> This is a puzzle! Why would the market fail to reward innovative firms, or, conversely, why does it continue rewarding less innovative firms? Unfortunately, here we don’t have clear answers.
Puzzle no more, the answers are obvious! There are two interlinked mechanisms leading to this phenomenon. The rise of inequality (centralisation of power and wealth) and the rise in private debt. Both require coordinated governmental intervention to address, which won’t happen until the next economic crisis and dramatic drop in standards of living. Wish it was different, but economic theory (mainstream anyway) doesn’t account for our present situation and the control system is cycling into instability.
The upside is that we might learn the lessons this time around.
You don't explain the connection at all. You're just injecting your political world-view into the cause so you can hawk your preferred political solution.
It’s nothing to do with politics, it’s just maths. And if you think I’m a leftist, you would also be wrong!
Unfortunately, educating yourself on this topic is not easy and involves differential equations. The economic models that fail to predict our current situation are simplifications. I’d link you, but I don’t think I’ll be getting a very receptive audience!
> Unfortunately, educating yourself on this topic is not easy and involves differential equations.
Which is it? Obvious but... only if you're "educated"?
> The economic models that fail to predict our current situation are simplifications.
Are there economic models that are not simplifications?
If being simplifications makes the models trivial to dismiss, but also all models are simplifications, then how do you successfully "predict our current situation"? I guess not with models. Just from first principles or something, but like, which? And then you need to provide the full chain of reasoning, and don't let that become a model. Or maybe it's simulations, but those are also invariably simplifications.
It's hard to take this seriously. Some links would be appreciated.
> And if you think I’m a leftist, you would also be wrong!
I didn't refer to specific politics, just your politics whatever they happen to be. Now you tell me I'm an ignoramus while you're educated and that's why this stuff is obvious to you but not to me -- and also not to [some? many? most??] economists. Plus:
> I’d link you, but I don’t think I’ll be getting a very receptive audience!
Certainly no link -> non-receptive audience. Links might or might not improve the situation, but we can't tell till you furnish some.
> The rise of inequality (centralisation of power and wealth) and the rise in private debt. [...] present situation and the control system is cycling into instability. [...] this time around.
Your explanation assumes the article is trying to explain a recent phenomenon.
The article actually discusses a puzzling pattern spanning a huge time interval.
You probably point at the right problem (inequality, centralisation of power and wealth), but this article actually indicates this problem has been going since before any of us were even born.
You still misread the article: they observe the nearly constant 2% growth across the long timespan, regardless of the relative increases in researchers, regardless of all the policy changes, regardless of ...
The article is NOT about some recent change. Please cite the article if you believe it is trying to solve a puzzle concerning a recent change.
The whole point is that this 2% seems to be robust, regardless of investing or getting more ideas, invalidating the idea that the growth is a simple result of the production of ideas (say making blueprints for a new kind of factory, which can then be copied without having to make more blueprints).
I am not asking you for a random citation of the article, but one that demonstrates the article discusses a puzzle concerning a recent trend, as opposed to a longtime ongoing one.
Your citation of the article:
> This is a puzzle! Why would the market fail to reward innovative firms, or, conversely, why does it continue rewarding less innovative firms? Unfortunately, here we don’t have clear answers.
does not refer to any recent change, indeed, it uses the word "continue" invalidating your claim that the puzzle is about some recent change.
There are a lot of public facing graphql servers that use it without issue other than frustrating users of non adversarial but complex requirements. The problem is that it is generally on a per request basis.
An adversary is going to utilize more than a single query. It mostly protects against well intentioned folks.
Other forms of protection such as rate limiting are needed for threat models that involve an adversary.
The same problems exist with REST but there it is easier as you can know query complexity ahead of time at end points. GraphQL has to have something to account for the unknown query complexity, thus the additional heuristics.
> When I look at myself, I don't believe I have character. I want to be liked too much, and in my emotional core, I'm frightened.
First of all, thank you for the honesty. It shows good character!
I think you are right that good character is the core of being a good manager. It’s the core of being a good person. Virtue and duty. Unfashionable words, but the secret to “happiness” (the good life). The ancient greeks understood this, and it’s been the heart of western philosophy.
I can believe you not hearing about Sharepoint. But not hearing about Onedrive is basically impossible if you have used a Windows machine in the last decade.
Yeah, one may not use it but it's hard to ignore when Office apps suggest you save the document to the cloud as a default. I do avoid it and don't really need any collaboration but I understand that I'm minority. On my home workstation (which is mainly used for video editing) I have only local account so I don't get sucked into more MS services. But at this point you have to actively try to get around the default setup with online account and cloud apps, so it's indeed hard to ignore.
I have never used windows machines for anything but gaming, but I get your point readily. If I had used the windows finder I would have encountered onedrive.
> Microsoft has a problem that they hire the middle block of talent in the market. They do not chase the top 20% most expensive nor the bottom 20% least expensive.
This is such a BS attitude. A person’s ability doesn’t map directly with their salary.
The very best developers I’ve ever worked with? Small companies outside of major cities (for life style reasons). Not everyone is trying to max their income; some want a good job doing something they love.
Small companies can offer more meaningful impact, if you’re not the type who likes being a tiny cog or commanding armies.
You are coping. Overwhelmingly the quality of developers is reflected in their pay packages. Overwhelmingly most people are motivated by money/benefits/QOL/GPUs.
This is an amusing response. I personally have chased the TC (to an extent), climbed the ladder, and sit at the top (below the c-suite). This isn’t cope, it’s a genuine reflection based on many years of experience having worked for multinationals in various countries.
Perhaps compensation should be a reflection of ability, but the real world is far more nuanced.
Yes, but...does it? How do you know it isn't missing key points raised in the meeting? Not collecting actionable items?
Summarising seems like the absolute lamest thing an LLM could do for me. Like I want a Reader's Digest of my life, written but a word guessing machine.
This is arguably the only use case where a chat interface (or just text) actually works, because it's an information compression task. But building a $50 billion business strategy just on the fact that AI can recap a meeting is risky. If this is the only feature that works well, then the business ROI is questionable
> perfecting something that, almost by definition, could have waited a while
No technical debt is not the same thing as “perfection”. Good enough doesn’t mean perfect.
Would it be ok to submit an essay with only 90% of the underlined spelling mistakes fixed? Do you paint your outdoor table but leave the underside for later?
Do it once, do it right. That doesn’t mean perfect, it means not cutting corners.
There are contexts where quick and dirty and (hopefully) come back later are warranted. Far more often it is just an excuse for shoddy work. You used the word “perfection” as the contrast to “technical debt”. Granted, technical debt is not a well defined term, but I am simply highlighting that “free from technical debt” in no way implies anything like perfect. It just implies well made.
Technical debt is not a current defect. It just means that for the sake of having something quickly done today, you accept that the cost of changing stuff tomorrow will be greater than normal. If you never have to change something (switching jobs, consultancy project you don’t care about,…) then it may be a great trade off.
<= 0 regrets
reply