...that most people don't really spend their time thinking about you so don't worry too much thinking negatively about this, do your best and that's about it. It's such a simple advice but it was life changing, both personally and also professionally.
You'd be surprised how faster the boot time back in those days got simply by disabling the kernel's printk! It was mostly for fun, of course, and there were alternative special-purposed inits too. I worked on a couple low-tier "netbooks" projects and the fastest we got was between 7-10 seconds but it wasn't worth the trouble and 15-30 seconds of boot time [to a fully functional desktop] back in 2008 was already fantastic anyway.
This is the juicy part of the whole announcement: "the crew of Polaris Dawn will conduct a spacewalk". That's going to be a major feat and important milestone for Starship (and Dragon until then, of course).
... and since Dragon has no airlock, they will either:
(1) have to add one, (2) have actual EVA suits for all crew memebers or (3) keep the rest of the crew in their flightsuits in the vacuum inside the capsule while the hatch is open during the EVA.
If I had to guess, I would think that it is (3). This way they wouldn't have to carry a flightsuit and EVA suit for each of the crew members. The suits of the other crew members would still be connected to the capsule which takes the role of the environmental control and life support system.
> Menon: Since there is not an airlock on Crew Dragon, the whole crew will be exposed to the vacuum of space for the EVA. [1]
> Gillis: For Polaris, "the suit that we're going to be designing will be a single suit that we would launch and then similarly use for the EVA." [2]
Sounds to me like one crew member will wear the EVA suit for launch and for the EVA, and the other three will wear flight suits for launch and while the capsule is depressurised. So only one EVA suit, no changing suits in space, no airlock.
A vacuum inside a spacecraft is not necessarily cold, nor is the vacuum outside the spacecraft. Components may even begin to overheat in the absence of circulated air.
As a brazilian I don't believe for a second that these are actual efforts unless Brazil (holding 1/5 of all planet's biodiversity alone) is held accountable enough to see economical sanctions being enforced by more developed countries. I can't think of other last resorts efforts other than economical ones and Brazil would surely listen to those if they were enforced right.
>As a brazilian I don't believe for a second that these are actual efforts unless Brazil (holding 1/5 of all planet's biodiversity alone) is held accountable enough to see economical sanctions being enforced by more developed countries. I can't think of other last resorts efforts other than economical ones and Brazil would surely listen to those if they were enforced right.
How do you feel about external countries dictating your government policy? Often this won't go the way you want.
Is Mercosur unpopular in Brazil? Eliminating it would be quite costly to the world.
I'm not the GP (clearly), but... You mean, having the Brazilian people be denied chances of getting less poor by some high polluting countries that made the (implied correct) choice to destroy their biodiversity before the 20th century because we are unable to stop individuals from destroying part of what we preserved until today?
I don't see any chance of this not going bad. It would set the climate to somebody much worse than Bolsonaro to get into power. I don't see how the GP could ever want it, but there is a small and loud political movement that does ask for it.
(By the way, Mercosul is popular in Brazil. Preserving forests is too. Preserving non-forest biodiversity is less popular, but as soon as people see the choice, they like it. All of those have strong opposition from small groups.)
Personally I believe in full sovereignty and I want that, but it can still exist inside economical dynamics. Also, Mercosul is popular enough, I've never heard about people wanting it to be over for economical reasons or borders (only due to ideological politics fights).
But isn't that what's happening in this entire thread? Everyone here seems to have their "opinion" on how other countries "should" behave. Most of which involving drastic changes in lifestyle like eating and procreation habits. Never once considering what those countries would feel about.
>"dictating" is a landmine word, and almost certainly causes an arguement
I believe it's a fair statement. If you come in with economic sanctions with policy in mind. You have dictated what that policy is. There's no beating around the bush.
It _used to be_ easy, I did it on an old Kindle ages ago. Last I checked, it was much harder on the Voyager I currently use, and it would get lost at every OS update.
If you ever consider taking a leadership or management role please do yourself plus the people around looking up to you a favor and go to fucking psycotherapy. It's far more important than your technical skills (since you should be pretty senior by then anyway).
In my experience, most of good management is about figuring out why am I not doing the right thing (as a manager). Knowing what needs to be done is much easier than actually doing it.
