Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mikelockz's comments login

DispatchHealth | DevOps/Platform Engineer | Full-time | Remote | https://dispatchhealth.com | $120k - $156k | healthcare

DispatchHealth delivers healthcare in the home. Mostly acute care but also hospital-to-home, wellness and advanced care. Our technology has supported over 1M visits in 45 markets. I'm the hiring manager for Platform. Rebuilding the team and looking for a person who wants to take ownership and help set direction, then execute it. It's a small team of two.

  - Recently migrated to EKS
  - GitHub Actions for CI and ArgoCD for CD
  - Terraform for IaC
Great opportunity if you're looking to lead. https://careers-dispatchhealth.icims.com/jobs/10930/senior-s...


Looks like the link is down, and no jobs under the tech section of the site. Looks like a great opportunity though.


Your link shows an error message:

> Error: The job that you were looking for either does not exist or is no longer open.

Is it a mistake or did you manage to fill the position in a single day?


Bobby Knight led the Hoosiers to three national championships and 11 Big Ten championships. I'm not sure the definition of "bad manager" would fit succeeding at the most important metrics in sports - championship wins.


Isn't this exactly the point GP was making? That managers conflate the team's wins with their own 'succeeding'? It's not the manager that wins the championship, it's the team that is comprised of the manager also. Why is this so hard to grasp for managers? Is it the power? Is it the disconnect from the actual work?

As someone involved in both the technical and business side, but heavily biased towards tech, it's amusing to me just how cliché the management parties after a 'big win' on a 'visible' project are. It's almost unbearable to be around save for the brilliant food.


> That managers conflate the team's wins with their own 'succeeding'?

Is that actually conflated? I manage a few reports and try to succeed by setting them up to succeed but every management position I’ve had, I have had explicit OKRs/goals/metrics/etc stating that the success of the team as it’s own entity was something I was rated on.

If my team managed to succeed without me putting in any effort that was actually ideal as I got a free goal hit.


> Is that actually conflated?

It's literally in the post from GP I am responding to:

> Bobby Knight led the Hoosiers to three national championships and 11 Big Ten championships. I'm not sure the definition of "bad manager" would fit succeeding at the most important metrics in sports - championship wins.

This feels like it's conflated.


But even in that, presumably the owners have some compensation for him based on winning championships. I really can’t see how a good manager doesn’t believe that their team winning is a measure of their success


A college team churns ever 4 years at most. Consistent wins in that space is all about management, as the talent is fleeting.


Why would a college team need to preselect players if it's all about the management? Couldn't they just pick random players?

Thinking about this more, I find it hilarious to imagine that you would expect the same results from A and B given the same set of performant managers:

A - team of highly unmotivated, undisciplined players

B - team of highly motivated, disciplined players


Do you watch college sports? Or are you just talking about what you imagine to be true? It’s not the same thing as a team of mid 20s+ trained professionals working in the context of a tech org. Indeed, The excellent talent skips college, goes to the pros, where talent matters much more than the org management.


I watch college soccer. There are talented players, talented coaches, shit players and everything in between. There are people who go on to become pretty known and there are people who die out in college soccer. I've never seen a single championship won by a team that doesn't have synergy going on between the players also, and not just a great top management.

Anecdotal:

There's a huge team here, wins most of the high level championship because they have a lot of money and end up buying worldwide players, so their access to the talent pool is broader. They also have the best coaches money can buy.

One year, one of the most famous players we've had decided to start up his own academy and create a new soccer team, with local people. He worked on it for a couple of years and came in and took first spot in the championship. Brilliant games.

They sold players due to their win, for a lot of money, and started the roster again. Next year, and since then, they have yet to achieve such a victory.

I would blame this situation on the synergy of the team and find it hard to imagine your world where the top management gets to decide who wins and who doesn't.


Managers are involved in choosing who is on their team


What does this argument even mean? Of course managers are involved in choosing who is on their team. That doesn't make them the team.


(edited for clarity) Given that successful coaches are regularly fired for being garbage human beings (including Bobby Knight more than once!) I'm going to disagree that the "most important metric" is championships.

This is exactly the response I was hoping/dreading to get, as it illustrates my point so perfectly. Bobby Knight absolutely believed that he was above his players, and repeatedly physically abused them for perceived disrespect. He was a terrible person at Indiana and at Texas Tech, and no amount of winning answers that.

People glorify managers/coaches who succeed at the organizations goals, be they profits or rings, at the expense of the humans that report to them. These people are terrible managers and should be immortalized as shining examples of what not to do.


