Its hard to relate to a lifetime employment 'tenure' when us in the private sector have to deal with leet code interviews and other countless indignities in the knife fight employment cycle every 1-3 years for the rest of our careers.. if we are lucky
Thanks for saying this, I did the same with expensing an 13 inch iPad Pro thinking I could use it as an extended screen when I travel. The fine print is that its a buggy mess that only works if the ipad and macbook are on the same wifi and even then at half resolution for the ipad, even when plugged in together via usb-c. All I wanted was a standard definition extra monitor that could work over usb-c and watch movies on flights, instead I ended up buying a normal travel monitor out of pocket and now leave the ipad pro at home. Its only function ended up being for my spouse to watch real housewives before bed.
When I was at Google in the bay area almost a decade ago and, unless my memory is heavily exaggerating, the executives of our org were in an offsite every three weeks for at least a year working on 'strategy'. It became a meme at the time among us lower ranks and I was amazed at the excess. There was no noticeable output from all those offsites and as an org we failed to execute on anything successful. I have had a low opinion of offsites ever since and have wondered if other people thought so as well or it was just me being cynical.
It's a fair point and the powder is indeed a compromise, its reliable, stores well, I don't have to cook it and is fast. Raw egg would be great, except you would have to separate the egg whites as 2-4 yolks a smoothie every day could be problematic due to all things in the yolk.
I started with Soylent and that product really is a chemical mess. If I could just buy the brown rice/pea protein and flaxseed without all the vitamin additives it would be ideal and I do look for better powders every six months. To your point however, it can absolutely be improved and I am always looking for better ideas.
1. Intermittent fasting - I eat breakfast at 10am and last meal at 6pm. Its healthier and gives you 16 hours a day that you don't eat. Much easier to stay on budget.
2. 2 vegetable smoothies + Huel Black powder a day - I have a 400 calorie Black Huel powder smoothie at 10am and another at 1pm. This smoothie has > 40 grams of protein and I also blend it with frozen spinach (other vegetables as well on occasion) and the spinach tastes surprisingly good frozen. I also add a few bits of frozen fruit for taste. My wife does the same but adds pb2 peanut butter power for taste as well.
Benefits:
a. Protein makes you feel really full
b. Fiber from vegetables is almost zero calorie and makes you feel really full. It also has ummm.. other reliable benefits
c. Every day you are reliably at 800 calories going into dinner so you only have one meal to count calories for. If you want to lose weight, go low carb or keep dinner 600 calories or under.
d. This is essentially the same system as Jenny Craig, except the huel powder costs about $2 a meal. Its cheaper than Jenny Craigs/similar $10-$20 a meal and therefore sustainable
e. Vegetables are really healthy and you will feel better from the antioxidants
f. (Expert level) - I regularly add a fish oil capsule, and sometimes ginger or turmeric for added health benefits.
I started doing this in an effort to make a sustainable version of Tom Brady's diet as I started exercising again in my late 30's and kept getting injured. The increased vegetables actually fixed the issue and now I find I can adjust my weight with the diet at will. Interested in other opinions on it :)
At any rate, good luck! I hope you find something that works for you.
Something I have been wondering about, wouldn't a virus naturally evolve to be less deadly and more contagious over time? I.e. virus's tend to achieve a steady state like the cold and flu in the long run. If you are too deadly it hinders spread so I would expect Covid to get less deadly and more contagious over time, which kind of fits the data?
As far as I can tell if the team is prestigious enough, i.e. famous founders or stacked pedigrees, it can raise a few million without a single line of code. There are many examples of this that can be inferred if you look at crunchbase and linkedin start dates for various companies.
United States
Excess deaths by country or city
Deviation from expected deaths, %
Jun 6 - Jun 12 '-10%'
May 30 - Jun 5 '+1%'
May 23 - May 29 '+6%'
May 16 - May 22 '+12%'
I was surprised at these numbers and its interesting to contrast these with cases over time and tests conducted. Cases over time has under counted the general population before but to what extent is hard to know. Perhaps (since deaths are behind initial contracting of Covid by approx 28 days (Per Kinsa https://www.kinsahealth.co/kinsas-illness-signal-a-leading-i...) the population Covid numbers were actually trending down in May while tests performed were trending up.
