"By the same token, it's totally fine for Hezbollah to raze Tel Aviv, because the IDF is based there, thus using civilians as human shields. And almost all Israelis become soldiers at age 18."
I agree, both sides act with extreme disregard for the other side. Blaming Israel ignores that Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran are constantly provoking them, blaming Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran ignores that Israel is constantly provoking them. Going back and forth with "theyre terrorists" only leads to more terrorism.
I'm not advocating for anything. I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to expect people to just roll over for an enemy with greater conventional warfare capability.
Hiding among the civilian population is bad, but so is a situation where powerful states can oppress others without any check.
Personally, I'm not sure what a better alternative is. Which is why I asked my question.
Chrome exists to counter the previous platform browser monopoly from Microsoft, which was holding back the web from being a viable application platform. It was never been about surveillance and doesn't do a very good job of surveillance if that were the goal.
Chrome was created to counter the previous platform browser monopoly from Microsoft. Once that was achieved, it pivoted. First to making sure Google has a controlling stake in setting web standards, and then to surveillance. Surveillance features: FLoC, Manifest v3, Web Attestation. The surveillance features have often flopped or been beaten back, but they keep being introduced.
In a negotiation, don't focus on what you think is fair. Instead consider your best alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA). You need to have them believe you have lots of other excellent options, and negotiate against that. One way is of course job offers elsewhere, and usually the best.
I agree with that. I have plenty of applicants who did that, and through the process it became very clear they didn’t care what they were bringing on the table and what was the value of their work, they just cared to up the stakes and get more. As a buyer, someone who wants cutthroat rates today will also want to increase their rate after their skills are demonstrated in the company (“See my skills are useful. Give me 20% more now or I leave”), it 100% lose during the rampup period, then the extra makes it 20% more expensive. Obviously none of them work here.
I’ve tracked a few of those profiles. Startups they joined fail or struggle. I guess that’s how you make money.
Note that you have a best alternative, even if you don't improve it.
The goal is to have an active comparison, “if they just said no to everything here is what I would do and what that is worth to me.” And, you want to know the other party's best alternative, too, because you want to be able to say “I know we can do better than outcomes A and B.”
Negotiations “want” to be zero-sum and you have to constantly prop them up. There's actually strange parallels to this in theology and political science, complex multidimensional things getting collapsed to Left vs Right or God vs Satan and so forth. So we want to focus on one number, the salary, and party X wants it higher but Y wants it lower, now you have a zero sum game.
But the point of negotiation is the multidimensional space. “I want to work with you, we're on the same team here, we both want me to continue at this workplace and flourish...” is possible precisely because the space is not us-vs-them.
It's a little bit of a pipe dream but the ideal negotiation kind of sounds like, “oh, you're not able to pay me more than my manager? OK, what about getting me to be a team lead so that I am on the right trajectory? You don't have a spot for that? Well I have been thinking about starting a family, how about we explore a policy that would make it easy for me to take a chunk of that time off. No? What about these wonderful experiments with the four day work week, do you want to try those? Hum. Well, if we are really stuck on all of those, here's articles about how private companies with ESOPs beat the pants off of other companies, how can we get me some equity? Takes too long? I mean I can wait, just not forever. Want to meet in 30 days and we'll keep in touch on Slack about some of these ideas and float them to senior management?”
(Here notice that the “best alternative” is explicit, “we meet again about my career development in a month.”)
This is one of the key understandings regarding negotiations. They are not adversarial by nature. They can devolve into a tug of war but only if the scope is extremely limited. Expanding the scope by openly considering multiple benefits and outcomes is usually a good idea.
Also, it’s good to know where you want things to go after the deal. If you foresee more opportunities in the future, you can set those up now.
I think I got about 60% of that, but the penultimate paragraph helped a lot. I’ll have to get a beer and mull over what those best alternatives might look for me if it’s a no to salary.
I believe the previous comment is referencing the book Getting to Yes, which I think is fairly standard curriculum in business school. I have not read it, but it's on my list:
So if there was a reference there was totally unintentional, haha. Haven't read the book.
Like I said in a small aside, this actually has a weird parallel in Christian theology, which is one of my geeky interests. In particular the panreligious mystic Gurdjieff has a “Law of Three” where instead of creating an opposition, a dualism, a zero-sum “good vs evil, right vs wrong” scenario, you understand a Third Force as reconciling the other two.
So, the wind wants to push a boat in one direction, the waves want to push it in a different direction: but it is the operation of the sail and keel and captain/helm who has a destination in mind, which takes these opposing forces and creates a new reality, a Course or Journey. In this new reality both of the forces which would have opposed each other are actually satisfied, they come to a negotiated equilibrium where they each succeed. The wind did not quiet the waves and get it's way; the waves did not stop the wind. But because they are blowing freely in opposite directions, the mediation takes place and a larger space is realized.
So then it is fun to read Christian theology in this light. The idea is that the Trinity is actually viewable as precisely this sort of triad, and so in this sense of reality is negotiated reality, the Christian message is that God is a negotiation. And this sounds like New Age poppycock until you realize that it's basically the view of St Thomas Aquinas. Like all of the scholastics very much viewed the Trinity as an interdependence, you literally cannot speak of the Son without talking about the Father in a parent-child dynamic: that's what it means to be a son. And that dynamic you can't talk about without the spirit of familial love that pervades it, but that Spirit of love cannot be talked about independently of the parties involved either. And so the medieval view is kind of that God is sort of Unity at the core of existence, rather than Opposition.
