Seems like an over sight that there is not a photo of the actual diamond. This article has a photo.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/world/africa/large-diamon...
Readit Newserhserhdfd commented on The biggest diamond in over a century is found in Botswana text.npr.org/g-s1-19243... · Posted by u/mooreds
Has anyone implemented a DSL for a professional use case? I would love anyone to share what was the use case, what alternatives did you consider and how did you measure success?
I have previously implemented one for credit policy decisions, but I am not sure in hindsight if it was the right approach and we did a poor job of measuring success, so I would love to hear from the community.
Go find any GUR operator in Ukraine and ask them what they think of Anduril
Their proprietary controller doesn’t work with TAK or qgc and they keep everything closed with no interop with the actual FPV or other systems in use daily
Unusable in actual war
That's fascinating. Where would you direct someone that is interesting in learning more about these items? Any good sources or websites to read?
erhserhdfd commented on Leaders Miscommunicate When Tensions Are High hbr.org/2024/02/how-leade... · Posted by u/samaysharma
I think we should retitle this to reflect the actual article title, "How Leaders Miscommunicate When Tensions Are High".
This is a common practice in other high altitude, high traffic mountains, such as Aconcagua. Rangers actually watch you deposit your excrement bag and fine you if you do not do so or they catch you leaving your waste on the mountain. I'm frankly surprised its just now becoming a policy on Everest.
It sounds gross, but in practice it is not as bad as it seems. For anyone interested in the details, it is stored in multiple bags (one bag per movement, then multiple larger outer bags) and freezes pretty quickly, so there isn't really any smell.
erhserhdfd commented on How to hire low experience, high potential people worktopia.substack.com/p/... · Posted by u/chuckhend
"Cool" isn't a good word to use, but it is important to filter for people who can get along with others.
Some candidates can't make it through an interview without being condescending to someone, making snide remarks, being arrogant, trying to start arguments about trivial things, or other negative behaviors. If they're doing this during the interview, you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. It's going to be 100X worse when you have to deal with that person 5 days a week.
Other candidates behave well during interviews but have a history of causing social problems at other companies. It takes some work to uncover these (and, importantly, validate their veracity). Some of the most toxic people I ever worked with were very charming in interviews. They swung from company to company, leaving a trail of unhappy coworkers behind them. They could only get hired into new companies where nobody knew any of their past coworkers, because a simple reference check would reveal how difficult they were to work with.
Filtering this behavior out before someone joins the team is very important. Hiring a single socially toxic or subversive person into a team is like dropping a bomb on a healthy team dynamic. You may lose multiple good employees before you figure out what's going on and put together a case for firing the bad apple.
" They could only get hired into new companies where nobody knew any of their past coworkers, because a simple reference check would reveal how difficult they were to work with." --> Any tips on how to effectively conduct reference checks? In my experience, candidates will only provide references from folks that they know will give glowing review, so you end up with generic positive feedback that ends up not being informative.
Would love to hear any strategies others have found successful.
erhserhdfd commented on Ask HN: Are Mathematica, Sage and other algebra software worth it? · Posted by u/in9
> Recommend you get a free student copy
The only free version I‘m aware of is the Raspberry Pi installation.
Many universities will have a portal where students and professors can get free or heavily discounted versions of software, such as Mathematica.
convenient for you, less so for the partner, eh?
I don't think its any less convenient for my partner than if I worked in an actual office. Plus, I still have the added benefit of no commute, which means more time with my partner.
Take long lunches and get something done around the house. You're working at home. Might as well make it worth while. Do the dishes. Do the laundry. Wash your car. It doesn't have to be about work 100% of the time. If/when you do this, block some time off in your calendar for it so nobody is trying to contact you during this time.
I see the value in this, but I personally have not had success with it. I have found I am most effective remote if during my working hours, I don't do anything I wouldn't do if I was working at the office. For me, that means no laundry during the day, no extended lunches, etc. It keeps my mind in "work mode" and at the end of the day, I shut my office door and transition my brain out of work-mode.
It's true that managers have a lot of latitude to read self summaries and either amplify or disregard them. The #1 thing you can do to avoid problems with your own reviews is to actually understand what your manager's and the company's priorities are and align your work to them. I have given poor reviews to people who invested lots of time and energy in projects and probably even did good work on them, because they were _completely_ off strategy and completed before anyone who knew better could tell them they were a waste of time and energy.
This isn't malevolent. It's because every manager is tasked with supporting the company's overall goals, frequently with very limited resources. Work that veers off into left field, even when perceived as valuable from the employee's or peer's perspective, is basically lost opportunity to do something more valuable. And that gets very expensive when trying to grow quickly.
If you want to get ahead, you and your manager need to work together to make sure the work delivers results, is aligned with strategy, is timely, and is visible to other managers and execs. Hit all four, and the need for recognition is obvious. I've seen execs argue against managers that individuals deserve promotion. Miss one, and you're probably relying on your manager's good will and clout to make the case.
If the work is not aligned with strategy or didn't deliver results but took a lot of time, your manager will look like a fool arguing that you deserve recognition for it.
Also, re: exceeding expectations, this comes up in every org and with every team. Everyone is always graded on a curve, both within your individual team and across each exec's organization. This is because the budget for compensation is fixed ahead of time based on assumptions about the percentage of employees that will exceed expectations. As long as each exec gets roughly the expected number of employees exceeding and meeting expectations, their recommendations for promotions, bonuses, and comp adjustments will likely be approved.
If the ratio for a given exec is out of whack, the only options are: 1) Get it back in line, 2) Take budget from someone else, or 3) Increase the compensation budget.
(3) frequently can't be done without board approval, so is not really an option. (2) is going to start a knife fight between execs over whose employees deserve it more, which nobody wants. This leaves (1). This is why alignment and upward and outward visibility is so important - it banks you social capital with the people who have to allocate limited resources.
I think the things that companies can do to make them better are:
1. Have well established career frameworks (aka career ladders) ahead of time. These should be as detailed as possible. https://sijinjoseph.com/programmer-competency-matrix/
2. Have transparency about the ranking system and distribution to all current employees and future employees.
3. Ensure that some amount of accountability is shared at the department level and also at the team level, so you can have somewhat objective conversations about trade-offs between departments and teams.