I don’t know where the metaphor is supposed to go, but I’d imagine that the next stage for AWS is to move further into SaaS products, and to introduce new products and features that lower the engineering overheads of operating on AWS.
Surprising or not, AWS makes a lot of sense when you look at Amazons core competency. Logistics.
Look at any individual AWS service by itself, none of them are all that groundbreaking or innovative. What is groundbreaking is that Amazon has managed to take all of these services, and distribute them through a massively complex and infinitely scaling ecosystem. That’s logistics.
He absolutely was. Personally I think one of the saddest things about this is that Susskind has lost his greatest (friendly) intellectual rival. Those two spending years arguing with each other over the information paradox was absolutely fantastic. (And personally I’ve always felt that Hawking was the perfect counter weight to how strongly opinionated Susskind is)
It's the one thing I really miss about Spotify. When I got into work on Monday, I'd just fire up the weekly playlist, and it would always have enough new content I liked to keep my playlists fresh for the week.
>Apple Music seems to ignore what I dislike, and will recommend it anyway
Before I moved to Apple Music, Spotify had spent the past several years trying to get me to listen to Fleet Foxes, no matter how many times I asked them to stop.
Apple's got a lot of UI issues, which shouldn't actually be that hard for them to fix. Their playlists however are definitely not as good as Spotify's are.
Where I currently work, we teach all of our BAs (regardless of how technical they start out), to use SQL (with redash), and some of them use Tableu. As this approach has been running quite smoothly for us, would SAS offer anything that a team like ours might be missing?
My mother in law has taught me a bunch of her recipes, and a lot of them have a step that she describes “...until it has a smell”, like “fry the spices until they have a smell”, which is actually a specific aroma, but I have no idea how to write down an aroma in my notes.
My own (non-scientific) opinion is related to this. In my experience, resistance to negative emotions is a much more crucial ingredient to happiness. As I’ve been gradually maturing during my life, I think the biggest improvement is that I’m quite emotionally stable. Small and unimportant things don’t bother me much at all, which really helps when it comes to leading a happy and fulfilling life. Especially as negative experiences are supposed to have a greater impact that positive ones.
I’ve always understood that one of the most important pieces of the PM role is to act as a sort of negotiator between design/development and all other stakeholders. Customers and everybody else in the business all want their own things, and all have their own priorities. The good PMs that I’ve known have kept those people happy, managed their expectations well, and mostly shielded design/development from their demands and politics.
35 is a good age as it increases the likelihood that the PM will have parenting experience which provides the benefit of improving expectation mgmt, negotiation, and communication skills to a non-technical audience.
Now that I think about it, a lot of the people I most enjoy working with in the office are parents, and the kind of parents who are obviously really good parents.
I've read how being responsible for family make employees plan their work better because they want to get home for the dinner, how it makes them more responsible or loyal – but that's the first time I hear about parenting experience directly affecting management skills. Some similarities are obvious now that I think about it – you want to help them grow and flourish. You set expectations and put boundaries while avoiding micromanagement and try not to spoil internal gratification with bribes. Well, except firing – you don't fire kids early due to lack of culture fit.
Market forces decide what people get paid. The poster I replied to is suggesting that instead people should just do what ever jobs they enjoy, and should be paid some amorphous idea of what they ‘deserve’. That’s exactly what communism is.
Dang, while perhaps the poster could have crafted their comment more carefully, I'm having a hard time understanding the line you are drawing. It seems a bit arbitrary.
I very much appreciate all the hard work you do here, btw. HN is my favorite place to discuss things online. I also understand the difficulty of not letting the place get overrun with unproductive political debates. I just think we have to be careful to not unreasonably single out certain topics in a way that may seem confusing or arbitrary.
If it was solely the unnecessary snark and lack of good faith, then I think I understand. But by referring specific content in the comment, it becomes less clear.
"Generic ideological tangent" isn't an arbitrary construct; it's as well-defined as the other moderation concepts we work with (e.g. "civility", "substantiveness"). If not more so.
Such discussions are off topic for a reason: they are repetitive. Worse, they turn into flamewars (case in point, see the replies to my comment downthread). This is emphatically not what HN is for. The value of this site—intellectual curiosity—withers under repetition and dies under attack.
Take a look at the comments through the search link I posted. There's a long history there. If you then still don't understand why we're doing this, I'd be happy to discuss it further (but you'll probably need to email hn@ycombinator.com).
Thanks for the response. I see where you are coming from.
We don't really need to discuss it further, but, to clarify, I think the thing that caught my eye is when a reasonable discussion naturally starts to veer towards these more difficult, ideological topics.
Those topics aren't meaningless. It is just very hard to discuss them productively on a public internet forum, as you noted. However, it is also not unexpected for productive, intellectual discussions of other issues to meaningfully brush up against these "ideological tangents" on occasion.
The part that seems a little arbitrary to me is to say that the discussion can't proceed further purely based on content alone, as opposed to instead drawing the line based on content-neutral criteria such as civility, substantiveness, novelty, etc.
But I understand that this desire may be overly idealistic in a public internet forum, and certain pragmatic lines may need to be drawn. It sounds like might be the case on HN. Again, thanks for engaging with me on this.
I’ve made an entirely valid and civil criticism of another posters utopian musings, and all you’re interested in is trying to figure out how you could twist it into being against the rules. Why don’t you contribute something to the conversation instead?
You posted a well-worn ideological trope. HN is no place for those. If it helps, that's not because we're communists. We moderate the same way when people want to drag in "property is theft" or any of the other dead horses.
Such arguments are always the same and only interest a small minority of HN users who want to yell at each other while calling it "ideas". These threads get dumber and nastier as they grow, and drown out the quieter, thoughtful things we actually do want here. Therefore we have to moderate them. Intellectual curiosity is a fragile thing, like a garden that needs protecting from off-road vehicles.
Perhaps you're the rare person who really has something original to say about political ideologies, and I missed that in your HN comments. In that case I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. Nevertheless an internet forum is not the medium for such ideas—even if you're deep and original, others won't be, and the space is too constrained for all but shallow comments on grand topics. So if that's the case, you should write a book instead.
The poster was asserting that market forces don’t determine remuneration according to their satisfaction, and that instead people should be remunerated according to what the poster thinks they deserve. How is criticising this as communism not valid?
> The poster was asserting that market forces don’t determine remuneration according to their satisfaction, and that instead people should be remunerated according to what the poster thinks they deserve.
No. lobotryas was saying that we're only discussing shortage of women writing
software because it's a well-paying office job. If anything else was kept
intact, but either the job was low wage or other jobs that women currently
choose much more often were paid as highly, we wouldn't have the discussion
about too little women writing software.
You are reading much too deeply into my comment and thereby missing the point entirely. Dozzie's reply covers my intended point very well. Mine was not a post saying "things should be a certain way" or even "our society's values are misaligned". No, I just observed that if we want a certain standard of living in a certain location then the path for us is all but predetermined and that this is a bummer.