So that's the stuff that I geek out about that informed my view on what negotiation is and how it works in the ideal case.
The other factor is that it’s just a job - you are not getting married! You can take their offer, and if it doesn’t work out or if something better comes along, you can just resign.
Another commenter noted also that this shouldn't be a bluff. Here's an example of the kind of thing that could be helpful: "I love working here and I can really see continuing my career here for a long time. So I'm really hoping we can come to an agreement so that this makes sense."
This gets them thinking about you as a market participant and not about how small a raise they can give you. Even if you don't have active offers, understanding your value in the market is really important.
BATNA is not about bluffing. It's about you genuinely understanding what your best alternative is if you can't reach agreement. This helps you negotiate better.
So if you think you can definitely get better offers (even if you don't have one now), that will influence your negotiating position to go for a higher offer.
A personal example of this. A company I was working for made a lot of people redundant, although they wanted to retain me. I wasn't happy with the situation, not least because I would end up shouldering a lot more work in the reduced team. I knew I could find work somewhere else at least on what I was getting (with less responsibility). So I asked for a raise to retain me.
They refused, and I resigned immediately. I found a much better role, on more money, with better career opportunities quite quickly. My BATNA meant I could ask for the raise with some confidence. Of course you have to be willing to follow through; I wasn't bluffing.
That’s helpful, I’ve never thought about it like this before. It’s kind of what you believe is the best alternative out there and using that. A bit like hypothesis testing and gathering evidence.
Probably easier to be as aggressive as you were if there has been a significant negative change in the company vs a positive friendly environment which I have.
A chronograph is any watch with a stopwatch complication. I'm really not sure what your concern with a lever escapement is, as this is used on almost all mechanical watches.
A chronograph has a chronograph or detent escapement. The purpose of which is eliminate the sliding friction in the escapement and variability caused by viscosity change in lubrication with temperature.
I never heard that a stopwatch makes a watch a chronometer. That sounds like a marketing gimmick.
Ahould your original post read “chronometer” instead of chronograph? I also understand chronograph to mean a stopwatch complication, which is different from a chronometer certification.
Jerk is by definition how fast the acceleration changes. And it's true that there is more delay in ICE engines before you get full power and thus the acceleration changes more slowly.
That's why I said "and someone to manage them". The difference is in the tens of thousands of dollars per instance. The savings from even a dozen instances is enough to pay for someone to manage them full time, and that's just for the first year. Year 2 and 3 you're saving six figures per instance so you'd be able to afford one person per machine to hand massage them like some fancy kobe beef.
A100 TDP is 400W so assuming 4kW for the whole machine, that's a little more than $5k/year at $0.15/kWh. Again, the difference is in the tens of thousands per instance. Even at 50% utilization over three years, if you need more than a dozen machines it's much cheaper to buy them outright, especially on credit.
I think the biggest weakness of spreadsheets is version control and testing. This really limits the potential for results that are both complex and correct.
There's nothing stopping you from checking your spreadsheets into version control just like any other text-based file format (or non-text-based format, for that matter).
Besides having a snapshot of each change, version control’s big advantage is the ability to compare versions and merge between branches. How do you accomplish that with a spreadsheet?
There are some lucky circumstances where this is true, but most such accommodations are not like that. Usually some trade-off must be made, in cost or in functionality. For example, with those same cut curbs, we now need to put a bumpy panel to allow blind and visually impaired people to feel the transition from curb to street, but these make the cut much worse for anything with wheels.
I would say actually in the vast majority of cases of accessibility interventions, it benefits everyone. Everyone is, at various points in their lives, a varying degree of disabled (defined in terms of functional deficits). Whether injured, pregnant, chronically ill, a wheelchair user, elderly, or — heh — even intoxicated, thinking broadly about users of the spaces and tools we design is always going to yield more positive than negative externalities imho.
In cases where this is not true, I’d challenge designers and engineers to find more novel designs that can genuinely be used by anyone and not cost too much inconvenience. This can sometimes mean starting from scratch and questioning our assumptions. Eg. Even the need for a curb-to-street indicator presupposes a street that is used by both big metal vehicles and pedestrians, whereas perhaps there’s a solution that means those paths never cross. Ie. More fundamental urban and transport design instead of band-aiding atop legacy systems.
I found that whatever material they used in San Francisco for those bumpy curb ramps was incredibly slippery when it rained. Wouldn't surprise me if someone ends up disabled because of them at some point.
All the panels I've encountered in Georgia have had plenty of grip when wet. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe it's because we get more rain and less slippery oil and goop is able to accumulate. I've heard that's part of why drivers in southern California have so much trouble with rain.
Do they use plastic bricks there? I've heard about such things existing, but ours are molded concrete at least. And the pattern is quite unobtrusive as well.
Frankly it's harder to come up with examples where it's actually just a Pareto improvement that was undiscovered until considering accessibility. This isn't to say that this is not worthwhile anyway to make tradeoffs but claiming that tradeoffs don't exist is just magical thinking.
Some obvious examples (even ignoring higher cost, since they are all also higher cost):
* Coloring for colorblind people is worse for people with normal vision.
* Large format type is cumbersome for people with normal vision.
* Traffic signals that are long enough for the elderly to cross cost everyone time every time they are used.
* Stalls in bathrooms suitable for disabled people means fewer stalls can fit.
* Ramps for wheelchairs require way more space than stairs and take much longer to traverse.
Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't do these things.
