It does matter. I would suggest, that it would be compelling to stop with the deterministic statements that are equivocations to fit your own narrative. What "less" means or what "starvation" means, is information that would be helpful. Given the multiple vectors that compose the general term "nutrition", we can be sure that less intake is more effective for losing weight. Then going on to say "pretty damn easy" is insulting. Most people aren't informed enough to make measured political decisions (many state initiative cycles in the US have shocking consequences), choosing what to eat and how much is an impracticable behavior.
> What "less" means or what "starvation" means, is information that would be helpful.
Good points. When you're on a high carb diet you can feel like you're starving when you're not, because of the speed at which the energy is dumped after eating. Actual starvation is when you don't get enough calories over long enough time so that your body starts to feed on its own fat, and then muscle, and then you die. But that takes a while to kick in.
> Given the multiple vectors that compose the general term "nutrition", we can be sure that less intake is more effective for losing weight.
Firstly, nutrition: Like the article says, the guy kept up his nutrition by taking vitamins, yeast, and electrolytes. A food can be highly energy dense and have little nutritional value. Nutrition is important. One can have good nutrition and be overweight, and one can be overweight and have bad nutrition. Nutrition is a very broad subject that has little to do with straight up calories, energy, and fat burning/storage.
Secondly, let's say you're a regular sedentary American. The amount of calories your body needs will be surprisingly little. It may even feel disturbingly little.
So lets say you eat just enough to meet your body's requirements (which is different for everyone, depending on genes and activity). If you don't exercise and still eat lots of carbs and sugar, this will seem like a shockingly small amount and you will feel like you are periodically starving after your body has burned the carbs into energy, but you won't actually be starving, because it takes a decent amount of time for your body to flick over to fat burning mode. So you go through this bumpy starvation feeling diet, where you only feel satiated a short while after eating.
And still you body won't burn fat, because it's still sporadically getting enough calories from carbs, but your energy levels will be all fucked up because carbs are so easily turned into energy. You will feel high when you eat, and fucking exhausted when all that energy is burned up.
Actual starvation is when you don't get enough calories for long enough that your body is forced burn its own fat.
This feels fucking awful. It's hard. It sucks.
However, by eliminating carbs but keeping fat in your diet you can get your body to switch into fat burning mode without feeling like you're starving. So now, lets say you have a good meal, and you feel full. Maybe you've had too much. Whatever. What happens when you've burned all that energy? Instead of your body panicking and feeling like its starving, it's already in fat burning mode, so it simply goes to its own reserves without panicking. You won't get that 2pm sleepy feeling of lacking energy because your body will be happily start burning its own fat.
Over time your weight will come down. Combined with modest fasting (skipping breakfast for example) you will lose weight even quicker, and you won't feel like you're starving because your body will not have to wait for you to stop feeding in carbs before it switches over to fat.
> Then going on to say "pretty damn easy" is insulting. Most people aren't informed enough to make measured political decisions (many state initiative cycles in the US have shocking consequences), choosing what to eat and how much is an impracticable behavior.
I have never seen a signing bonus. Options, yearly bonus, even rev-share, sure.
> There can be other facets of a company that should influence your decision, such as what type of healthcare they offer,
Almost universally, company health care SUCKS. Look for major medical. If it's not there, don't bother. Save yourself the 7$ a month they will rebate you, if you opt-out. JPMorgan? Trash. Experian? Trash. etc
> What the 401k matching looks like
This is important. Generally % of paycheck up to a limit. It does take a chunk from your paycheck, which is you saving for yourself.
> whether they offer a mega backdoor Roth, whether they allow auto-sell of your vested stocks, whether there’s an employee stock purchase plan, and whether they offer free food or gym.
This is all marginal and rare in my experience. Other than a little gym you can pay for or some snacks (which will eventually be abused and changed if the company is growing) or Kombucha on tap or whatever is not a consideration for me.
Not just specific companies, but largely specific areas (which have to compete with specific companies). New grads will, statistically, never see signing bonuses in their career, much less out of school. People paying bonuses for new grads is a sunk opportunity cost and a company should never do it unless it hurts them in some measurable way (cost-benefit analyses are important).
