Typically nurses are women. Typically women are married to men. Men worthy of a relationship or marriage to begin with typically have an income significantly higher than min wage, potentially capable of sustaining a family on his own. Nurses are women usually and women have options, usually.
This comment is kooky. Are you implying that one option for women nurses is marrying a higher-income man and becoming a stay-at-home spouse?
Men making less than the median for their gender (something like $55k in the US) are still marriageable; plenty of women marry men who can’t support families on their salary alone. Even at the median salary, supporting two people — let alone a larger family — could be a struggle, depending on debts and other commitments.
And then there are women who are not married to a man who makes money, either because they remain unmarried or because their husband has lost his job or cannot work for some reason.
Further, even if the cards align, it’s not great to be in a position of dependence on your spouse's salary. Sometimes you have to split up and sometimes your spouse dies without leaving significant insurance or inheritance.
I think they're saying that married people might have a little more leeway in changing careers because they have the stability of a second income in their household already.
Putting on my early neolithic archaeologist hat, there are a lot of things that don't show up in art. The trend in the past decade has been that better methods and new inquiries are turning up even more evidence for early broad-spectrum plant use everywhere we look.
1) Cave paintings may be related to religion. Hunting is fickle, you need to pray to the gods -- show them pictures of what you're after -- to get their help. Bread, baked from seeds gathered from plants, is more reliable; plants don't run away. So you don't need to paint any entreaties to the gods on how to help you get it.
2) Hunting, cave paintings and religion may have been related to one group of people, seed-gathering and baking to another. It may just not have occurred to the painters to include the activities and products of the gatherer side of the hunter-gatherer economy in their paintings.
Is there even any evidence that RN or Flutter are better for smaller budgets? Like actual data that doesn't live in the mind of a RN/Flutter enthusiast?
That’s a very good question. The reality may be that if one cannot afford at least one native iOS dev and one native android dev (given the size of the app that person could share other duties) then one is not in a place to launch a mobile app
They did need them at one point. And the product was successful enough that nobody in management ever had to get around to cost cutting, in the cases of Netflix, Facebook, etc. But that doesn't mean engineers are doing anything important.
I asked a similar question to a sibling comment in this tree but have you considered that there's a lot more than meets the eye at these companies? If the product seems "simple", "done" or "just works" that's a good thing and intentional.
Totally agree. I have wondered what exactly engineers at... Netflix, for example, do on a day to day basis. The product plays videos, right? Its played videos for...years. Their newer features are pretty clear overengineering efforts like "Smart downloads". Because they've run out of shit to do so badly that the app will literally just start downloading things on your behalf without you. Why is this at all necessary? What users asked for this? Its exactly the kind of thing someone who had nothing else to do would come up with.
Maintaining infinite platform/device compatibility, optimising video delivery, reducing bandwidth costs and new features to push the medium forward (like the choose-your-own-adventure thing they made).
Video delivery is hard. If you spend a month working on a basic Netflix clone showing a single clip it won't be 1/100th the performance of Netflix even if you use a CDN.
Netflix has optimizations for individual ISPs by placing content servers directly in their DCs.
Also, large organizations accumulate constant tech debt that need to be paid down. Features aren't infinitely scalable.
The fact that they have people optimizing that obsessively is an indication of how little real work there is to be done. The thing plays videos, its played videos for years upon years, and all that's left in engineering terms seems to be to make it faster to a small degree that no user is likely to even detect.
It's not just playing video. Actually playing the video is easy. Delivering it to the end user is enormously challenging.
Even with a top-shelf CDN, you will have a non-negligible amount of customers having playback issues because of routing issues, peering disputes, congestion etc.
If delivery was easy, Akamai would not be a multi-billion dollar company. Microsoft wouldn't pay them millions, they'd just spin up some content servers themselves.
Saving X kb per 30 minutes of video streamed is "obsessively" optimizing something if you're serving a single video. If you're over 10% of all of Internet traffic, that can be millions of dollars saved a year, which pays for more than a few engineers even at SV salaries.
As a user I certainly appreciate it, but I think the actual content being delivered plays a much larger role than how many milliseconds its delivered in.
Compare it to Disney+ or HBO Go and you’ll learn why the comparison isn’t that simple. Netflix starts faster and doesn’t pause under a much broader set of network conditions because there’s a team of people improving it. Those other products support fewer devices and it still shows how much room there is to mature beyond the basic level of service you get with redundant servers and a CDN.
How exactly does it help to pass communications through a person (the manager) that, for the most part, does not understand the technical details of which they are speaking? We literally pay for slack for communication. No one needs an arbitrary human to act as a gatekeeping communication conduit.
I guess that's why you have multiple slack channels instead of one. You're trying to justify paying someone over 100 grand a year to be a worse form of communication than the software you're already paying for to communicate.
I don't think I'm trying to justify any San Francisco salaries, lol. The point I'm trying to make is that a single person can only have so much organizational knowledge overhead. Facilitating communication between the right people without spamming the wrong people is tough.
The github corporate move from a flat structure to a hierarchical is probably a good case study to read if you're interested: https://github.com/holman/ama/issues/800
