Correct but the point is that the salaries of the developers are not treated as an expense to net out, they are treated as an asset that depreciates over some period of time.
(Even though some "developer" work might be day to day maintenance, rather than building a new feature.)
- How do they take a business problem and model it into code
- How do they debug their own code
- Is their code easy to read
- Do they name their variables/fields/methods/classes in easy to understand and consistent ways or are the names confusing or inaccurate
- How do they take constructive criticism
- How collaborative are they
- Do they think about the problem first or do they just start hacking away
- When asked to add a feature to existing code, do they start hacking or do they write out a test describing the new functionality first
- When confronted with vague requirements, how well do they ask questions to get the information they need
- How much experience do they have with algorithms, database design, systems design, building things so they scale well
If it were possible to work all that out in the interview then there wouldn't be any bad hires.
As a wishlist I like it, I just don't see how you're going to assess all that in an interview. You'll notice that the technique of the day ("teach me something") doesn't address any of the dot points and that holds for ... pretty much any technique. Interviews are a weak process for assessing anything.
True but there has been a movement towards replicating these high profile findings in the soft sciences. Hopefully that will gain more traction as a lot of the "newsworthy" studies are forced to get retracted after failing to replicate.
My hot take: this is actually really good (and would be fantastic if all the big tech followed suit).
Why? Imagine a world where big tech was cool with remote workers. They would be able to out-pay and acquire all the best talent, everywhere.
With this self-imposed restriction, this leaves a big pool of high end talent able to be recruited by smaller start-ups who ordinarily wouldn't be able to compete on comp, benefits, and stability.
> Why? Imagine a world where big tech was cool with remote workers. They would be able to out-pay and acquire all the best talent, everywhere.
Assuming this is true (which I think is very much in doubt), then it indicates there is a much bigger systemic problem that needs to be dealt with: namely, big tech functioning as essentially the landlords of the Internet and skimming profit off of everything that happens there.
No one sector of the economy should have this much influence. Certainly no group this small of companies this large should have this much power over anything.
Any time you find yourself saying, "Well, yes; this change should make life better for tens (or hundreds) of millions of people, but if we make it, this group of people over here will be able to take advantage of it to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense," I strongly recommend taking a look at that group of people over there and considering whether they should have that ability, and if not, how you might be able to change that. (And if so, why, exactly, you think anyone should have that ability.)
> indicates there is a much bigger systemic problem that needs to be dealt with: namely, big tech functioning as essentially the landlords of the Internet and skimming profit off of everything that happens there.
Seems like you haven’t been paying attention as this is precisely what has happened. Or are you being ironic?
Neither: I'm pointing out that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with, rather than simply a fact of the world. We shouldn't be giving up on improving people's lives just because Big Tech would take advantage of it; we should be changing the system so Big Tech can't leverage those improvements to screw everyone else over.
If you're talking about small scale phenomena (less than 1km), then this wouldn't help other than to be able to signal when the conditions are such that these phenomena are more likely to happen.
It's been a while since I was a grad student but I think the raw station/radiosonde data is interpolated into a grid format before it's put into the standard models.
This was also in the article. It splits the sphere surface in to 1M grids (not actually grids in the cartesian sense of a plane, these are radial units). Then there's 37 altitude layers.
So there's radial-coordinate voxels that represent a low resolution of the physical state of the entire atmosphere.
One piece of context to note here is that models like ECMWF are used by forecasters as a tool to make predictions - they aren't taken as gospel, just another input.
The global models tend to consistently miss in places that have local weather "quirks" - which is why local forecasters tend to do better than, say, accuweather, where it just posts what the models say.
Local forecasters might have learned over time that, in early Autumn, the models tend to overpredict rain, and so when they give their forecasts, they'll tweak the predictions based on the model tendencies.
> Your garbage will still turn into compost, just in a landfill
This point is not actually true. Landfills are not built to optimize for decomposition, they're optimized for density. The high density leads to heavily anaerobic conditions below the surface, to the point where excavating a landfill can find shit like newspapers from decades ago.
Plus, composting makes more sense from a land use perspective. If you're exclusively taking compostables, and shipping out the compost, your land use limits your throughput, but for a landfill, your land use limits area under that curve, cumulative input. You fill up a landfill, then you have to make another one. They are, somewhat ironically, disposable.
I don't think so. Ever since my household started putting food waste in the ward waste bin instead of the trash bin, our trash bin has been mostly empty on any given week. A few scraps of single-use plastics that can't be recycled,
Of course, that's assuming that your recycling isn't also going into the landfill, which isn't a great assumption.
> Your garbage will still turn into compost, just in a landfill
It will compost, anaerobically, producing more methane and VOCs, and as they do, they create a sludge, that often picks up acid and other contaminants, which quick create leaks in landfills.
> The water that gets into landfill cells picks up contaminants from the waste and becomes “leachate.” What’s in the leachate depends on what’s in the landfill, but some chemicals can be counted on, such as volatile organic compounds, chloride, nitrogen, solvents, phenols, and heavy metals.
> The safeguards intended to prevent leachate from escaping a landfill cell – pipe collection systems in newer landfills and the plastic and clay liners mentioned above – fail over time. This toxic brew of “garbage coffee” leaks out of the landfill and seeps into groundwater – contaminating wells and waterbodies.
Anecdotally, 3 of 4 landfills in my area have ongoing leaks from leachate and now strictly police cardboard and other organic non household trash from the sites.
I would think heavy metals would be a much bigger issue wrt water contamination from a health point of view.
Not that the anaerobic sludge is great, but I would rather see a bigger push to recycle used electronics.
As far as methane, am in total agreement there. It's probably even better to incinerate paper products (if you are not in a subtropical region like LA).
Local supply chains are nice and tidy from an economic and GHG perspective.
Landfill fees are expensive, and the city can sometimes sell the compost, use it themselves, and offer excess to citizens to come pick up by the wheel barrel full.
Compost really isn't that cheap, at least not at my hardware store. Especially if you are filling more than the odd pot or two.
In most cities with composting programs, you can opt out. (Also, it's not that big of a hassle. People used to act like putting glass bottles in the recycling bin was arduous, too, but on the scale of human drudgery and misery it honestly doesn't rate if you just get on with it. Or don't, and just opt out).
