It's been much, much slower to load on click for me now. Surprised others haven't experienced that so wondering if it is some extension conflict. Consistently takes 2-3 seconds to load up after click whereas before was instant-ish.
Could you share the app if/when it's available somewhere? I have a Buddhist monk friend moving to Thailand later this year who would be quite interested in something such as what you described.
If you believe management is amendable and just needs data, then pull data for typical equity grants at this stage to your equivalent position and present it to them.
If not amenable, then decide if you are prepared to walk away and then if so set an ultimatum for a market-rate grant.
Also, regarding "$1m if startup is valued at $1b, it's still only 0.1%" it's actually quite likely to get diluted by that point. You should ask them if the shares are non-dilutive or not (unlikely to be protected from dilution).
My negotiation position is fairly weak at the moment since I am not actively searching and didn't mean to. So I guess anything except "I am quitting" is fairly weak.
As to the typical equity grants at this stage, this is exactly what I am looking for. Could you recommend something trustworthy and up-to-date?
Good example of everything that can wrong with a prediction market if left unchecked. Don't like that Waymo broke your prediction? Fine just move your goalposts. Like that prediction came true but on the wrong timeframe? Just move the goal posts.
Glad Polymarket (and other related markets) exist so they can put actual goal posts in place with mechanisms that require certain outcomes in order to finalize on a prediction result.
> Glad Polymarket (and other related markets) exist so
Polymarket is a great way to incentive people into making their predictions happen, with all clandestine tools at their disposal, which is definitely not what you want for your society generally.
I was listening to Andrew Kelley (of Zig fame) in a podcast the other day. He talked about the fact that, because the zig foundation is a bunch of empowered experts, he doesn't really need to manage work because people following their own idea of good software leads to really great work. Having the psychological safety of "being trusted to do what you think is right" is critical.
I think there's so much in that (although how to scale it out is clearly a tricky question). The best places I've worked, have all had the ability to make changes when there's a clear benefit. The worst places I've worked have had the opposite, where it's so hard to touch anything beyond the remit of a ticket or feature item, nobody changes things that are obviously flawed and easily fixable.
Chapters 4 and 5 of "Crucial Conversations" were an enlightenment for me, as full of cringe as it is.
Their hypothesis (intuitive, no science there) is that fear has second side beyond passiveness, wall-building and procrastination.
Fight or flight: people attack mostly out of fear. People micro-manage employees mostly out of fear. At work you don't think much about this aspect, as boss is simply a "jerk". (Bad mouthing, yet another way to deal with fear.)
Yeah you are right about this, psychological safety is a key ingredient in what “good” looks like. Blameless culture stuff is a bit of another ball of wax, so I didn’t get into it too much.
Years and years ago I helped someone with a remote team (quite a while before remote was common) try to get his team to be more productive.
We'd sit and chat about the state of things, ups and downs since we last spoke, and try to figure out strategies to improve process and get things working more smoothly. For a few months virtually nothing changed despite all kinds of small efforts scattered around.
He was dealing with pretty insane stuff. Clearly competent developers were letting PRs languish for weeks. They weren't producing code to their own standards consistently. Designers were dumping deliverables last minute with no documentation or guidance for implementation. Just assets, hurriedly put together, with some palpable hope that they'd just get used and everyone would carry on without their involvement. There was no collaboration, very low communication, and hardly any cohesion across teams.
After a few months I came to realize that everyone was struggling in their role in some way or another, afraid to admit it, and unsure of how to catch up and keep up. Expectations of them were remarkably low, but no matter who fell behind they would eventually begin this oscillation between scrambling and vanishing.
I recommended that he let everyone know it's okay. We all fall behind, we've all got life going on, and having no deliverables happens. I suggested that the messaging would need to be sincere, clear, and personal in order for everyone to really believe that it was okay that they weren't performing well. After a week or so of figuring out how he wanted to address everyone about it, he did it over a group call and was a total human being about it, describing his own struggles, challenges with staying on task, his inability to program "well" due to his lack of training, and so on. It was great, and very sincere. He made it clear that he knew what was happening, but he wasn't upset and he wasn't pointing fingers.
The results were like night and day, though not immediate. Everyone gradually started explaining where they were. Maybe they had kid stuff in the way, got stuck getting a test to pass, didn't understand the problem well enough, no sleep, sick, etc. PRs got reviewed more often because there was less shame around letting them sit at all. Everything generally got better. Not perfect, but workable.
At the time that I recommended he do that, I felt a little bit insane. Like, what if this just permits everyone to be even worse? What if it comes off like it's a trap, and everyone gets even more paranoid and insecure? Am I just imagining everyone wants this because it's what I've wanted in the past?
Since then I consider it one of the most essential components of functioning teams. People can still be high performers in unsafe roles, but the team as a whole suffers for it, then the company does as well. Especially the company, over time.
Good for users of Gmail, but is it a net good? Gmail spam prevention is great for the Google Apps orgs I manage. However, for the other inboxes the vast majority of spam they receive comes from @gmail.com
> Gmail spam prevention is great for the Google Apps orgs I manage.
Gmail is unlikely to let spam through.
But that doesn't make its spam filter great; it's also very prone to blocking personal communication on the grounds that it must actually have been spam. The principle of gmail's spam filter is just "don't let anything through".
It would be much better to get more spam and also not have my actual communications disappear.
My personal blog is defunct (for now!). But some of my recent writings can be found on the research page [1] of my startup, FutureSearch. We're building an AI that can forecast accurately.
We've written some pieces on topics like the problems with using crowds to forecast, and contesting recent papers' claims of good forecasts coming from simple LLMs.
There are some interesting jupyter to blog tools like quarto.org. Or, my Svelte based blogging tool: svekyll.com (I use it to blog about AI/ML because Svelte is the best visualization front end tool).
It's a great time for you to start blogging again!
