Stackoverflow should build a GPT style interface into its considerable knowledge-base, and if an answer is not found in existing data, pose it to the forum.
we need a paradigm shift away from search, just as google engineered a shift away from portals in the late 90s. idk what form that would take but I suspect some kid in a garage is going to come up with something...
Wrong. The "if you pay enough" is related to the available resources.
There is real housing shortage when people on minimum income cannot afford a house.
There is real health care shortage when people on minimum income cannot afford health care.
There NO labor shortage when many big companies belong to billionaires that get wealthier every day (even during Covid). Small companies might survive or die but large companies are the ones driving salary expectations the most.
Those big companies obviously CAN pay more. The owners are not going to sleep under a bridge anytime soon.
On the first three points yes absolutely. The argument that you can always pay more to get what you need fails when you literally can't pay any more. Somebody will lose out. That's what shortage means, there literally isn't enough to go around to everyone.
Now for some things that might be ok. If there's a shortage of Superyachts and not every oligarch can get one or afford one, I'm not going to loose sleep over that. But if it's housing or health care as you say yes, shortages and inflation absolutely mean some go without.
The exact same argument applies to employers hiring workers, the question is are workers like Superyachts where a shortage or inflating prices are not a problem in the grand scheme of things, or are they like houses and health care where a shortage is a serious problem.
I think it very much varies depending on the sector of the economy affected. On your fourth point, not every business is run by a billionaire getting ever wealthier. Half of employees work for small businesses, and 60% of new businesses fail in the first 3 years. The world isn't composed only of oligarchs and minimum wage workers.
Is a shortage of butlers and chauffeurs a problem? No. Their employers can pay them more or go without. Does a shortage of nurses matter? Absolutely, but most jobs are somewhere in between in importance and value to society.
Some goods and services that the poorest in society depend on are labour intensive and wages compose a high proportion of the costs. Shortages of workers in those sectors and inflating wage costs translate into higher prices that can disproportionately hurt those least able to pay more.
Even most workers at big corporations are more like nurses and doctors than butlers and chauffeurs: the goods and services they produce ultimately go to ordinary consumers, not multi-billionaires like Jeff Bezos. The billionares get wealthier, and that wealth is measured in the same dollars as ordinary people's wages, but it's not the same thing at all. For an ordinary person, especially someone less well off living paycheck to paycheck, those dollars represent a claim on actual goods and services they can use. Bezos' wealth is mostly just the shares he owns times the last price they traded at. There is no way to transmute a chunk of Bezos' wealth in nominal value of shares into there being more income representing more ability for normal people to buy stuff that helps them live, even though both are measured in the same units. If anything it's the other way around: supplying ordinary people with more goods and services more efficiently makes his net worth go up and supplying less makes it go down. Failing to understand this lead to some really bad thinking early on in the Covid pandemic when share prices dropped and people interpreted this as proof that concern about the economic consequences of Covid measures was just wealthy people complaining that their horde of wealth was dropping.
Some good points there. I frequently see comments, even here, complaining about people like Bezos and Musk's wealth as though it was literally a pile of cash. Musk in particular has almost no cash at all, his wealth is entirely in the form of ownership stakes in his companies. The only way he could spend that is by selling those stakes and losing control of the companies.
I shed no tears for the guy, he's legit super rich, but he cannot just spend 100 $Bn. In order to bid for Twitter he had to sell a big chunk of Tesla and take loas out against a lot of his shares. Like I said, super rich, but within some real constraints.
Having said that of course he could cash out. Bezos is doing exactly that, Bill Gates still owns a chunk of Microsoft but he's sold a big part of his shares to fund his philanthropy. You absolutely can turn those valuations into real money, but only by either taking big loans against them which eventually need to be settled, or selling up.
> Some goods and services that the poorest in society depend on are labour intensive and wages compose a high proportion of the costs
As you said, "some", and you are further restricting the fraction with "the poorest in society depend on".
But the article is about "US labor shortage", in general. And the market, in general, is very heavily influenced by big players.
> Shortages of workers in those sectors and inflating wage costs translate into higher prices that can disproportionately hurt those least able to pay more.
Rising wages and inflation can't just be dismissed as a problem for the rich, because Billionaires can pay for it all. We all pay for it. In particular this is I think short sighted:
>There NO labor shortage when many big companies belong to billionaires that get wealthier every day (even during Covid). ...
The caveat after that about small companies was added in an edit after I pointed that factor out.
>There NO labor shortage when many big companies belong to billionaires that get wealthier every day (even during Covid).Those companies obviously CAN pay more. The owners are not going to sleep under a bridge anytime soon.
It's this manichaean view - business bad, me good - that's the crux of the issue. You assume every business is a FAANG and sitting on piles of cash. Most businesses (50-60%?) - even in tech - are small biz and biz owners are in the same boat. Very very few companies even come close to the level of your straw-man.
And you are very wrong with the (rather comical) assumption business-owners are scrooge mcducks sitting on piles of cash.
In tech, programmer salaries are hyper-inflated (compared to most other professions) and already out of reach of many SMEs and we are scraping the bottom-of-the-barrel for talent. I'm a business owner myself and I have seen this first-hand, so don't tell me there's no labor shortage.
I think a more charitable read would be to say that businesses have a strong incentive to increase profits and for many businesses, worker compensation is often a big expense, so they are very motivated to drive that down, regardless of whether their workers can make it on their compensation. That's why we have minimum wage laws, child labor laws, worker's compensation, etc. Even today, businesses would and do pay $0/hr if they can get away with it. Not every business, but enough to count.
