I think it's quite common that a company has way too many things that it could work on compared to what the amount of people they should reasonably hire can get done. And working on more things actually generates more work itself. The more products you have, or the more infrastructure capabilities you build out, the more possible work you can do.
So you could work on more things with the same number of employees, make more money as a result, and either further increase the number of things you do, or if not, increase your revenue and hopefully profits per-employee.
I'm not sure that follows from this article. In fact, I think the logical conclusion of the article is that, by trying to grow (address weaknesses and turn them into strengths) you're actually creating strengths, which in turn creates a weakness.
I think it's possible to grow in positive outcomes of behaviors, but I also think this article is trying to get at something intrinsic within each one of us. Identifying where our personality quirks lead to strengths and weaknesses, and accepting that, is related but not quite the same as identifying concrete positive and negative outcomes of behavior, and trying to change our behaviors to align more to the positive outcomes.
Not sure if the link I'm trying to make here will be clear, but... I had an interesting conversation with my wife the other day. She conceives of who she is largely through the behaviors she expresses, a kind of de facto self-definition. I tend to have a self-conception that's a little bit more abstract and rooted as much in my feelings, thoughts, with some aspirational quality, that my behaviors sometimes live up to, and other times don't.
I can see how. In the example given, the strength of coding speed is created via a bias against careful review of edge cases. When it works (most of the time) , you increase your coding speed and reduce review of edge cases even more, until something blows up
The interesting insight from the article is that a coder is not an inflexible monolith - they can vary the expression of a "strength/weakness" pair (strength/weakness being a misnomer at this point in the argument) to suit the circumstances
Do you think normal people (think, your average investing American) are trading based on this news? They probably shouldn't be... I would think that by far most of the trading these past few days has been institutions, so, a big transfer from some financial institutions to others?
I think this would be expected though, no? Sure, there's flight to safety, but you're also reducing exports to the US, reducing the number of dollars flowing to foreign nationals, which reduces the demand for treasury bills, which an excess of dollars would often be used to buy to have an inflation-"proof" store for your dollars without currency risk. You would also expect devaluation of the dollar from tariffs / trade-war, which I would also expect to cause selling of t-bills in favor of local currencies
You're answering a question that wasn't asked so you can bring your view on unionization into the conversation. The implicit question is whether management should, not whether they can.
It's about power to affect change in an organization. The more power you have the better systems you can establish and sustain. Unions should be brought up constantly in these threads about AI mandates and "leadership" directions.
Unions might not be the best solution, or the most practical. I'm all ears for better ways to fight back against bogus leadership. How else can software developers advocate for their interests in an environment where their power is sharply declining (non performance based layoffs, "performance" based layoffs, reduction in junior hiring, reduction in in-office perks, reduction in total comp, etc)?
I have a public transit commute, but at the end of the day it's 8 minutes of walking to the train, a transfer after 7 minutes, and then a 7 minute walk to the office from the train. Never enough unbroken time to get into a book :(. I've learned something new about public transit commuting--look for a commute with as long a single stint on the train as possible, while still trying to minimize total time.
Could they not make sure that enough of their assets are in cash-flowing assets (think, rent-yielding assets, or treasuries, or dividend-yielding stock, etc.) that need not be sold and whose cash-flow can be utilized?
As far as the change over time goes, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that social mobility used to be higher. I think part of the reasoning for that was an incredibly strong domestic economy compared to the rest of the world, as well as a lower baseline (strides in standard of living and pay get harder and harder to increase the further you increase them).
As far as the comparisons globally, they're ranking countries based on "education, access to technology, healthcare, social protection and employment opportunities" which has the implicit assumption baked in that those 5 metrics are proxies for social mobility. They might be, but why not actually measure the thing you care about? Social mobility to me means changing social classes based on income. Something like moving from a 25k/yr household to a 75k/yr household, or moving from a 75k/yr household to a 200k/yr household, maybe another jump up to 500k or a million/yr.
It seems to me that there is a much more equal distribution of incomes and outcomes in the countries you linked. That makes me think it would be much harder to go from being middle class to upper class in those countries than in the US, simply because almost everybody is part of the middle class. Thus, I think if you measured what most immigrants (and what I) actually care about when we hear about "social mobility," then the countries you mentioned would have great social mobility into the middle class, and basically no other social mobility.
Actually the data I've seen states one is way more likely to go from the bottom 20% to the top 20% in many other countries than if you were doing it in the USA.
I'm open to any counter data, but I've read these same numbers in several sources and you can tease it out of my first link.
This effectively defines social mobility as wages being compressed around the median. Small changes in income will create large changes in percentile since it is a relative measure in these cases. For countries where wages are not compressed around the median, like the US, large absolute increases in income produce small increases in percentile.
To put it another way, it is much easier to increase your income in the US but harder to increase your income ranking. I think most people would prefer to have more money than a higher ranking given a choice between the two.
So this is just moving goal posts IMO. End of day it's harder to go from the poorest to the richest. Speaking as someone that was born below the poverty line and but later was earning in the top 1% in the USA, going from sub 14k to 36k was gigantically huge...going from 50k to 250k in as short of a span didnt affect me very much, but moving to France and not worrying about medical bills or insurance companies again was a game changer ... YMMV and everyone is different
The phrasings stick out to me as super GPT-like.