Because there was general layoffs of the workers in the previous year or two? There is a fairly formulaic way that companies tighten belts. First you do layoffs, get rid of projects that will never make money, reduce headcount for orgs that grew fat, etc. At the same time you explore offshoring (especially as it keeps the same number of headcount under a vp for less cost). Then there is a round of cleaning up the management layer, making sure everyone has a minimum number of reports, moving some managers back to being leads/IC etc.
This was all formulaic and the more experienced directors and VP's back in 2022 knew this and immediately started playing the new corporate game to win in the long run.
Naltrexone in high doses takes away all pleasure by blocking opioid receptors (low doses do too, but it is different when only a few hours). So there is no reward for drinking or eating if that is why you are eating. If this is not why you eat it will be less effective.
Bupropion acts as a norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor. Importantly it doesn't directly raise your serotonin. If you are a night owl, have trouble falling asleep etc you might have low serotonin to start and this could be bad for you.
Both of these are associated with suicidal thoughts. There is a reason HIMS requires your health info before suggesting drugs. I would flag the parent as providing dangerous information.
> Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, a history of upper gastrointestinal MD was associated with elevated risk of developing a clinical PD diagnosis. Increased vigilance among patients with MD for future PD risk may be warranted.
Associated is the key word. The washington post sensationalizes it to "may begin in the gut"
association indicates possibility of causation. The washington post used the right wording here.
While association does not imply causation, you very much need an association in order to establish causation. You actually need establish two associations in order to verify causation, so the existence of one type of association is already an indicator for "may begin in the gut".
But practically you need to associate cause and effect and lack of cause and lack of effect. That is two associations, and in one association the experimenter himself must deliberately influence the experiment.
This verifies cause from a practical perspective. From a technical perspective causation was not verified. Because technically you need to verify both effect and lack of effect from one population on the same event and the only way to do that is time travel.
We influenced the experiment by creating the causation but by doing that we can no longer know what would’ve happened if we didn’t create the causative precursor and thus we can never truly know if the event actually caused the effect.
Technically sometimes causation can be verified. Say you break your arm in a car crash - it's pretty clear what caused what. I'll give you that with things like gut problems and Parkinson's it's tricker.
It really isn't. Maybe your arm was osteoporotic or weak from a prior incident, and it broke due to a trivial pressure injury when the ambulance workers were loading you into the ambulance.
The point is that it's pretty clear only when it can be mathematically proven, and at all other times it's based on some idea of probability. In the case of this article, a causal association seems quite probable to me.
I’m of course referring to formal verification. Which means give me 100 percent concrete proof the car crash was causative. This is science and this is what all of science strives and ultimately fails to achieve.
For your example you didn’t prove anything. You gave me an arbitrary example and hoped I would understand your point through an example. I do understand your point but you failed to understand my point.
Your example is only an empathic offering of understanding but it doesn’t offer proof of your statement. Show me a formal proof of something that was causative. Anything.
You will find that on multiple levels of resolution not only can causation not be formally proven but that science can never prove anything in reality. Proof is the domain of maths and logical games of axioms and theorems we play with arbitrary rules, it does not actually apply to reality.
The paper is about the gut-first hypothesis of Parkinson disease (PD), I don’t think the Washington Post sensationalized it that much. And the p-values they find are pretty amazing. P<.001 and still P=.01 after covariate adjustment.
I agree. They know dopamine makes things worse for PD pateints.
My Theory: The reason that Dopamine fails is because they do not have low dopamine, but low energy for the dopamine receptor. The dopamine receptors are G Coupled Protein receptors that need GTP to function. So if you are low in the purine GTP then it does not matter how much dopamine you make.
Giving these patients dopamine works, but then fails, because it depletes the cells of GTP.
Sure. Interesting hypothesis. More research needed.
*edit, for the record, for me, as a postdoc, a hypothesis, while more structured than mere speculation, is still an unproven explanation that requires rigorous testing and peer review before it can be considered established scientific knowledge, and thus remains speculative.
The p-values don't say anything about the size of the effect. With a large sample size, they are almost guaranteed to be small. In fact, the confidence interval after covariate adjustment comes very closing to containing the value 1, which suggests no substantive change between the groups.
