This is a braindead opinion. Why would anyone work as hard as possible when there are 0 incentives to do so? When at any moment you could be fired without warning in a mass layoff and when even the highest performers only get 5-10% raises per year when jumping ship gives you 20%+ . You want good work then create the incentives for it, currently there are none.
It's a game where you can do the minimum or more and if you do more your boss can pay the minimum or more. If you do the minimumy your boss pays the minimum, it's a zero sum game, if you do more and your boss the minimum, again zero sum because you lost energy and he won more from you but if you both do more then it's a net positive. So the optimal strategy is to do more.
Then like the cops in the prisoners game you are tricking yourself at playing the zero sum game because of trust issues.
It seems like the optimal strategy would be to do the minimum and then job hop since the pay increase is greater and getting a raise for working hard is not certain.
I personally have not seen much correlation between pay working hard and getting pay raises, it seems about as likely as getting one for doing the minimum, and the effort to dollars ratio is usually not worth while. I don't want to put in 50% more effort only to get a 5-10% raise. Plus, as stated before, switching jobs results in much bigger pay increases making the raises irrelevant.
>Makes a lot of sense, you could solve all these questions without knowing specific algorithms as long as you are good at problem solving - which is, I assume, the intent of the process.
That's just absurd. If someone with no "algorithm" experience who was a good problem solver had to work out an answer from scratch for the interview its almost certain they're going to find the brute force answer and FAANGs pretty universally want the most efficient one so these people would routinely fail.
Its totally clear that what FAANG hiring optimizes for is recent CS graduates who passed tough Algorithm weed out courses at well known colleges in the past 18-24 months. They are young with no families or obligations and are happy to work 12 hour days at Google because they have hip open offices and ping pong tables.
I believe it's already straightforward for a decent bio lab at a large University to synthesize dangerous viruses. So it would only be a matter of time until they could selectively add or subtract from the genetic code to create exceptionally dangerous mutations. Don't need any protein folding to do that.
This sounds like Apple apologism. Repair shops certainly have the capability to fix these devices but are hampered by actively Apple who would obviously prefer you go through them for repairs which are nearly as expensive as buying a new phone which is the whole point.
I see you haven't been a victim of a shitty third party repair shop. Yet. I have stories to tell.
I don't mind us demanding Apple to be more flexible in authorizing and training third-party technicians, providing them with parts.
But I don't need every idiot to have a repair shop. I don't need this to be a "right". You still need to meet some minimum bar of competence in my book.
It's called risk. You want the outsized returns of being a landlord? Then you take the risk that your tenants won't pay and you will be on the hook. You don't get a free lunch sorry.
The issue with your argument is the government chanced the eviction rules ex post facto.
Yes, the poster is taking the risk that they tenants cannot pay, but they also took that risk with the assumption they could evict them and replace them with a paying tenant.
Risk that you know you're getting in to is fair. Risk created by a sudden, unpredictable and unevenly applied (why are landlords the only investors getting the short end of the stick?) act of the government isn't fair.
Outsized returns...any idea what returns are for landlords? It only takes a single bad tenant to wipe out years of profit (speaking from experience). There is a difference between having tenants not pay and evicting them in 90 days (actual law)...and having tenants you can't evict and are told they don't need to pay for over a year (government changing law on the fly).
I'm not saying risk is not present but when the government can destroy a small businesses ability to make money with the snap of a finger like that but the big mortgage companies are still allowed to operate as business as usual and the government is allowed to continue to collect property tax as usual...
You're literally supporting the transfer of wealth to the big corporations from small businesses.
If you don't see something wrong with that then there's not really hope in talking to you.
It's an American Media outlet's article posted on an American website during prime American working hours. Unless you are Canadian you really have no place to complain...
Considering the topic is about being digital nomad, it is bit ironic that the article and you are both focusing on American centeric points of view.
Nytimes has an International Edition, there are versions in Spanish and Chinese, classifying it as an American website is perhaps a bit myopic.
Time zones have very little meaning if you are a digital nomad like me and I hope many others on this website, or work with multi geography teams as it increasingly common last 15 months.
The title is misleading to people like OP and me who wanted to learn something useful beyond tax woes (for Americans or others) when considering a digital nomad lifestyle. Yes it is important topic for Americans and had the author just mentioned a paragraph about that it would not be a problem, however the entire article is basically a puff piece for the tax consultants quoted and contains only talking points on why you really need such expertise.
If HN was a pure aggregator and never changed the title I would agree that it should be directed at NYT.
HN also editorializes the content posted here, they do change titles here to reflect some of the values or ethics that this form embodies, so asking for the title changed to better reflect the content is a fair ask.
How are people not more skeptical of this. This would without doubt be the most successful trading run in history and we are expected to believe that a self taught HN rando who couldn't even get into an AI lab did this with 5 people in SF?? Renaissance Tech is probably the best hedge fund in the world and they can only manage something like 30% a year but this guy did 250000% in a year and change? Give me a break. If anything they executed a massive pump and dump/rug pull and nothing more.
I mean why bother with this so called "research" endeavor when you could be a deci-billionaire in a year or two using the same strategy you've been using and then simply buy OpenAI or whatever. The whole story makes no sense.
Doesn't this make the case that we should be building institutions and systems resistant to this type of cheating?
Why should it be possible at all to game Journals in this way? Particularly in Computer Science journals where people think about edge cases for a living...
> Doesn't this make the case that we should be building institutions and systems resistant to this type of cheating?
Absolutely. I think people are intimidated, demoralized (de-moralized) and where once they believed anything was possible, any social problem could be solved (even those old as history, such as women's rights, human rights, etc.), now they've somehow drunk the wrong Kool Aid, some stuff distributed by Jim Jones.
I don't think we can actually solve this on a case by case basis. Other threads in this discussion have highlighted cultural normalization of greed in one of its various forms and I would tend to agree with that angle.
Those systems that can be built to be resistant to greed would definitely benefit from it - but I think it's more of an issue with society at large.
Heh. We need to set up a research project that redteam/blueteams various journals and conferences. And bug bounties for disclosing zero-days in peer review processes/practices.
(The redeem/blueteam thing is kinda unethical, so maybe the University of Minnesota should do it...)
