with an employee or not get along with them. In my experience, if you don't get along with someone, it usually does not get better over time.
Instead of firing the person, you could make every effort to find a situation for the person that's a better fit for him/her. Almost all people can add value in some way. If they can't, you probably wouldn't have hired them in the first place.
TBH, I've never been fired.
I have fired a handful of people. All of them have been fired after more than a week (in some case, much more). I believe that all of them could have been fired earlier, saving both us and them a lot of time and trouble.
I know this is a black-and-white type of argument, and in real life things are obviously more complicated.
Or maybe some of them could have been mentored away from the problems they had? Or maybe someone could have done a better job not hiring them in the first place and not starting a relationship?
I don't agree so much with the implication of "VC meetings aren't job interviews, they're relationships." Jobs are relationships, too. In fact, your employees are often sacrificing more than your investors to be with you. For your investors, it's just money, and they have enough or they wouldn't be risking it in investments. For your employees, it's their livelihood, health insurance (in the US), families, and 8+ hours out of every day--time which is key when in your life, time is really all you ultimately have.
In other words, don't be so non chalant about employees. They're people too.
I couldn't agree more. I would never want to work for someone who is able to fire anyone after only a week for whatever reason (assuming he does good screening of candidates, otherwise the problem is his broken hiring process and I don't want to work for him in that case either).
