> Do you really think that in a high stress situation you’re going to make the best decisions?
I mean that statement could be used to excuse any mistake in any project/system ever made, and is mostly a cop out. Yes, the system is definitely designed to minimize legal risk for the health-workers/hospitals. A system is only as good as what it's' design objectives are, and if "save a life at all cost" was the objective the system might as well look entirely different.
Ah, reminds of my first car. I got a new Corolla and went on my merry way. But on the third day I found the steering stuck and extremely hard to maneuver. Scared the heck out of me, so I went back to the dealership.
They inspected the car and informed me the next day that there was nothing wrong with it and asked me to pick it up. I drive out of the parking lot, and again the steering gets stuck, and I just circle around and give them the car back, showing the live problem.
They inspect it another day, and aren't able to find anything wrong, and ask me to pick it back up.
Sure enough, I haven't even gotten to my home yet and the problem reappears, so I drive it back to the dealership.
This time they open up the car, the steering wheel and changed somethings in it and asked me to pick the car back up. Took me 4 mins of driving to land back in the same problem after which I made them refund my money.
I decided to shelve a few extra bucks and purchased a Camry from the same dealership. The second day while I was parking my new Camry, I found the same issue of the steering wheel getting stuck all over again, with this new car.
So this was surely a me-problem, and not the car problem. After some analysis I relaized that I was turning off the car at red lights, without shifting to park. So when I turned it back on, the steering would lock itself. But if I shifted to park first then it would work perfectly!
> If you simply select positive results and exclude negative results then even the placebo group would show great success.
Where did zosima ask to do that? They mentioned that the variable of comparison should be changes from baseline metrics in treatment group vs changes from baseline metrics in control group. That would be a fair study, and isn't cherry picking.
If there is an IC advancement track then the titles don't matter. All the discussion around titles is specifically to have an IC advancement track, which very few companies have.
This is still missing the point. The way to improve PM accountability isn't engineers fixing them. It's the organization's and leadership responsibility to ensure PMs are held accountable.
Engineers would be far happier if they don't have to do good engineering and can do away with shitty software without accountability. But there are checks and balances to improve engineering quality, and those aren't created by PMs. It's the engineering org that champions good engineering practices and accountability and post mortems. Same should be done in PM organizations.
No one is denying the need for PMs. OP is pointing out that PMs have too much decision making power, with too little accountability in most organizations.
Your argument is akin to, "PMs can't code, so alas we need engineers, and that's why shitty engineering exists, and there is no way to make it better"! Nope! We need product practices, akin to engineering practices, with 360° feedback and analysis, and the product management should be held accountable for their decisions!
Overengineering is typically a term thrown around when a manager wants to ship a system in half the time it actually would take to make a half-decent system!
These are just fantastical musings of a product manager, who is pretty far from engineering, and thinks that their products fail because of engineers, not because they didn't get their product right, and/or think that every engineer who doesn't produce a fully functional Facebook with news feed and friends, in 39 days is overengineering their product and are far removed from users!
So you are going on and on about a hypothesis without any backing numbers, while completely ignoring provided evidence on how the unvaccinated is more likely to end up in ICUs?
Get off your high horse and do your fucking part. People are dying of Covid19, and a lot of people who survive end up with permanent disabilites, while you engage in mental gymnastics with your hypotheticals!
> What we observe could be explained by many other more convincing factors: early learning activity, more care to the child's education, logical and clear answers to the kid's questions about the world around him, help with the homework, etc. With proper early learning activity for the baby, and amazing teachers for the early teachings, the kid has a strong foundation. From there, compound returns.
I don't see why that would be more convincing. As a hyperbole, if two completely different species (say a monkey and a primate) are exposed to the same learning environment, one would definitely end up fairing better than the other due to the differences in their brain.
The twin studies just show that, given most other factors for twins are likely to be the same.
+1 It must have not been the employee in particular. Big companies get sued all the time, and then all written records on work devices, for products that got sued, becomes evidence.
> Do you need to link your personal accounts with family photos and whatnot?
Nope. You can create a separate iCloud account just for work. I did that during my time there. I always maintained a separate work phone, and used work icloud account for that. The folks complaining are the ones who just didn't do that, and added 'work data' on their personal account, which ofcourse they will have to hand over if subpoenaed.
The article doesn't make sense. It's at best a clickbait, and at worse the author doesn't understand impostor syndrome at all, because an actual 'impostor' in an 'impostor syndrome' would be some under-skilled, not a con-artist.
Because ctci is a terrible book to start learning basics from. I agree with let perfect not be the enemy of the good, but CTCI/LC are not good, they are terrible and overwhelming for someone with no background in algorithms.
> buy a copy of cracking the coding interview, make a leetcode.com account
In my opinion this is a pretty bad advice and I see a lot of entry level programmers struggling for a long time because of this. A basic algorithms and data struture book (something like Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen, and Data Structures by Mark A Weiss) is a must before jumping into leetcode/cracking the coding interview. One needs to have a foundation before diving straight to interview problems.
Google gets rid of this problem (either extremes) by formalizing style guides for the different coding languages people use in its organization. Checkout https://google.github.io/styleguide/
Why would a crawler want to crawl the same page every second (let alone 71 times a second). Even if I were Google, wouldn't crawling any page every few mins (or say every minute) be way more than enough for freshness?
I mean that statement could be used to excuse any mistake in any project/system ever made, and is mostly a cop out. Yes, the system is definitely designed to minimize legal risk for the health-workers/hospitals. A system is only as good as what it's' design objectives are, and if "save a life at all cost" was the objective the system might as well look entirely different.