I was curious so I searched. I wonder if other conditions set up parkinsons? (Also disorders might != damage)
Causes and Diagnoses of Mucosal Disorders
The causes of mucosal disorders are generally bacteria, viruses or fungi, such as yeast. A weakened immune system, stress or dietary deficiencies can make you more prone to a mucosal disorder.
Mucosal disorders can develop in a variety of ways:
- Candidiasis is often caused by humid conditions, damaged skin or a depressed immune system.
- Canker sores are the result of a condition called aphthous stomatitis, and brought on by a weakened immune system, food allergies, viruses, bacteria and poor nutrition.
- Herpes is spread through skin-to-skin contact such as kissing and sexual intercourse. It can also be passed via a glass or lip balm of someone who has the herpes simplex virus. It can be contagious even when no lesions are present.
That is so wild to me. I only consume media there if I am sent a link. Every time I have gone there I find content that is literally optimized to use up and waste as much of my time as possible under the incentive of maximizing viewer minutes. I wonder what it would be like to spend a day in your shoes.
> Every time I have gone there I find content that is literally optimized to use up and waste as much of my time as possible under the incentive of maximizing viewer minutes.
It's a feed, and it responds to your use. I click on longform educational content, I get lots of longform educational content. I find the act of opening clickbait videos in an incognito window along with judicious use of the "not interested" button has kept it quite usable.
> It's a feed, and it responds to your use. I click on longform educational content, I get lots of longform educational content.
Yup. You still get the occasional dud, but most of the feed is relevant in my case.
I once browsed YouTube without being logged in. Do not recommend. I wanted to gouge my eyes out. I imagine it's a similar experience to browsing the web without an adblocker.
Mindlessly consuming the video feed is not the only way to use YouTube. If you are looking for something in particular, it is very hard to beat. Besides, at that point, is it really any different than TV, or other streaming services?
> Every time I have gone there I find content that is literally optimized to use up and waste as much of my time as possible under the incentive of maximizing viewer minutes.
Depends on what you're watching.
I mean, everyone on YouTube is playing the algorithm game somewhat -- assuming they want to have their videos watched, and they do, or they wouldn't be there to begin with.
Having said that, I watch a ton of YouTube videos. Not randomly, like zapping through TV channels (do people still do that, by the way?). I watch videos from the dozens of channels I'm subscribed to, by authors I enjoy watching and about topics that are relevant to me. YouTube is unbeatable for this, because almost everyone is on YouTube, but few other video platforms are as universal.
And yes, I pay for YouTube Premium because ads absolutely break YouTube. Ads make everything worse. I'm still upset about the recent trend of authors placing "sponsor segments" embedded in their videos (looking at you, Squarespace -- you can go f*ck yourself); I wish paying for Premium automatically skipped these segments too, but oh well. At least some authors make self-deprecating jokes about their sponsored content.
> I'm still upset about the recent trend of authors placing "sponsor segments" embedded in their videos […] ; I wish paying for Premium automatically skipped these segments too, but oh well.
You're not alone. My experience is that about 20% of devs deeply understand Git and are very comfortable with it, and about 80% know the the basics and hope nothing goes wrong.
I'm somewhere in the middle myself. That's part of why I designed Grace to be much easier to understand. I can teach it to you in about 15 minutes, not the days and weeks it takes all of us to feel like we understand Git.
> To be fair Ive been using for git for 8 years and I still dont quite understand it beyond the basics.
I don't see why this is supposed to be a problem. What constitutes "the basics" is what you use in your everyday routine, and if that works perfectly well then there is absolutely no need to do something you never need to do.
while I don't judge someone for not knowing past the basics of git because, as you point out, if it works, it works, the very valid fear is that they'll somehow get into a funky state and have to find a git expert to fix it for them, or painfully muddle through it, with the very real fear that their work will get lost somehow. if you know what you're doing, that doesn't happen, but if you're not an expert, it's a very real thing that can happen, so it's that fear that constitutes a problem for some.
it's this black box that saves all my hard work, and if it accidentally hit the wrong button, it'll delete all my data and find my kids and scare them as well.
I was fortunate enough to dive deep into git professionally so I'm good enough with it to get myself out of trouble, but watching others use it, I can understand their worry.
Its gotten me along so I havent bothered, but occasionally I will fall into a mess and I find some improper/inefficient ways around it. Every time I try interwctive rebase I get into a huge mess where it cant apply some updates for some reason and I say f it and just do git reset hard and aoply the commits I want and force push.
> Not a problem I thought I needed to solve, but okay. Also this means I can't easily run it locally?
I would add that this sounds like a big step backwards, as it conveys the idea of a svn-like version control system designed for the service provider to hold your project hostage.
> I already understand git, so does everyone on my team, and everyone that interviews...
Really? Because every team I've ever met could use git but the moment anything left the golden path they had to either 1. delete everything, reclone, and manually fix things up, or 2. turn to the one greybeard who actually did understand git. Either your team is the 99th percentile, or your definition of "understand" is rather generous.
> Really? Because every team I've ever met could use git but the moment anything left the golden path they had to either (...)
I've been using Git for over a decade and I never had the need to "delete everything, reclone".
The only time I screwed up a Git repo was when I was experimenting with storing Git repos in USB pens and one of them got corrupted. I have no idea what might lead anyone to screw up a Git repo, because that's simply unrealistic.
I don't think this is a good example. Forcing a push means that the repository will lose commits, but you still keep yours in your local branch. This means the repo is not broken, but at best you have a perfectly valid local repository that just happens to be out of sync.
If you rename your local branch and set it to not track the remote one, and afterwards you fetch changes from the remote branch, then you're done.
It's not meant to be a local version control system, unless you enjoy running local Kubernetes clusters (which I have to do, but don't enjoy).
It's meant to be the next big thing in version control - no reason not to go for it - which means that it would have to be picked up by the major source control hosters, and since I know what it takes for GitHub to run its infrastructure, I know that it makes much more sense to build something new on PaaS services, not on file servers. Not anymore.
> I already understand git, so does everyone on my team, and everyone that interviews...
Yeah, but do they? That's not my experience, and it's not the experience of most people I talk to about it. Most devs I've asked about it understand the basics of how to use Git, but they're still afraid of it if anything goes wrong. My guess is that the ratio is 20% deeply understand it, and 80% only know what they need to and hope nothing bad happens.
Maybe your team are all a bunch of reflog wizards... that's awesome. And uncommon.
And I almost always get laughs and head nods when I talk about the problems with Git's UX.
> Is large files the main problem this solves?
No, but it's a big problem for gaming companies, who are mostly stuck on Perforce. And Git can't handle them well without the bolted-on LFS. And with the rise in monorepos, more and more enterprises want to be able to store more and bigger files than ever before.
> And maybe requires an internet connection?
Yes, absolutely, it does. So does Git if you expect to push anything anywhere. And if you happen to be doing dev using Azure or GCP or AWS you need one too.
Building something that would become popular in the late 2020's, and assuming that users will have solid Internet connections (don't forget satellite) is what makes sense. If you're still in a situation where you need offline VCS then, Git will still be there.
> Maybe this is for pair programming?
You could use it for that, but pair programming is not a direct design intent.
> It's not meant to be a local version control system, unless you enjoy running local Kubernetes clusters (which I have to do, but don't enjoy).
You should be clear about what is a major design trait, and arguably a major design flaw.
Also, there is already standard terminology for this: centralized VCS. I don't understand why you decided to avoid objective descriptions of your project's single most important design trait and instead resort to vague meaningless buzzwords like "cloud-native" or "real-time". In fact, in light of this those terms start to sound like weasel words used to deceive the reader.
When I hear "cloud-native" I think "built to scale up well". As opposed to "built to run on file servers" which means "doesn't scale well at all".
Is that just me?
Also, [1]. I start by saying it's centralized. I'm proud of it. It's the right direction for moving version control forward. And modern use of Git isn't really distributed anyway; it's centralized. We don't push to production from our dev boxes.
Hm. To me, cloud-native screams and PaaS completely out of my control and completely subject to the whims of some company that does not have my best interest in mind. It implies the impossibility of firing up some local instance for experimenting without having fear of leaving traces. In short, something to be avoided if possible.
> It's meant to be the next big thing in version control
I wish you the best but kind of hope it isn't. I want my vcs to be local and conceptually simple. I definitely don't want a client-server architecture!
