Every 6 months? That seems like a pretty long window for tribal knowledge to get lost. Is 6 months arbitrary or is there some reasoning behind that cadence?
I feel like it is pretty indistinguishable in STS if you lost because you made an incorrect decision somewhere or the run is unwinnable. Something like Zelda or Metroid you can reach a point and the game has some kind of obvious solution or key you need. STS has too many solutions to the problems of what you face and no way to go back and recheck things. The fact that it is almost impossible to find an unsolvable STS seed seems to indicate that their approach is pretty good. Player frustration in STS except for the tiny number of runs indicated in this post is entirely skill based.
Reading this is making me sick. I am working on leaving my large company for a start up for this exact reason. Something as simple as changing a tag on a server requires submitting a request -> waiting for the reply that they are working on it -> getting someone contacting you 1-3 days later -> Confirming the changes you want -> finding the changes in place the next day -> telling them the ticket is closed.
Did you read the article at all? They aren't talking about the pay as it is a separate issue. There literally isn't time for the managers to train and onboard people resulting in a bad experience for the new employee, the customers, and sometimes even resulting in termination for violation of policies the employee never learned about. You can't put knowledge in someones head with just money.
Yeah volume is a terrible metric to go by. I work as a data engineer and a lot of the time if I am working between environments or when migrating between data centers will have a copy of the data locally that I can write tests against or move to somewhere I can compare it to a running output. This would be possible to do entirely remotely I guess but not nearly as easy. (note I never do this with anything that contains PII)
Statistics like the op said. If you are expecting your decay products from an interaction to be 20% X and 80% Y but after 100 billion attempts which should have averaged out to the expected outcome you instead get 21% X and 79% Y something in your calculation is wrong.
From what I read in this article they didn't prove that the force exists at all they actually showed that it wasn't present in several areas. This helps other people who are doing experiments in the area by cutting down on the range of sizes they need to look in for it but it doesn't provide evidence for its existence.
I feel like if you are working with genome levels of data maybe you shouldn't be using JS to do the work. JS is a great tool in some cases but not really a scientific one. I guess you use whatever you know.
I don't really agree with much of google any more but I was at one point fairly involved in a project there. They do have some more secure systems for government use that isn't the crazy leaky ad cesspool gmail and docs is.