Whereas workers have a strong incentive to both make a living wage and to keep the business profitable so they can continue to enjoy that wage.
I think the best move forward is to have more worker co-ops, so that the board is more in line with the interests of the workers vs. an owner who may not even be active in the management of the company.
I would also take issue about developer salaries being hyperinflated. Software companies are not losing money paying developers and then making it up in other areas of the business. Revenue per employee at Facebook was around $1.5 million per employee. The ridiculous thing about software is not only is it really, really scalable unlike any other profession's work product, it can and does continue to make money even if you don't put any more work into it. Look at Gumroad that basically stopped development but keeps on trucking.
> comical assumption they are scrooge mcducks sitting on piles of cash
Strawmanning my arguments with insulting remarks does not change the reality of income and wealth inequality in the US.
> You assume every business is a FAANG and sitting on piles of cash
I never said that. The article is about labor shortage in general, not in tech only.
Big players drive market salaries. That includes baristas at starbucks, truck drivers and so on. This is a well known fact.
You can also look at how many restaurant/cafe' owners complain that they cannot hire employees at wages that would require the employee to work 40 hours a week only to pay for rent.
I don’t like the “minimum income” phrase because it’s an ambiguous lower bound.
Should people with zero income be able to afford housing?
Should people without a job be able to afford housing?
Yes, people should have shelter. Starting here leads to more concrete proposals than conflated arguments about the meaning of “minimum income”. MI presumes you have a job. Is having a job the criteria we want to set for having shelter?
> Should people with zero income be able to afford housing?
By definition, "zero income" (without infinite savings obviously) means you cannot afford anything! People without income obviously cannot be included in any conversation about affordability.
Should people without income be provided housing directly or through things like UBI? Yes, of course, but that's a different conversation.
Money is basically just a way to motivate other people to do something for you :D
We as a civilisation obviously CAN build houses, utilities, hairdressers, space rockets, grow food, etc. - the question is simply "why" (in the literal, low-level sense: why would I do that for you? even if the economy at large would benefit from it, I just don't feel like working today, and besides, I don't know you well enough). And money (and capitalism in general) is a flawed, crude, but so far the only way the "why" gets answered for the majority of people.
Another way of making someone do something for you, obviously, is to be very, very persuasive.
Money is a way of measuring how much economic power someone (or some legal entity) has accrued. If you have money, then you can get someone to do something for YOU. Whether the economy at large will benefit from it depends entirely on whether those with money spend it wisely. This tends to work out reasonably well so long as (monetary) wealth is relatively evenly-spread. But not always. And of course, money in contemporary society is not that evenly spread.
>money in contemporary society is not that evenly spread.
No. Although on average it's more evenly spread in the West than in some other countries. There are a lot of personal services that are fairly common in some countries (drivers, personal chefs, etc.) that aren't really affordable except as a time-bounded or occasional thing to anyone who isn't very wealthy in the US, say.
That's exactly the target use case. Models make online predictions as part of Postgres queries, and can be periodically retrained in a cadence that makes sense for the particular data set. In my experience the real value of retraining at a fixed cadence is so that you can learn when your data set changes, and have fewer changes to work through when there is some data bug/anomaly introduced into the eco system. Models that aren't routinely retrained tend to die in a catastrophic manner when business logic changes, and their ingestion pipeline hasn't been updated since they were originally created.
Yep! Part of the power of being inside the OLTP is that you can just create a VIEW of your training data, which could be anything from customer purchases, search results, whatever, and that VIEW can be re-scanned every time you do the training run to pickup the latest data.
>Also, you posted your Linkedin. We know where you work. And you just publicly called them "shitty." If I were your boss I'd fire you. And if I were a potential boss I'd never hire someone who did that.
I think it's a bit harsh on the OP. This is an ex-work network and we are all allowed to vent. Having said that, however I feel the OPs frustration is probably unwarranted, the market is as seller-friendly as I have ever seen ( and I have been doing this for more than 2 decades).
I don't have a simple answer for you OP, other than to keep pushing and networking. It's just a matter of time...if you are determined enough.
Just good, solid, relationship advice that applies to both personal and professional relationships is to not get involved with people who badmouth their current or former employer/partner. You are just setting yourself up to be the next person they are publicly badmouthing.
If I want to vent about an employer, I don't name them on a globally available platform. It's unprofessional. If they did that to you, you could sue them.
This is a reason why, "Why are you leaving your current job" is a common interview question. You get minus points for badmouthing your current job.
Loving the Bible-themed whataboutism. Musk has definitely paid for some extremely cool stuff to happen, but it's fair to point out that he's been making this particular promise since 2014.
And nobody dies if I break a promise. Autopilot/FSD has claimed quite a few lives, in large part because it doesn't live up to the hype coming out of Musk's mouth.
So you count anybody that fell asleep or didn't pay attention as a 'kill' for Autopilot (and that number is very small) while you totally ignore all the times the same software prevented accidents (a very large number).
I guess that one way to analyses issues if you already have a result that you want to happen.
It's worth noting that fungi aren't fungible in the way that blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are, which is a real misfeature.
For example, you can't leverage fungi to build a blockchain-based English language dictionary and then leverage that to rename "fungi" to avoid confusion for blockchain investors. You can do that with blockchain, and should.
Also IIRC market cap is smaller.
tldr; the fact that "legacy fiat funguses" are inferior to blockchain is proved by leveraging trustless transactions of the blockchain.
For us the winning feature for qdrant it has the concept of both positive and negative query vectors. Overall they are both very good! It's a matter of individual preference.