> And I almost always get laughs and head nods when I talk about the problems with Git's UX.
Yes, the UX is bad. But it's conceptually simple: blobs, trees, commits, pointers (branches etc). I really fear someone will replace Git with something having a better UX but conceptually much more complex.
Complexity bad.
We've gone over this so many times as an industry and we haven't learned yet.
I agree, complexity bad. So why do you like Git? :-)
Git is _incredibly_ complex to understand, as proven for almost 20 years by the vast majority of people who have been forced to use it. And by quite a bit of academic and industry research, for instance, [1].
I can teach you Grace in about 15 minutes. How many days and weeks does it take most devs to start to understand Git? And even when they do, for most, it's only the basics, and please don't let anything go wrong. I mean, there were people for over a decade who made their living running week-long workshops on learning Git. I don't see how you could run a half-day-long workshop teaching Grace, unless you go really slowly.
If you're one of the probably 20% or so who really feels like they understand Git and are in control of it, that's awesome. But you're projecting your experience more widely if you think that's the norm. It's not.
As for local, well, if you're working with a team on GitHub or GitLab or Azure DevOps or some other hoster, you're already doing centralized VCS, you're just using a decentralized VCS to do it. Most shops don't let you push to production from your dev box, right?
> How many days and weeks does it take most devs to start to understand Git?
A few weeks to understand a technology you’re gonna be working with for years to come is nothing.
> And by quite a bit of academic and industry research, for instance, [1].
Isn’t that a positive aspect? It’s well studied and there are wealths of info about it for just about anything you need to do.
I see Grace less as a git replacement and more as its own niche. I certainly see the benefits of easier onboarding and centralization for companies and education but those who grew up with git will likely keep using it
> I agree, complexity bad. So why do you like Git? :-)
I think you're trying to fabricate problems where there are none.
Git's UX problem lies in the way it's CLI is not intuitive for those unfamiliar with it, but a) using GUI frontends like SourceTree allows newbies to eliminate that issue, b) with time you onboard to the CLI and everything just works.
At best, your suggestion to use another user interface is equivalent to suggesting Git users to adopt a new GUI frontend that's polished in a different way.
> Git is _incredibly_ complex to understand,
I don't know what you can possibly mean by "incredibly complex".
For end users, your mental model can be limited to a) you clone a repository, b) you commit and your changes, c) you push your changes to make them available to everyone, d) you pull everyone's changes to have access to them.
This is hardly rocket science. I mean, why do you think Git managed to become the world's de facto standard VCS and sets the gold standard for VCSs?
> I think you're trying to fabricate problems where there are none.
No, I'm not. The problems with Git's UX are well-documented, and have spawned many projects over the last 10+ years trying to deliver "Git, but easier" or "Git, but better", so it's not just me who sees this.
I'm happy for you that you're comfortable with Git, or so indoctrinated to the workarounds required to use Git well that you're used to them. I believe it's time for something very different, and much easier to understand.
> why do you think Git managed to become the world's de facto standard VCS
I think it was because Git has lightweight branches, and an ephemeral working directory, both of which made it nicer to use than the older, slower, centralized VCS's. I've kept both of those features in Grace.
I also think it was because of GitHub wrapping a lightweight social network around Git and popularizing it, at the same moment that shared open-source dev really started to catch on as an idea. Without GitHub, Git wouldn't have won.
I do not think it was because Git is easy to use, overall. Again, maybe 20% of devs really get it, and the rest don't and just hope nothing bad happens. It was better in some important axes, and we've all paid the bad-UX tax to get those better parts, but 2005 was a long time ago, with a very different set of network and hardware conditions, and we can do better.
> I believe it's time for something very different, and much easier to understand.
I'd like to reiterate my request for clarification of the concepts behind Grace. If it's as easy to understand as blobs, trees, commits, and refs, I'm sold!
> Without GitHub, Git wouldn't have won.
True, but git is good not because of GitHub, git is good because it's so simple.
I'm scared you will replace git with something easier but a lot more complex. I don't want easy, I want simple.
No it isn't. Git is just blobs, trees, commits, and refs. Git isn't easy but it's conceptually simple. I'll take simple over easy anytime.
If you could explain the concepts Grace is built on, that'd be great!
