https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Facebook,Amazon,Google&track... says higher numbers are better (more senior, more highly paid) at Facebook, so maybe the GGP post is talking about working at Meta, leaving, and then coming back to apply for a less senior role than they'd had previously? It confused me.
I have a strong suspicion that doing pure keyword searches of job descriptions (or resumes, on the employers' side) probably has some pretty hard limits on how well it can work, especially in the presence of participants with incentives to spam.
They leak uninitialized memory contents into the HTML being served; that memory could (and did) contain data from any other traffic that passed through their hands.
So a request sent to Cloudflare customer A's site could return data from Cloudflare customer B, including data that B thought was only being served via https to authenticated users of B.
I'm a long ways from being a VC, but I see one reason they might prefer the larger, higher-burn-rate company. I think one of the hard jobs for a VC-funded startup is growing really fast (to become big enough to be worth-while when the VCs cash out). The company with more head count may have a head-start on that growth (assuming they actually hired the right people). So if you're a VC looking to place a bet on a company becoming huge enough to offset all your other failed bets, a company that's being very cautious about growth might not be what you're looking for.
Also, there's apparently evidence that prior trauma puts you at greater risk of PTSD from subsequent trauma. Which helps explain why different people in more or less the same situation can have very different responses, because of their different experiences earlier in life.
Ugh - we were talking with a group specifically about unconscious biases and while one person was relating how they had unwittingly found out one of their unconscious biases, another person looked on in pity and then declared how proud they were that they were free of bias. Seriously!
I'm reminded of the inevitable "I'm not biased, but I'm going to complain about this because I think it's an attack on me" that comes up whenever anyone on the internet mentions that institutional racism exists.
You do understand the other side's situation right? You are, albeit impersonally, being accused of participating in something monstrous, the institutional subjugation and prejudicial treatment of an entire class of people, and there is literally nothing you can say or do which will demonstrate otherwise since your racist acts are unconscious and unknowable to you.
It's like trying to convince someone that you're not crazy when they already think you are. It doesn't mater, anything you say or do just reinforces their belief.
We all hold biases and prejudices for just about everything from concepts, ideas, products, institutions, and especially one another based on their history, race, creed, social status, clothing, voice, stature, hometown, manner of speaking, educational background, career field, job title, wealth, attractiveness, political beliefs, the list goes could go on for pages. But trying to equate these kinds of biases to being *-ist in any meaningful sense is missing the forest for the trees.
You've clearly made up your mind and preemptively called everybody who disagrees racist. That's not exactly conductive for an insightful conversation.
But I'll bite anyway: historical racism clearly still plays a significant role. Whatever the level of present-day racism, I'm sure we can agree that it's orders of magnitude lower than it was historical. The plight of people of colour today can be attributed to historical widespread institutional racism independently of whether any such racism exists today. Also, your model fails to account for the possibility that racism can exist and be harmful without being widespread, and that people of colour can make bad decisions without that being a "property" of their colour (shaming people for "acting white" strikes me as particular counterproductive).
That's not saying that's the whole explanation (or even that it is the explanation), just that your model ("it's not them and it's not us") is a false dichotomy and generally too limited to be likely to yield a satisfactory answer.
If you don't believe in widespread racism, what is your explanation for why people of color, as a group, keep having a bad time?
Why does it need a different explanation then why many people of the white persuasion keep having a bad time? When you selectively group people together, you will always get an identifiable pattern. But you can't then claim that the pattern is universal, since the pattern was predefined in your selection.
That's a really good question. I guess I want to collect as many explanations as possible. I am interested in making society better, so I want to have thousands and thousands of explanations for every little bit of violence. So I can make decisions that undermine them when I have the chance. If I don't have the explanations its hard to understand what's happening and how to react.
I also collect explanations for why there is so much violence against white people. I think a lot about violence against men lately. But that doesn't stop me from thinking there are some instances of violence that are best explained as violence against women.
The previous and continuing actions of bad people but not "you" as a collective, just the racist ones. (I'm mixed race, not that it should make my point any more/less valid).
I'm reminded of the inevitable "I'm not biased, but I'm going to complain about this because I think it's an attack on me" that comes up whenever anyone on the internet mentions that speaking about institutional racism is just virtue signalling.
You can see that arguments of that form aren't effective. I don't think that's a compelling argument for anyone other than those who have similar beliefs to you. Arguments from the left like that are the reason for the resurgence of the right.
Belief is something everyone the world over lives and dies by. The only thing to worry about is if you have a positive belief, as opposed to a negative one. Negativity, in any form, is harmful to all, while being positive has the opposite effect.
Summarily, all communication can and should be based upon opposing viewpoints. This does not make either one wrong, it is just the way it is. So I agree but would change it to "keep your identity positive", large or small is relative.
So you're advocating forgiving the educational loans of doctors who lose their license? Or do you leave them massively in debt, without the (relatively) lucrative profession they had assumed would allow them to pay off that debt?
> So you're advocating forgiving the educational loans of doctors who lose their license?
Yes, although the better solution is to subsidize the education of medical providers directly, instead of burdening them with massive loans that take decades to repay. That's an argument for another thread though.
I think that's a bit harsh; it's more like "If you know how to issue instructions to a computer, you can derive anything else about the world from first principles."
I actually think these lists should be called "Falsehoods designers/PO's/etc. believe about x". As a programmer, you may have to neglect these complexities sometimes, even though you know about them and have made the case.
I think some of it too is herd logic. Oh the number of times I've gotten a PM or QA to say "You should validate this field in this particular way..." and the only response to "Why?" is "Because everyone does it that way."