Example: giving feedback is notoriously hard, even if it's really clear what the issues are. Promotion is also hard (you have to choose who to promote and who to not promote), and most of the time you do know the right choice but you might not be able to call it for personal reasons.
So yes, if you happen to manage people, spend a LOT of effort on self-reflection. Go to a coach, therapist, go to courses where they let you practice and where you get feedback. Whatever works for you, just keep investing. Also, don't worry if the coach, course, therapist is imperfect.
>>> Promotion is also hard (you have to choose who to promote and who to not promote)
Promotion is hard because as a manager you don't have the power to promote. There's HR on top of the organization deciding every year that there's no budget for raises and no slots for promotions.
When you're finally allowed to promote someone for real, after many years of tenure, the 10% raise is pale compared to what they could get by joining a new company.
Promotion is hard even in my small little 10 people org where I’m in a position to just at whim promote someone. Money is always limited, and any promotion (or even non-promotion) is a statement about relative (financial) value. People sometimes confuse that with actual human value and feel mistreated. Even talking about money is hard for many folks - how do we balance wages, how do we distribute profits, invest, save for bad times, ... People are not trained for this, money is often something people don’t talk about.
So some of the promotion dance may be more complicated in larger orgs, but it’s still hard in other orgs since it’s a value judgement on merits earned and as with all value judgements, there’s no absolutely correct and mathematically defensible formula.
Raises/promotions can be easy, you pay what you have to in order to retain the employee... as long as there is the money to do so AND as long as the company wants to retain said employee.
It's 90% about what they could get somewhere else in the city and a bit whether they are willing to leave and capable to (it's actually quite difficult to get a job ^^). You should have a pretty good idea of the what's available in the area after a while.
As you noticed, everybody think they deserve more. Ironically everybody is wrong, because the fact that they work here for this amount is proof that it's enough (for now), if they could get paid more they'd be paid more (whether here or somewhere else).
The key is to ignore people because people are always dissatisfied. Big companies set a fixed pay band and reply to everything with "there's no budget for a raise" because it's the nice easy way to do that.
We distribute 80% of the companies profits among the employees, so by definition we pretty much always pay as much as we can. That still leaves the discussion open of how wages and promotions get balanced among the team. And even if the decision is “everyone gets the same share more”, some people feel like they should be getting more than the rest. And those people sometimes even feel rejected if you tell them that there’s not more money in the pool and if they want or need more, they need to go look elsewhere. Or they stick around and are silently disgruntled until at some point they explode, despite having had a voice and a vote in the matter (and actual agency in raising the profits, hence everyone’s wage).
The most manipulative, ineffective, selfish boss I ever had was a really nice, likeable guy.
Promotion is 'hard' because there are very few spots to be promoted int to, it's a narrow pyramid, and people generally want to 'increase responsibility and salary' when that isn't consistent with the reality of the situation.
Feedback is hard because people tend to take it personally.
The entire piece is misguided in the sense that, although toxic managers do exist, it's generally far more complicated. Different situations, different people, different levels of expectations, differing levels of legitimate authority, emotions vs. outcomes etc.. Some people perceive 'loudness' to be problematic, some people don't care (see: inside of a hockey locker room).
Usually focusing on material things, outcomes etc. matter, the rest is not that important. Personally, I try to have a huge latitude for tolerance of different types and don't care that much otherwise frankly. Truly diabolical patterns of behaviour like back-stabbing, not taking ownership of failure - this kind of stuff is quite bothersome - and those behaviours can come in 'nice happy bosses'.
> Also, don't worry if the coach, course, therapist is imperfect
Why not worry about that?
Because one will still pick up enough useful things, for it to be worthwhile? And if changing to a different therapist or coach, that one will probably also be imperfect?
(Assuming the therapist / coach isn't really bad of course.)
Off the top of my head: No one likes dealing with a boss who lets their emotions overflow into the workplace and takes their personal issues out on their staff. That's just one of many ways therapy can help you be a better manager.
So I see 1Password ordered first in the list and I wonder how many of the other services actually are having their credentials managed through it by a whole team, and not simply managed by individuals holding superpowers outside a 1Password vault.
[seriously, think of it like hardcore bug fixing so you can have production stability, performance tweaks and less maintenance burden]