> If you're one of the probably 20% or so who really feels like they understand Git
Again, blobs, trees, commits, and refs. I don't know all of git's crazy commands, but they can be explained in terms of these four simple concepts.
> As for local, well, if you're working with a team on GitHub or GitLab or Azure DevOps or some other hoster, you're already doing centralized VCS, you're just using a decentralized VCS to do it.
No, that is still fully decentralized. Each team member has a full copy of the repository, which, if GitHub or GitLab or Azure DevOps or whatever suddenly disappeared could be promoted to be the new shared source of truth.
At my $job-2 we were using GitLab but it often went down. I just set up a git repository on one of my servers and authorized everyone's ssh keys: it took me ten minutes and we had a way to collaborate even with GitLab down. Yes there weren't pull requests or anything, it was just a dumb repo used over ssh. But that was the whole point!
That may be, but the state of your repo, expressed as a combination of the 4 things listed after doing an arcane and globally unique sequence of git commands, is in no way conceptually simple. If it was, the implicit lurking horror that every programmer knows lies inside git would not be a shared traumatic developer coming of age story. You are the exception here.
> No, that is still fully decentralized.
The word decentralized does not really apply here. Is Figma decentralized? Do you ever do peer-to-peer git? Do you really? Or do you kind of just have a single source of truth with a lot of local copies, that allow offline-first workflows that you rarely need.
> if GitHub or GitLab or Azure DevOps or whatever suddenly disappeared could be promoted to be the new shared source of truth.
This is not a selling point you think will be taken seriously, right?
> Do you ever do peer-to-peer git? Do you really? Or do you kind of just have a single source of truth with a lot of local copies, that allow offline-first workflows that you rarely need.
Have you read my comment? Yes I did. I use GitHub to sync my git things, but if it were to disappear I could easily start using something else. Sometimes I push between other remotes too. Each of the repos is self-contained and whole by itself.
> > if GitHub or GitLab or Azure DevOps or whatever suddenly disappeared could be promoted to be the new shared source of truth.
> This is not a selling point you think will be taken seriously, right?
Again, have you even read my comment? This is not a theoretical scenario, it's a thing that happened to me in the past. Thanks to git's distributed nature it was very easy to work around.
No. Vast majority of software does not consist of four simple and easy to grok concepts.
Vast majority of software consists of badly designed abstractions full of various hacked on workarounds for exceptional cases. Such as Subversion, what a horror that was!
> Yes, absolutely, it does. So does Git if you expect to push anything anywhere. And if you happen to be doing dev using Azure or GCP or AWS you need one too.
Sure if you want to push, but only maybe 10% of my Git commands relate to pushing/internet related stuff. The majority of my work is local-only commands that can be run on an airplane without wifi. Git lets me defer the internet required stuff to a later time. Its not clear Grace will allow me to do that at all.
Also I once had a case of working on an air-gapped network. That was an interesting case that I'm not sure Grace would be suitable for at all? Granted that's super niche.
The fact that most of your Git commands are local-only is an artifact of how Git works, but I expect that ~100% of the time, you have an internet connection, so the fact that Grace needs to be connected to the cloud just isn't a thing I worry about.
I'm not writing a new VCS based on the 0.00000001% "but I'm on an airplane without WiFi" case.
There's ~0% reason in 2024 to build software for offline use cases, and even less reason in 2026 and 2028. I'm happy to cede that to Git if you really need it.
As an industry, we fetishize offline for version control only because Git sort-of does that. Again, it doesn't really... you still have to push to do real work with your team, but we need to stop pretending that's a hard requirement. It's totally not, it's just a "feature" of Git that gets in our way today more than it helps us.
> Also I once had a case of working on an air-gapped network.
Coming from Microsoft, and being familiar with the air-gapped Azure instances for government, I designed Grace to be able to run on those Azure clouds. In other words, all of the PaaS services that Grace would use on Azure are present in those clouds.
Even the air-gapped world isn't "offline", it's totally networked, just on a network that's not connected to the Internet.
I haven't specifically looked at similar AWS instances, but I have to believe it's possible there, too.
A better question is if it is a fitness advantage to die. And it is. If you have two species and the first dies when something happens and the second doesn't the first will "win". The first species will have its old die out and so the young will be able to evolve faster without having to compete with everyone else that is alive, only the current generation.