I've interviewed hundreds of people in Southern California, some who came out of google (does give signing bonuses) or Amazon (rarely signing bonus) and it has happened that Blizzard tempted some people with a little bonus...but these are uncommon.
People who jump company to company (google to amazon and back) don't get bonuses (as rehires), although that's outside the topic of "new grads".
I joined Amazon as a new grad. Signing bonus was part of the standard new grad offer.
> People paying bonuses for new grads is a sunk opportunity cost
Sure but FAAMG aren't really trying to pinch pennies. Signing bonuses also usually have a clause where you have to return it, if you don't at least stay a year. Signing bonus as a new grad is a HUGE help to the new grad. When you're competing between FAAMNG, that signing bonus can sway what offer a new grad would accept.
> google (does give signing bonuses)
I'm currently at Google but I had to negotiate the signing bonus. It wasn't part of my original offer.
I'm in SoCal, lots of companies around here will do low five figure starting bonuses now if you ask. I've seen 5k-15k in my offers at either smaller startups or non FAANG.
Nope, have had a couple offers from small and mid-sized cos with signing bonuses in Austin. Not anywhere near FAANG-sized signing bonuses, mind you, but they exist.
I am curious about standard Bay Area FAANG signing bonuses for mid-senior level. This new grad offer from the post sounds insane to me, regardless of talent:
$115,000 salary
$240,000 equity/4 years, 1 year cliff then quarterly
3 of my friends got this, all at Facebook. Not to say this is standard, but this is not outlier. Some hedge funds pay more.
AFAIK only Facebook gives 100k signing, and it's usually for returning interns and after negotiation with competing offers (usually other FANG or hedge fund offers).
Amy idea of their signing bonus outside of new grads? I'm wondering what they offer people with real experience if they give that much to people without any. Relevant for me because I'm interviewing with a large financial firm that "pays similarly to FB". I doubt their claim, especially in light of these numbers.
Startups in non big VC states (WA, NY, CA) tend to not have signing bonuses. Every company I'd apply for has some sort of signing bonus, FAANG and not-FAANG.
I am kind of shocked at how poorly Amazon pays new grads on top of unfavorable vesting schedules. There is a reason most of my friends left it in < 2 years for better work and pay.
I hope you are paid what you wanted to be paid. On average my experience has been that Amazon's offers are lesser than Google and Facebook's. Not to mention no free food which would be okay if Amazon paid more but that is not the case.
That's the direct implication, however. Unless you claim offers are decoupled from the labor market's value of an individual, which is certainly a novel idea I'd be interested in hearing about.
In that case most tech people are "lesser" than investment bankers. I didn't say anything about an individual's worth being tied to their offer. That is asinine in my opinion. You are projecting that by yourself. If you want to stick to numbers ask your peers who got offers from all 3 how they stack up. I also know the perks at Amazon suck. Food is a big perk for me and not having that is a straight 4k+ hit to your comp. 401k matching plus mega backdoor 401k , better health insurance. Even keeping absolute numbers aside Amazon is a penny pincher when it comes to its employees.
You can be the smartest engineer and have a bad interview day. Your offers then won't reflect your true "labor market worth". In the absence of a solid evaluative metric to judge a person, tying what an employer pays them to their worth is stupid. If you work for Amazon my unsolicited advice would be to get out if you want to be paid more.
I have had multiple throughout my career and so have my peers. This is actually quite common for engineers and talent on the higher end of the skill bell curve.
Downvoter you confuse me. Either you've downvoted it because it is anecdata which is fair or you have discovered your personal market value and would rather not acknowledge that to yourself, thus making the "downvote" the way you can become at peace with that.
Signing bonuses are not not unusual at all and, again I can't stress this to the reader any further, they are awarded consistently and constantly to top performing engineers and talent in their fields.
> What are the motives for leaking information regarding our actions on foreign soil against foreign citizens?
