I read the website but can’t tell — does it support pinch to zoom? Would make life easier when using Figma - I currently have to take my hand off of my mouse and put it on my laptop, which is on a stand :-/
The value is in finding a critic who aligns with your tastes. Once you’ve found them, you can learn about (or avoid) all kinds of art you wouldn’t have known about before.
Based on blunder after blunder since taking over, it has become so obvious that Elon isn’t qualified to run a company. So how has Tesla and SpaceX succeeded?
Apparently those businesses have positions that could be charitably called “Elon handlers,” to keep him from doing to them what he has done to Twitter.
Luck? I think you're under the mistaken assumption success is directly tied to competency. It's not. The only advantage being skilled gives you is a slightly better ability to know where to look for luck. And possibly the ability to make fewer mistakes once you find said luck.
JB recently joined Tesla’s board. I’d like to see him assume the CEO role, and roll Redwood Materials up into Tesla. Let Tom Zhu run Tesla vehicles while JB maximizes the energy business (which is currently supply constrained and has a two year backlog) as described in Tesla’s recent Master Plan Part 3.
Elon can go do Elon things as a minority shareholder (13% ownership remaining).
IMO a company whose goals can be defined as “make object of X weight achieve Y speed at below Z dollars” is very, very different from a software product company. The goals are quite hard to define and you have an infinite number of levers theoretically available to you, and those levers interact with each other in unpredictable ways. Especially true of a social network which can both nullify big changes like an immune response, and can reach tipping points and experience big behavior shifts due to apparently small product changes.
He’s just way, way out of his wheelhouse with Twitter and doesn’t have the humility or trusted advisors required to see it.
He's a great promoter. His companies have raised piles of money, far more than similar companies could based on fundmentals. He's also able to get skilled employees to work harder for less money than they would at most shops, which is extremely valuable in a young company.
None of this means he's a genius or a technical wizard, but he's good at selling himself as those as well and many folks bought it. It seems like the success has gone to his head to some degree and his exposure has shot up in recent years, which has not been doing his reputation any favors, to say the least.
We’ve know for decades - take money out of politics and make it about civil service. To do so requires campaign finance reform (limits on spending and sources of $) as well as making lobbying illegal
Well, I'm for campaign finance but not money out of politics.
The president should be getting like 400M/yr instead of 400k/yr. But also paying for their own trips/security/housing/etc and if it turns out 400M/yr isn't enough for that then it should be a higher number.
The fact that the "execs" of congress get paid so little in salary but make it out from outside employment (or by having the government itself pay for it) hampers the rest of the government since it limits what they can pay for every other role in government. Using your ability to run the country efficiently should be a highly paying job so it causes people to actually want to do it.
This is a capitalistic society, you want to have somebody that can estimate a project accurately? You'll need to pay.
People like you are exactly the reason why we can't have competent politicians. Who apart from crazy ideologues, the crooked and those that can't hack it as anything else than demagogues do you expect to sign up for a job where you are a public punching ball on terrible pay and with limited ability to diverge from whatever party line or other contingencies dictate?
Sorry, I edited my comment to add some context. It seems very likely to me that if we could increase pay of politicians by a factor of 10 (say), we'd get much much better performance at lower effective cost than we already pay for the soft corruption of "speaking fees" and suchlike.
Unfortunately that seems to be politically infeasible (not even competent autocratic regimes can get away with paying themselves above board).
No amount of pay can stop people from getting hit by a bus or leaving for other reasons though. Michael Jordan is an interesting example because he eventually did stop playing for the Bulls (because he retired) and then it took the Bulls six years before they made the playoffs again.
More in general: everyone thinks they're the "hero" in the situation and that they're underappreciated, but for the company the team is (and should be) more important than the individual. Imagine if you got laid off because the "hero" in (say) the sales team died and now the company is no longer profitable, because he/she was the only one bringing in any orders. Would you consider that a well-run company?
If you discourage heroism - worse, if you announce that you discourage heroism, the average employee's motivation is going to fall drastically. Everyone will do the bare minimum. Exotic forms of corruption like thrift may even emerge
This is exactly what happens in the wider economy when you discourage heroism in society
Humans naturally want to see the grass greener. If you know all you'll ever be is just a number - worse, if you know you will actually be disapproved of because you tried harder or can do better than average, then everyone (but especially gifted individuals) will perform worse and worse until the company breaks
What this post synthesizes is the managerial's class desire to become the "heroes" at the expense of lump-sumed menial labor performed by faceless employees. It's a parasitical philosophy on work
Imagine you own a company (usually involves years' worth of sweat and tears to achieve some sort of success/profitability). Imagine you hear a manager say "let it fail". I hope the feeling that follows makes it clear that the manager is a sponger
If I own a company where (unbeknownst to me) some function has been hopelessly understaffed to the point they can no longer successfully complete all their tasks, a good thing that could happen is that eventually they do fail at their task and the subsequent investigation into why that happened reveals that they are understaffed and overworked. We can then either allocate more resources or reduce their workload so their tasks become more sustainable. The best way to fix it would be to have good enough communication at all levels that there are no such situations in the first place, but humans are imperfect and mistakes happen.
The last thing I would want is for some "heroic" employee to paper over the gaps until they eventually burn out or leave, after which the company will have a huge problem. All the domain knowledge has been concentrating in that one employee and now that they are gone we have lost that knowledge and will need to rebuild it, probably at great cost if it can be done at all. Like you say, if I built my own company with many years of sweat and tears then I am don't want to let easily preventable issues to have such impact.
As to the first few paragraphs of your post: there are many ways to make employees feel appreciated without also making them into a single point of failure for the entire company.
> Michael Jordan is an interesting example because he eventually did stop playing for the Bulls (because he retired) and then it took the Bulls six years before they made the playoffs again.
I don’t see how this is a counterpoint. 100/100 NBA fans, players, and executives would take paying MJ and winning six in a row if the trade off was not making the playoffs for six years after. Are you saying it would have been better for the Bulls to not pay MJ, not win any championships, but consistently make the playoffs for 12 years instead?
What incentive do these companies have to circumvent their standard hiring procedures for you? I freelanced for nearly a decade. My guess is that they’re just not that interested in you. If you bring something valuable to the table, they will go out of their way to hire you as a freelancer directly on your terms. If you go to them and say “hire me, except FYI I’m working on my own time, schedule, and fee structure” but don’t bring much much more to the table than their FT folks, why should they?