We have this "kill switch" in our brains already. It is the PVN. Very much oversimplifying, but as bad things build up "inflammation", it kicks of production of cortisol to deal with it. The cortisol reduces neurogenesis and little by little our brain dies. The PVN also controls LH levels so sex hormones so rising cortisol downregulate CRH and the PVN. Puberty and menopause are just the speed changing of GnRH to match. Pain, wounds, immune system reaction, they all go through this. Imagine, at one time there was a species that wouldn't die of natural causes when it was in constant pain.
Vertebrates have the PVN, invertebrates don't. Vertebrates (nearly always) die, invertebrates generally don't.
There is a reason why all the stuff to increase life span is (generally) about healing or reducing inflammation.
I am skipping over a lot of details, but you get the point. Dieing is an evolutionary advantage, not to you, but to the species.
You are invoking an argument that's called "group selection" [1], it's the idea that genes propagate based on whether they benefit the species as a whole. This argument has been heavily criticized and it is not used much in the mainstream evolutionary science. Perhaps group selection has some effect in some niche, limited circumstances but it doesn't seem to be a significant driving force of evolution.
You don't need to invoke group selection to explain dying though. Dying might be an evolutionary advantage, not to you, but to the genes that make you. Which is not the same as the species, at all [2]. Organisms die not to make space for others but because building the mechanisms to keep young indefinitely is not worth the price compared to spending these resources on reproduction mechanisms. Or because the right combination of genes that allow you to have free lunch just wasn't reached yet. If there was a magic mutation that prevents mammals from ageing without any other effects, I'm pretty sure that gene would spread. Quite possibly to the detriment of the species.
(Beware, not an evolutionary biologist, just somewhat interested in the topic.)
Been studying folks with only one working CYP21A2 due to the resulting atypical adrenal function and I noticed that their dna also contains all the genetic variants associated with Alzheimer's (some are beneficial in this case). Inquiring about the family tree of the single CYP21A2 I have yet to have someone tell me of an ancestor that died of Alzheimer's. But the family members with two good CYP21A2 (and all of the other typical Alzheimer's genetics) are the ones that end up with Alzheimer's. And for good measure, when someone has 3 CYP21A2 nearly always they will get Alzheimer's. (they also end up with Hypercortisolism).
Subclinical Hypercortisolism has a long association with Alzheimer's. A deficient CYP21A2 and the decreased incidences of Alzheimer's is not talked about other than the fact that it isn't associated with Subclinical Hypercortisolism, but Subclinical Hypocortisolism instead.
All of the known indirect early preventative measures for Alzheimer's result in shifting from Subclinical Hypercortisolism towards Subclinical Hypocortisolism.
This was not my intended area of study, but the pattern is interesting and curious for your thoughts.
I'm really uninformed about this topic, but I'll second the request for info about this!
I have Alzheimer's on three sides of my family (really banking on the fact that I take after the 4th grandmother who was sharp as a tack till 98), and while I haven't ever looked into a diagnosis of hypercorticolism, thanks to very early (in utero/neonate) trauma, my parasympathetic nervous system never learned how to clear cortisol like it should, which I'm working to remediate now.
I've been operating under the assumption that Alzheimer's is a high risk in my future, but I'd love to know more about what any experts would say I could even try to do by lifestyle change or preventative treatment!
Assuming your psychological state of mind and your heart health is relatively good, whole body cold water plunges/swimming 3 times a week for 2-3 minutes, has been shown (in relatively small studies) to have many positive effects on various endocrine system functions, including cortisol levels.
I don't know if you've seen the documentary 'My Octopus Teacher', but the subject spends an entire year diving in frigid water. His voice and general presence are so peaceful, it's almost comical. I joked at the time I saw it that he must have no cortisol left.
Only hiring cis white men from your local network or only recruiting from the college that only allows men is by definition sexist and racist.
The point of DEI is to first try to teach and then to punish managers that are stupid and say that they have a meritocracy when they absolutely don't.
> women's salaries are on average 95-99% of men's[0] - a negligible difference.
So I am guessing you would be okay if I only paid the men in my org 95-99% of what I pay women? Enforcing that they are paid the same is just giving preference to men. Didn't think so.
