Maybe it is time to leave Seattle? It is pretty entitled of you to say that it is your human right to have a house in one of the most expensive metros in the country.
The economy is booming. Go find a new job. You will be able to and you'll get a pay raise.
Cities aren't inherently expensive. Even in some of the richest and most prosperous cities in our human history, there have always been people less well off that could afford to live there. The only reason we have this concept of cities that only exist for a certain class of people is because we have deliberately made them that way.
People don't choose cities the way they choose a home. This isn't like someone thinking they have to live in a nice apartment when all they can afford is a nice apartment.
Cities are places where people can choose to live, but more likely than not they are where they haven't chosen to live. Their choice to stay is a choice to be with family that they need or that needs them. Or a choice to advance a career that they are unlikely to find elsewhere. Or to stay in a place that is culturally important to them.
We can afford to give people the possibility of not having to leave a place that they love, or comfortably afford a city they can't leave for whatever reason. It may mean that some people don't get rich off of rent-seeking housing markets, but it is entirely possible, and we should do it. It isn't any more entitled to want to do so than it was for our entire nation to want Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness when we didn't have it.
I'm sympathetic to people living near where they grew up or where there family is at. I live where I live because of family. If it weren't for them, I would have left after college and never looked back.
Cities are inherently expensive. The more people you have wanting to bid up the limited amount of real estate in a city, the more expensive it will get. This pressure could be alleviated with higher density housing, but no one has a right to that.
Likewise, no one has the right to restrict density on property they don't own.
Property owners have actual rights...they are listed explicitly on the deed or easement. Buying a property does not and never will confer the right to restrict other people's decisions of what can and can't be done on their property.
Society may decide on those restrictions together. But it is a bad precedent to give some parts of society more power than others when deciding on those restrictions, and it is in no way "entitled" for a member of society to complain about the results of this trend or want to fix it.
Since most humans inherit exactly half of their DNA from each parent, it should be pretty obvious when 50% match the mother and the rest doesn't match either parent. So long as enough locations are checked, the probability of getting such a result by chance mutations could be made extremely low.
> Since most humans inherit exactly half of their DNA from each parent, it should be pretty obvious when 50% match the mother and the rest doesn't match either parent.
Assuming the other parent is human, or even from the same tree of life, that's not going to happen, because the actual parent will share some DNA with the purported parent; you'll never get 50% match the actual mother, 0% match neither the mother nor the putative father.
There are odd reported cases of people being chimeras and carrying two different genotypes in their bodies. But again, extremely unlikely - but I suspect we will find out more and more about the exceptions which break the expected rollup of model of locations.
They aren't though. Also, it's a bit rich to blame economists when all they do is advise politicians who very often throw all the advice out the window.
Do FAANG companies train software developers? I think they are big enough and opinionated enough organizations that they might be better at training a "FAANG quality developer" in a year or so than current University system can in four years.
I wish companies were more willing to train willing applicants instead of trying to interview for capabilities.
Right, so the "AI" is not finding the best candidates, but instead finding candidates that succeed in the old hiring process. What I'd like to see (though I'm sure this would get me laughed out of a manager's office) would be a certain fraction of random hires. Then we could train the model on success statistics based on 60,90,120 day performance (or longer!).
At the least, they should interview a certain subset of randomly chosen applicants or else the feedback loop from the interviewing process and the AI is going to grow tighter and tighter.
Was the 5x thing Google's fault or LG's? I blamed LG and I won't buy another one of their phones for awhile.
I was going to put up with my 5x until the pixel 3 came out, but it became unbearably slow to use as of this spring. So I bought the Motorola x4 under the Android one banner and I couldn't be happier. I think I paid $150 for it after getting $100 for my 5x. The battery life lasts all day and I can use Snapchat on the phone. I regret not upgrading to a "budget" phone earlier.
I loved using Mathematica in college. It was the first programming language I ever really used to make some cool things. I wish it was more accessible. I think one of the requirements of my dream job would be a work place that uses Mathematica.
It's really fun reading through "code golf" challenges where other languages take 10-15 lines for something that Mathematica has a built in for.
They gave you two weeks to become a data scientist and implement a working solution? That's nuts. I'm still pretty early career, but I have done data science work for about four years now and I wouldve quoted at least two months to figure out data, clean it, feature engineer, run models, compare results, and then deliver the best performing solution.
