As someone who has worked for less than $40,000 a year, and someone who now makes more than the average pay of someone at DropBox--I'm not sure it's a useful conversation to say "Hey, someone else has it worse." Yes, it'd suck to be a laid-off staff member of a university making $40,000. It also sucks to be a laid-off cashier at a grocery store making $16,500.
This talk of money also ignores the negative effects on mental health from being laid-off.
But the most important point here is that a CEO making an obscene amount of money takes "full responsibility" and... still gets paid an obscene amount of money. Easy to take responsibility if you have 0 consequences.
> I'm not sure it's a useful conversation to say "Hey, someone else has it worse."
That's wasn't the point of my comment. The point was the $125,000 severance package. You have someone making $40,000 a year getting laid off with little notice and no money to live on. That's bad. Then you have someone getting laid off but the company is giving them another $125,000. To the extent that that's bad, it's something that most folks could never dream of.
First thing I do when playing a multiplayer game with proximity voice chat is to turn voice chat off. Makes play sessions much more enjoyable.
Sure you may miss the 5% of chat that is actually tactical and relevant to the game, but it's a very small price to pay in order to avoid edgelords and other toxic people.
I appreciate Valve for having both an in-game skill score as well as a behavior score. Once your behavior is maxed out chat becomes an entirely different experience.
Is that simply cultural? DOTA is well over a decade old. If everyone's toxic and behavior is self-moderated, then toxic behavior is not just normalized but reinforced.
And as someone with that many hours too... Go check a 8k behavior score or below. The system is working. It's just that the depths of hell are deeper than people think.
It could be more aggressive at lowering score tho, true. Used to be. They "buffed" the gain per 20 matches last December, but it was great before (And even lowered the scores of streamers that had it coming).
This sucks because, when used appropriately, prox voice chat works really well and adds depth to multiplayer. A lot of games feel really dead without it. But finding pubbies that use it appropriately is practically impossible.
> As a gamer dad, I try to show my kid better games to play, but because they aren't free, his friends can't play. Just drives him to keep playing and wanting more Robux. It's compounded when his favorite Youtubers play...
If there's a paid game your kid really likes, perhaps you can talk to his friend's parents and buy the friend a copy of the game. ...I say talking to the friend's parents first, because just gifting a game to the friends would be creepy.
But buying friends copies of a game we want to play together is something my friend group routinely does and we're all adults with disposable income.
Excellent idea. Two additional reasons: (1) many parents would want veto power on what kids spent their time on and are exposed to, including video games; and (2) you could suggest quietly buying the game through the parents, to avoid complicating the kids' relationship with getting stuff.
Some other, more expensive, activities (e.g., tennis lessons together, when the family of one of the BFFs isn't affluent) are harder for more people to do this, but video games are relatively inexpensive.
> just gifting a game to the friends would be creepy
lol well this certainly depends on how it's done. Walking up to them in a trench coat and handing them a disc? Probably creepy. But you could also just, like, send them a gift key on Steam...
Unless this person is literally Santa Claus, I suspect a lot of parents might question the motives of a grown man sending gifts to their children without their knowledge.
The key is “without their knowledge”. Seems like an easy thing to explain to a parent. Plus it’s reasonable you’d ask the parents so they have a chance to say yes/no to the game.
It's not just GitHub and it's not just because they don't want to pay bug hunters. In my career, I have escalated multiple bugs to my employer(s) in which the response was 'working as intended'. And they wouldn't have to pay me another cent if they acknowledged the issue.
In my experience, there was two reasons for this behavior:
1. They don't want to spin dev cycles on something that isn't directly related to revenue (e.g. security)
2. Developers don't have the same mindset as someone who's whole job is security. So they think something is fine when it's really not.
At least where I work, RSUs are often dangled to you as a way to justify a lower base salary. RSUs are built into the 'compensation philosophy', wherein the RSUs are combined with salary to calculate total compensation.
You're underpaid with regard to salary, so you'll lose a lot more by foregoing RSUs than you would if you were just paid a fair base salary without RSUs.
The other day I was talking to my wife about my frustrations at work, and she said "Well, just don't quit before you get that RSU vest." And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had such conversations.
Amazon has a few different programs to retrain people for tech jobs, such as non-tech Amazonians, people separating from the military, under-represented people, etc.
I'm not for victim blaming generally, but who puts their money into a company that says this:
>"...create a parallel system of existence that will change how people live, how we interact with people around the world, and even how companies and corporations will conduct business."
What is supposed to mean, other being some thought-terminating word salad to fool less cynical people?
How is this different than the argument to sell NFTs that are jpegs that somehow have some value, or token's having value from all these random crypto sites. And they take your 'hard crypto' eth or btc and somehow manipulate trading to make the ftx tokens worth billions.
I interviewed at a company that was making tools for analyzing this world and they had similar arguments about the world changing impact of their analysis tools.
I'm not sure how this has anything to do with AWS. But I guess you can use it to confirm your idea about vendor lock-in if you're bound and determined to convince yourself you're right. For what it's worth, working at AWS, I see a lot of companies who use Entra for AD and then federate into AWS using that.
I think you misunderstood OPs anecdote and took it a little personally?
They were simply saying that much as you can love one platform there are many valid reasons why your deployment on another makes it hard to shift that and recapture that configuration. Nowhere did they intimate it was a fault of the current platforms capabilities...
This talk of money also ignores the negative effects on mental health from being laid-off.
But the most important point here is that a CEO making an obscene amount of money takes "full responsibility" and... still gets paid an obscene amount of money. Easy to take responsibility if you have 0 consequences.