I liked Dick Gibson's History of Earth podcast https://historyoftheearthcalendar.blogspot.com/

And Dr. Christian Shorey Earth and Environmental Systems podcast https://geology.mines.edu/sygn101-podcasts/


> the primary appeal of masks is for quelling fear and anxiety, not preventing spread.

The appeal of masks for me is definitely to lower spread. Yes there is signaling, but also because masks reduce amount of possibly covid-infected droplets expelled from the mouth and nose while breathing and speaking.

It is not possible to have a 6 foot bubble around everybody at all times. It is possible to always wear a mask.

This is not moralizing, this is science.


that's rationalization, not science. feel free to wear a mask everywhere if it makes you feel better and aligns with your mediosocial affiliations, but the breadth of science show that masks are effective in specific, marginal situations, not everywhere, and that its population-level effects are drowned out by other, better mitigations.


Maybe we’ve been reading very different breadths of science. Saying masks only work in a small number of situations sounds more like rationalization for not wearing one when we know aerosols are a major source of spread, and that masks significantly reduce aerosol transmission.


1) I don't think its consensus that aerosols are a MAJOR source of spread.

2) Masks are much less effective for aerosols than for droplet transmission. I think the consensus is they at least somewhat reduce aerosol transmission. Only n95 w/o exhale vents that are properly worn are believed to be good at reducing aerosol transmission.

The fact that your glasses fog up shows that surgical masks certainly are very leaky.


aerosols are not a significant source of spread. otherwise, we'd have been inundated with specific stories and studies proving it. distancing overwhelms the effects of masks in nearly all common interaction cases.


All things being equal, then unfairness should be spread evenly. If certain groups are always experience the same privilege then there is no social justice and the system itself perpetuates inequality - not randomness.


But if the unfairness is spread evenly, then it's not really unfair, is it? Everyone being an "impostor" means that no one is and everyone just needs to adjust their expectations downward the same amount.


I like your table analogy. I would think that a more ergonomic hammer would also have tangible benefits like the ability to work longer and faster, creating more tables per day and lowering the overall costs of production resulting in cheaper tables.

Would customers be willing to buy a cheaper table that's wobbly vs a more expensive table that's not?


I'm not comparing a wooden stick with a high end hammer. I would think a competent carpenter would have a decent enough hammer, but not necessarily the shiny cool x-titanium-3000(tm), because any difference, if they exist at all, would be well into diminishing returns territory.

At the end of the day, the wobbliness of the table is a result of whether the carpenter cares about table wobbliness more than which hammer they use. However, it may say something about the level of craftmanship and competence of the carpenter if they got suckered into buying a well advertised x-titanium-3000(tm) to compensate for an unwillingness to put in the effort to master core carpentry skills.

Another similar analogy is an audiophile buying gold plated HDMI cables for better sound quality, oblivious that the reality is that the signal going through said cable is using a digital protocol with error correction.


To clarify, there was and still is an active astroturf campaign organizing thousands of people to violate recommendations by the federal government about social distancing guidelines. Then there is a guy who registered a bunch of domains and is getting doxxed. Not sure why the later has an article in Mother Jones why the former does not.


The authority of a stackexchange thread notwithstanding - ER and urgent care visits are what happens when primary care physicians cannot accept same-day consultations with patients. By all means try to call your primary doctor, but if they can't see you that day I would ask them if the prudent course of action is to seek immediate medical care at the ER or urgent care.


Per the article:

He saw his PCP same day, they examined him, but said he should go to the ER.

He called the CoronaVirus hotline, which also said he should go to the ER.


She


Yep, I passed out just after a surgery so I went to the ER. If it was before 5:30 I'd had called/visited my doctor. If I had arrived at 9PM instead of 9:30 I would have used the urgent care. So I went to the closest medical services in 200 miles.


Web3 (not Web 3.0) is how browsers communicate with the data that is not hosted on a web server, but rather on a decentralized blockchain. This means that these things are resistant to censorship.


You think a distributed virtual machine that executes code is scammy? Maybe it can be used for scams by people who are scammers. So is email scammy too? Are telephones scammy? I believe they are all technology and can be used for whatever people want to do with them.


instead of your comment it would have been more convincing if you pointed me to the many success cases which I have missed where cryptocurrencies and blockchains have lead to anything other than a scam.

Because anything I come across in that domain, I can smell the stink from miles away!


Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: