I've been living with MS for almost 15 years and still doing very well. However about three years ago everything went wrong and I got on O as soon as I could.
It's been amazing. Wish they had it a long time ago.
A company can’t tell you to not share your salary - it’s protected behavior. Whether you do that over a megaphone in the park or over TikTok they broke the law by firing her.
I come from a different industry before moving into this one, but there’s a chaotic and abysmal lack of teamwork between departments in this industry that I’ve seen this far.
Have those two teams work together.
Also, foster a culture of continuous self-improvement. I’ve now seen a bunch of “it’s good enough to ship, go for it” and now whatever work arounds and bandaids are permanent. Don’t be so fast, don’t try to iterate so quickly, and focus on quality over quick ROI.
Imagine if Boeing behaved like a SaaS operator. The first version of 737 would be glued together, and in turbulence the wings would snap off “oh, I guess we should use more glue in the next version - alright guys, iterate!”
Slow down, do a good job, and the product will come.
I agree with your overall point, but I think your example might be a bit off.
Boeing also cut corners on quality, hence the issues with the 737 MAX. It's obviously not a direct comparison, but skimping on certain things to get something to market faster is not a uniquely SaaS technique.
If I remember correctly the problem was the new models were imitating (with software) the old ones to avoid having to be certified again.
When it was time to fly there were slight differences and this caused the pilots to react in the wrong way for the new model's behaviour.
While I understand the reasons you mention, I do not clearly follow the distinction between cutting on costs and cutting on quality. It seems like two sides of the same coin.
This is getting finnicky, but generally I would consider a quality issue to be something to do with the build (ie substandard materials, poor riveting, trash in the dead spaces in the walls - as has been alleged on the 787) as opposed to what happened, (in my view) which was cost cutting - as you point out, they basically tried to do a software emulation of the previous 737.
The issue isn't flight worthiness - the 737 MAX can be a safe plane - but they cut costs by not wanting to do a recertification or retraining. I guess that is a quality and safety issue, but not what i'd normally consider quality?
Since I looked into 737's middle tank bug that was used in assassination attempt (Thai PM) in 2001. I couldn't believe how stupid its design is [1]. Professional design of airplane is quite overrated TBH.
[1]: There is very low heat cap on middle tank to catch fire inside and be exploded and then there is an air compressor right below it. The security practice is to fill it with nitrogen if it's empty.
Zero sum doesn’t mean there is a loser to every transaction. It just means that the net total change is zero. You buy a friend a beer, and you get a beers worth of camaraderie.
When you eat food, something had to die for that. It was a transfer of biochemical energy from that creature to you.
Even if it was a vegetarian meal, it got transported to you and dumped CO2 into the atmosphere. The truck probably hit bugs and maybe ran over some small wildlife.
If you didn't exist, there would be slightly less demand. If 300 million of you didn't exist, there would be a whole lot less demand. The world would be noticeably different.
Everything is energy expenditure and reallocation. Even hugging your son expends ATP that could have been used elsewhere. Hug him a million times and you will be very tired.
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't love your son. I'm saying that the world, at the most fundamental level, revolves around the availability of energy and resources. All of these things in the micro add up in the macro. And even if you aren't concerned about it, your government likely is.
Every single choice has some quantum of opportunity cost and will play out in butterfly effect fashion.
In terms of the energy you want to consume in a form factor you can utilize - food, coal if you want electricity today, plastics in tour phone, Amazon shipping, etc. - it's very much not constant.
Loosely speaking, probably not right now. A lot of countries avoid war because they are worried about the potential response from the United States. With an isolationist-focused US that isn't the dominant military power (in order for the US to not be the dominant power it'll have to undertake more isolationist tendencies like reducing military spending) there's nothing to fear from invading your neighbor.
But this is just an examination of practical reality. Ideally we wouldn't have a hegemon. Ideally maybe we wouldn't have countries either.
The wildly different allocation of resources and population (on a country border basis) suggests some country will always have the means to be hegemonic (especially if other contenders all decide not to be).
Which in practice means there will always be a hegemony.
If the US ceded its role tomorrow, China would step into it. If China ceded it the day after, Russia or the EU would step into it. (I'm skipping over India and Japan, as both seem to have cultural aversions to strongly projecting power overseas)
This is laughable. The US initiated way too many wars and other offensive / disruptive actions. If you call this stability then I have a bridge to sell. The only stability it provides is it's own. Well maybe some to the allies.
The US Navy ensures that global shipping routes stay open and safe, the US economy provides the globe with advanced technological research and products, and the US's natural resources allow for it to export tons of commodities including food and energy.
During pax americana, we've seen massive increases in quality of life around the world. Do you think the world is going to be more stable as the US retreats and other players fill the power vacuum and we have to deal with the rising threat of climate change?