I have a special place in my heart for the men that whine about the one woman in their org that didn't work out, ignoring the countless men that don't work out. The idiot men that get through the interview screening are somehow okay, but heaven forbid we hire a single woman that couldn't cut it. When I ask for more details these guys eventually admit that they just hate the idea that finding a job could be slightly harder or it is plain old misogyny with the belief that all men are better than all women. This doubly applies to men who seem to not be doing amazing at their job. Not only are the other men better than them, but they get really mad when a woman does better too.
I just want to do a good job, but I have had to deal with this stuff my entire career.
Women's salaries are 95-99% of men's, when adjusted for lifestyle choices, on a macro scale. It is almost impossible to achieve complete salary parity. Let's not forget, men have higher physical performance, take more risks, and are willing to do dirtier work. These factors increase the salary ceiling. It's actually quite impressive if the difference is only about 5%.
I don't know why we have to pretend men and women are exactly the same. They're not. They each have different characteristics, different preferences, and different capabilities.
At least in tech, many companies have massive over-representation over Asian-American employees. Over-hiring cishet white males is not exactly a problem, in fact in many roles they are under-represented compared to the national slice. See the BLS data.
E.g. 50% of NVIDIA's staff is AA. Third most valuable company in the world. That's about 10x the national average. Similarly with CISCO. You can keep digging these up.
What should we do? Systematically disadvantage and discriminate against Asians (part of the honorable and noble BIPOC coalition) to make sure to return to the national averages?
Of course this also touches upon the insanity of wanting company x to match a certain demographic split. Should they mirror the world's demographics? The US's demographics? California's demographics? South Bay's demographics? Santa Clara's demographics? Each one of those is different, and nobody seems to be able to agree on which we should use as the authoritative reference. If people are going to be shaming firms for not meeting a certain bar, can we at least agree what that bar should be?
And the wage gap is most likely not going away, men are women are not identical, they do not have the same impulses, incentives, timelines, or desires. They're not perfectly homogeneous interchangeable robots that behave the same way. It's entirely not surprising that we're seeing a gap. See the Uber study which was trying to find sexism to explain their drivers' 7% wage gap, only to find out that it ultimately boiled down to risk taking, hours worked, and more aggressive driving: https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf - this is going to be true across all jobs.
Side note: the real "wage gap" is everybody vs mothers, not men vs women. If you want to advocate for making child rearing easier on mothers in the workplace, I'm fully in support.
> I've been on teams where I'm the only white person. I've also been on teams where women outnumber the men (yes, even in tech).
This isn't surprising at all. There are tons of asians in tech. And it's not uncommon for a couple devs to be on a team with lots of product or design people. I'm on one such team right now. The vast majority of this team is non-white women.
There is the long standing joke around the Geeks and Jocks. The don't usually have sex with each other. Genetically they have even diverged with genetic attributes that you typically find in one and not the other. They are even more successful at having grandchildren if they mate their "own type" due to to certain genetic combinations that both parents will give to the kids. Are they two species?
It took me way to long to find the ingredient list for the Athletic Greens starting from the main page. Even on the actual page itself you have to click a button to see it. https://drinkag1.com/about-ag1/ingredients/ctr
It appeared that it was hidden on purpose and I was expecting the worst, but after seeing it I would have to disagree with your comment about it being useless. From the list I would compare it to many daily vitamins. Many are deficient in these basic vitamins (why is a separate discussion).
It isn't useless, but maybe it is simply overpriced for what it is? Most notably seems to be missing vitamin D.
In the near future you could take your dna file and upload it to a website and it would tell you what supplement is best for you, but for now as in the past there will be generic multi-vitamins that try to fit everyone. And like in the past some will lean heavily on the marketing side.
Selling a multivitamin you could buy for a few dollars in a big cloud of smoke and mirrors is a scam in my opinion.
Just say you sell vitamin d. Not some ultra esoteric branded product with extreme markups and hints at something it definitely isn't - namely anything to do with "Greens.
And doing this as a "certified science man" is even more ridiculous.
This was all formulaic and the more experienced directors and VP's back in 2022 knew this and immediately started playing the new corporate game to win in the long run.
reply