No data is better than 10 years of useless data. I’d much rather be in the position of designing the data collection (experimental design ftw) than trying to fix the problems with an overly complicated modeling project. Buuut, I am a statistician.
In my experience, having someone that knows what they’re doing on the front end of a study design wise can save weeks or months of work on the back end of a study or project.
> They gave you two weeks to become a data scientist and implement a working solution? That's nuts.
Oh c'mon. Any large company today and the expectation or deadline for practically anything is "asap" or measured in a few weeks at most. Short-term thinking is a major player in publicly traded companies. Because of that, this is what opens the door for startups to play the long-game.
The 7% is referring to the rate of return on your investments. He is making the assumption that if you invest $100 in the stock market on January 1, then on Dec 31 your account will have $107 in it. This assumption is an average over many years.
There is a common rule of thumb in the investing world that you can safely remove 4% a year from your investments and they will continue to grow. (7% return minus 4% withdrawals means you have 3% more in the account each year)
It doesn't matter what your lifestyle is. If you are a junior developer who makes 80k a year and spends 50k a year, then you should save 25x50k=1.25mil and then you no longer have to work for a living. This process will take years or decades.
Quick question. Is the 80k an example you threw out, or a reasonable amount for a junior dev to make? Specifically for a a mid-sized company in the States, outside of Silicon Valley.
Currently working as a junior dev and the senior devs feel I'm making less than I should be. Which is much less than that 80k. The only caveat being that my employer is also paying for part of my tuition (up to a max of $5000 a year). Previously, this seemed like a decent increase with what I was making, but adding that 5k to my wage and I'm still nowhere near the 80k.
I'm throwing out this comment as it seems like it would be beneficial to other junior devs to have a ballpark amount to shoot for. Obviously other factors play into this (e.g. healthcare, location, etc). This just seems like a decent play to ask without breaking taboo with local devs.
It's obviously location dependent, but in most any booming US city (Seattle, Denver, Austin, etc.) a junior dev should be making at least 80k unless they are truly green.
This is completely dependent on your location and the size of the company. E.g., when I recently looked into the stats for Germany, the average annual income for a developer in a small to medium-sized company is ~48k€ (~55k$), which is a long way from the 80k figure.
Google around, check Glassdoor for dev jobs in your city. If you feel that you're under paid bring it up at your next review. If they refuse to give you more start to look for other jobs.
The 4% number comes from 7% mean return divided by 3% mean inflation. If you take out 4%, your investment won't grow, but remain constant, keeping pace with inflation. Eventually, you will hit an off year and stumble. The probability of that per year is low enough that it is reasonable to take out 4% every year of a less than 30-year retirement.
Perpetual income, or an early retirement, therefore takes less out every year, such as 3%, and has that 1% growth buffer to smooth over the down phases of the business cycle. You can also avoid spending on life insurance, and just draw up a last will document.
Divide your target income by your withdrawal rate, and that's your target nest egg. To get $50k/year, you need $1.7 million to retire early (3%), but $1.25 million is just fine if you clock out at 65 years old (4%).
If you assume a mean 4% growth in excess of inflation, and your income and expenses rise with inflation, you can hit your target making $80k and spending $50k in just 30 short years. If you want to retire in less than 40 years of working, you'll need to spend less than 73% of what you earn (or earn 37% more than what you spend). Spend only 66%, you can do it in 34. Spend only 50%, and you're working just 22 years. Cutting your expenses can only get you so far, though. You'll have to keep that level of consumption down for the rest of your life. At some point, there's nothing left to cut, and you simply have to earn more if you want to retire. Also, you are likely to earn less earlier in your career, where the compound interest counts for more.
So this is my advice: invest at least 25% of your net income--or more, if you use it to pay off debts--before you buy anything else. When you get raises, don't spend more than 75% of them on your living expenses. Pay your future-self first. By the time you become them, you'll be very thankful for the contributions of your past-self.
I don't think so. I think the actual headline (after IBM's pr machine gets involved) will be, "IBM successfully limits spinach e coli outbreak to only 56 people across seven states."
The economy is booming. Go find a new job. You will be able to and you'll get a pay raise.