This seems likely to me, lots and lots of money injected and consumer prices are stable yet art, real estate in desirable urban locations, equities, and some categories of luxury goods/experiences are soaring. Am I wrong?
Is part of the issue that there is just too much money has been printed and hoarded and its creating some weird effects?
The government has been printing money for a long time, to stimulate the economy, provide spending money, etc. Due to 80/20 rule, rich get richer effects, etc, a large portion of money the government prints ends up in the hands of a relatively small group who doesn't spend it but rather tries to invest it to get more money. Government prints money again trying to stimulate the economy and again most of it ends up in a few hands. At some point don't you have what we have today? A 1% that owns lots of wealth and doesn't know where to put it while the majority of the economy is still relatively broke? How does it play out? Do the 1% just buy all the assets at some point?
I am not trying to make a statement about inequality but rather curious about the result of printing money for 70 years and having that money end up with relatively few parties each round. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can speak to this.
Honest question, wouldn’t the 80/20 rule in these cases still imply large majority owners in most cases? Wealth concentration figures I have seen (0.1% own 20% of the nations wealth for example) seem to support this view?
“300 landlords who own more than 10,000 apartments”
Wow, that’s allot of concentrated wealth. Anyone have some insight on these fine folk?
If each landlord owns 100 apartments renting for $4k each(average) that’s $400k a month gross. That’s allot of potential venture capital money to capture monthly, over $20M in five years.
There is an (admittedly controversial) idea within the medical community of Specialist induced demand. I have heard it quoted to me that studies have shown that when a medical specialist moves into an area that they then generate more demand for related procedures. Personally I am not in the medical profession but am wondering if anyone more knowledgeable can speak to this. Specially what percentage of procedures could be considered in this category or is this just ridiculous?
As a personal example, I received a nose surgery once that opened my nasal area so I could breathe better but it only lasted a few months and after that it seems to have reverted so it appears to be an unnecessary procedure at the end of the day. I have just decided to live with the difficulty as the recovery was awful.
I used to get really worked up early in my career trying to win the ratings game. When I got older I began to question the concept of the career, ironically when I finally started ‘winning’ at it.
1. Ratings and promotions within a job/company are boss personality and politically dependent and typically very unfair. Lots of hard work goes unrewarded.
2. Even if you do get lucky and get a promotion, your prize is 5-10% salary bump (maybe) and more work, stress and meetings (I don’t much enjoy meetings myself). Look closely at most big company executives and think if you really want the job for more than the social prestige/ego. They travel a ton and are always in meetings, it gets old.
3. So if the executive jobs are undesirable, then climb the ladder for money? It takes allot of money to make a difference, I.e you need $500k in the bank to ek out approx $1500 a month in cash flow at 4%. If you making $100k annually or $150k annually, $200k, or even $250 its still going to take over a decade to save a decent amount of money. The 5-10% salary bump doesn’t make much difference.
So why a career? There are likely more efficient ways to make money if that’s your goal. Starting a business, blogging, consulting, etc may have more risk but the ceiling is uncapped unlike a ‘career’.
So why sacrifice something wonderful like time with your child? Money? Ego? You want a great LinkedIn profile one day? If given the option tomorrow, I would max my parental leave unless it impacted teammates in a negative way.
I would genuinely be interested if this is a minority sentiment?
Correct, its a big benefit over the furry prey. Especially when chasing the animal in the hottest part of the day for hours, pre-modern people had quite a different life.
Thank you! I had thought I was the only one who couldn't read Apple's extremely sparse documentation pages with no examples, surely they were sufficient for REAL programmers somewhere who were not me. (Come on Apple, you can't include an example of calling a Button on your documentation page? https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swiftui/button)
Hacking with Swift is impressive in how much ground it covers.
"Famous" "Late" "Mid" "Early" "Seed" are probably more sanitized and accurate but I would argue less fun. It will drive the employers crazy to not be included in 'Top brands' but as a user I know exactly what 'FANG + Top brands' means and I love it. Its refreshing to see a job board that's a little edgy and innovative.
The paper seems to me to suggests that the Romans got sicker due to increased exposure to virus and disease as they got more integrated, wealthy and populous. Perhaps this was a hidden trend behind the fall of pre-industrial age civilizations. "Romans paid a price for their wealth with a deterioration of their health"