I think the world will be more stable when there are few major players around with not a single one having complete control / dominance. This will insure competition and cooperation between our "masters" and will keep them on their toes.
I do not want to argue too much here. Here is my point of view - I believe that a single country controlling the world will end up with dictatorship on a world scale. It will not prevent wars either. If instead we have few majors they might actually get to their senses and establish some workable order.
You have your own take on a subject and we do not have to agree
I appreciate your desire for the world to be ruled by the US. I do not think the rest of the world will agree. And if you enforce it using military means you are no better then the rest. Are you American by any chance?
I think if the choice is China or America, the majority of the world would choose America. America is less hostile to other countries than China.
Do you think the world would rather have China in charge?
I assume you are going to claim that we can either have no major power or that the EU could be that major power. I highly doubt either of those could occur.
I believe some wars can be just and as such enforcing things through the military can be just. The idea that military use has to be bad is ridiculous.
>Replying here since reply to your last post is not available.
Typically when that happens I have to click the time posted on a post and then I have the option to reply. Not sure what causes that.
>I prefer the world "ruled" by few major entities / blocks. No need to be either US or China alone.
I don't think that is possible.
Do you have any historical examples where this has happened? Please don't bring up a time when there were multiple major powers but they were so far away they couldn't reach the other, assuming they even knew the other existed.
If you do not have any examples of this occurring, why do you think it would work in the present?
>Like bombing the country that refuses to trade in certain currency?
I am not suggesting that the US has only done good and just things. Only that the US is better than China.
China is currently taking over Hong Kong (despite having a 50 year agreement for autonomy starting in 1997), attempting to take land from India, trying to dam a river that provides water to India, is consistently threatening Taiwan, etc. China does the same crap. And all of that is within the last few years. If you want to go back further we can.
I would also note several of the US invasions were not in fact US invasion but NATO invasions. This likely means one of those blocks of country you support to be a world power were involved with these invasions.
Let's talk about internal affairs. China has a terrible record and potentially holds the record for causing the most deaths of its own citizens. Obviously they don't care about the people. What about freedom? Do Chinese citizens have more freedom than US citizens? Why would China treat people who are not its own citizens better than the citizens?
The US is better for the world and the people under its control than China.
>"The US is better for the world and the people under its control than China"
Once again you are pushing a choice that should not be there in a first place. I do not want to choose between either. Period. If you let any country run free and control the others it will devolve to a dictator. So I prefer to have the US, Europe, China, BRICS and whatever else is coming.
Do you have any historical examples where this has happened? Please don't bring up a time when there were multiple major powers but they were so far away they couldn't reach the other, assuming they even knew the other existed.
I believe it is temporary. China is massively build up their military and are consistently threatening their neighbors. I believe it is just a matter of time until war occurs.
Also, you are advocating for more than 2 blocks. As far as I can tell there are only two super powers right now.
I personally don't care and the rules don't forbid it. I wondered what you wrote, translated it online and thought I'd post it here to save others a few clicks :)
Avec la technologie actuelle, nous devrions pouvoir parler dans la langue de notre choix sans problème.
I don't think it's against the rules at all; we had a thread a couple weeks ago which ended up being mostly in German. We native speakers enjoy the privilege of reading English nearly every where we go online, it should be no skin off our back to pop open Google Translate every once in a while.
An occasional comment in another language is fine but HN is an English-language site, so people shouldn't be having entire conversations in other languages.
As a speaker of multiple languages, I disagree. There's no possibility of HN turning into a non-English language site just because a few threads are not in English; HN will always be first and foremost an English language site (and it's too long set in English for it to be anything but), and it's actually quite nice to be reminded of the existence of other conversations by other language speakers rather than only English. I and many others may not be able to participate so directly in them, but there's always Google Translate.
Hi, Norwegian here, so English is my second language. Sorry no. If there are other-language comments, I just skip them. The reason is UX and time. If you're too lazy to run your other-language comment through Google Trans or similar, then you'll just end up having fewer readers. Meanwhile you just end up annoying those who want to fluently read the discussions without having to stop and run things through a translator every other post. This makes other-language posts bad for HN's business. I mean consider if I just switched to my own language for no reason at all. Haha, da må du kjøre greia gjennom Google Trans eller lignende, og fordi jeg skriver dialekt så er det likevel ikke sikkert at alt blir oversatt riktig lol. Actually the translation for that last sentence came out surprisingly well, but it's not like you'd know anyway.
I'm not a native speaker, but I understand English better than German or Russian. Sometimes it makes sense to write something in other languages, sometimes it doesn't. It should be a matter of common sense and politeness more than about the rules.
I remember going to a computer club talk by Woz where a significant portion (certainly the important parts) of the conversation were all in 6502 assembler. I was so lost, and at the same time inspired.
...so even at the end of their lives they would have still easily qualified for the Fields Medal. Maybe they should receive a posthumous honorary one. Or maybe they already did?