1. Removing plausible deniability. "Well we might be deeply involved in domestic surveillance but we certainly don't do it outside the US!". The laws that enabled the NSA to do the surveillance were attributed to accessing data that traveled outside the US.
2. Demonstrating the power and reach for legitimacy/plausibility.
I'm sure I can come up with more than the first 2 minutes it
took to assemble this post.
1. They don't need plausible deniability because they wouldn't deny they are spying on foreign nationals. Every world power spies on foreign nationals. The controversy that Snowden revealed is that they are spying on their own citizens, spying on foreign citizens is already known and accepted as a reality of modern politics.
2. No one was really questioning the plausibility or legitimacy of the documents Snowden released (there was some challenges on the interpretation of those documents) and revealing unconfirmed and unrelated intelligence operations does nothing to confirm the information about the domestic operations that he released.
Your assurances that you know what the NSA (or proxy) would reason is laughable, for example. You have a view that he's a bad actor and it doesn't matter to me, other than it's a trivial thought experiment to justify his actions. GL
It keeps industries (affecting the currency, in the case of banks) stable. There's only 1 asshole to talk to, when it stops being reliable or the populace gets uppity enough for the political animals to notice.
Other non-tech businesses, hell EVERY business that I've ever worked in that used AWS did better per transaction - healthcare, digital advertising, virtual office tooling, gaming. If you can't do better than a credit card processing fee per paid customer interaction across the company on AWS, you might as well be selling retail goods...and depending on age, your company might be soon.
Even if it is terrible, is the business such than a 26 cent overhead on rides is going to make or break it?
Companies like Lyft are doing a lot more than updating a few fields for each ride. They would be processing massive amounts of location data and they are building out models to eventually use for self driving cars.
Thank you, my point exactly. Their infrastructure costs are terrible. Especially considering how easy their data is to shard etc (buyer and seller belong are in the same geo physically).
> rock phosphate is a finite resource and the biggest supplies are mined in politically unstable places
A similarity with oil? I think it's a forgone conclusion that politically unstable places are ripe for becoming stable under whatever guise a mining nation chooses. The profits must flow.
The survival of our technological civilization is very much uncertain. It has been since the nuclear age.
If someone wanted to take meaningful action, they would be sinking container ships. In aggregate, they contribute to more pollution (of all kinds), than most singular countries. Nobody is going to war over this, so it's inevitable. If it's inevitable, it's not healthy to pretend otherwise. The earth will survive, humans will survive, and maybe technological action will allow us to terraform the earth in a different or unexpected way (eg Snowpiercer).
This "debate" about what to do is always toothless and desperate and pointless until the death toll starts to mount. Even then, the wealthy will make the same old arguments about irresponsibility and willful ignorance of those with nothing, blaming the victims, which seems to work generation after generation...until finally we get multinational instability and with smaller populations, some semblance of change too late (eg states of the USSR) to recover from the devastation. What's the mini-state of lower california going to do about 150 degree weather and no water? Nothing.
Serious question: I always see 'humans will survive' in these kinds of posts. Why? We know most of the past species are extinct, we are in the middle of a mass extinction event, the climate crisis hasn't even fully begun, and there are other serious problems coming.
So I don't want to be negative, but I do want to stay realistic. Does someone know why humans will survive, and on which time scale this prediction is valid .
People have been inhabiting the Arctic for millennia, and that's a pretty inhospitable place. Granted, it's technologically easier to heat than to cool (just eat lots of fat)
We don't have reliable data that an advanced civilization of our level (yes, we're advanced comparing to many our ancestors) goes extinct. Particularly for reasons like this. So we naturally not sure. On the other hand, we see some examples of wonderful inventiveness - say, in time of a war, but also in time of great geographical discoveries, technology and science achievements etc. So for many it feels like an open question.
As for validity time scale, I'd like to see research myself.
We have some examples. Just look at Petra and some Mayan cities... They fell because climate stopped spring people there - they ran out of water and fell to either starvation or disease.
Mostly they moved elsewhere, but on planet scale that would be much more problematic.
Citing a post in this same discussion: warming by 5 degrees will cause all phytoplankton to die off and as a result we'll run out of oxygen. So no, that's not enough.
Even if it would be, how would you feed these people? How would their underground cave get power for light etc in a CO2-negative world?
AFAIK, the 'biosphere 2' experiment and the experiences with the space stations demonstrated humanity is not capable of surviving long term without mother earth. There are plenty of unknown unknowns.
Breeder reactors are really nice in that they produce lots of energy that you can use to produce food and oxygen. Biosphere 2 was a hippy project that tried to reproduce a complex ecosystem that nobody really understood. The Russians had much more pragmatic approaches. For this project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS-3 it's much easier to see how it could scale up to true self-containment.
Interestingly, from a technological standpoint, container ships could switch to nuclear propulsion tomorrow if they wanted to. The 2 main reasons they haven't is the large up front cost, and the fact that very few nations like the idea of a ship with a nuclear reactor being highjacked by pirates.
I guess that depends on what you consider "weather"
If I said "ground temperature", would it matter to the discussion?
60C (140F) was the Average temp in the triassic. With the amount of water in the air plus the carbon dioxide, I expect to see that in places a couple generations after I die...which is the time period I've referenced (political instability).
The highest ground temperature recorded was 201 degrees at Furnace Creek on July 15, 1972, according to the National Park Service. The maximum air temperature for that day was 128. All types of bad things happen at that point. Water evaporates rapidly at 150, so who cares where the water comes from. It's gone or containers rupture as it turns gaseous. What temperature the air is, doesn't matter.
When people talk about "temperature" they mean air temperature, look at any weather forecast. Human survival is largely dependent on air temperature. While water does evaporate faster at 150 than at, say, 100, it is still well below boiling and not hard to contain -- 150 is a somewhat cooled cup of tea/coffee. Underground piping will be much colder than ground temperature.
At any rate, temperature increase forecasts for the next 100 years are all in the O(1 degree C) range. There are many reasons to mitigate climate change/decrease green house gas output/fight pollution, but let's not spread FUD.
systemd wasn't necessary for init when you ignore Poettering's binaries which broke with common interfaces (now there are more, sigh). It's worse from a maintenance standpoint, for init. It's quite sane for a daemon management system. It just happened to combine a bunch of systems into one and now we're stuck with it.
It seems incredibly self-defeating, to quit over a lack of CODE REVIEW at any point in someone's career.
Hiring someone just to review your code is not a sane business decision, so you might want to think about how you overvalued that aspect. I would be very surprised if someone could make a business out of 3rd party code reviews, but stranger things have happened.
How is that self defeating from the programmers perspective? Code reviews can contribute to growth as a developer, ultimately helping ones career. When a developer desires such reviews, and a company is either unwilling or unable to provide them, why should they stay? There are plenty of other companies around to work at.
So suppose you met someone who graduated uni a year ago, was working as the sole developer at a non-profit, and wanted to learn to be better at recognising and writing well-structured code. Suppose they then asked you if they should stay at their job or go work for a company where they were working with other software engineers and you said they shouldn't. How would you advise them to develop their sense of good code style?
> I would be very surprised if someone could make a business out of 3rd party code reviews, but stranger things have happened.
Depending on how you define "make a business", this already happened. There are paid for code review and vulnerability scans. Sadly, I can't remember the companies that did them. I think one of them was by IBM... I saw them applied to new software (when it was nearly done) at two big, European companies. They were mostly worthless: The insights were barely above what Sonar gives you and many findings were "never gonna happen" edge cases.
> 2. It's no(t) going to be easy
> Not at all
Self righteous nonsense.
It does matter. I would suggest, that it would be compelling to stop with the deterministic statements that are equivocations to fit your own narrative. What "less" means or what "starvation" means, is information that would be helpful. Given the multiple vectors that compose the general term "nutrition", we can be sure that less intake is more effective for losing weight. Then going on to say "pretty damn easy" is insulting. Most people aren't informed enough to make measured political decisions (many state initiative cycles in the US have shocking consequences), choosing what to eat and how much is an impracticable behavior.