This behavior has been observed publicly in the Kubernetes space where Google has contributed substantially.
This behavior has been observed publicly in the Kubernetes space where Google has contributed substantially.
A while back, when I was just beginning therapy, my therapist recommended I take an online personality test, which unbeknownst to me, was authored by Jordan Peterson. After I took the test, it gave 5-7 paragraphs explaining what each individual personality trait meant. Pretty boilerplate, but for some traits, when you got further down the explanations, it started feeling less and less like a personality test.
For example, for the "agreeableness" trait, it would talk about how it was testing how "compliant, nurturing, kind, naively trusting and conciliatory" the person is, and that it generally found women scored higher. Sure, I can believe you've found that during your surveys.
But then you scroll down a little more, and it starts saying things like "This difference in agreeableness between men and women is largest in countries such as Norway and Sweden, where the most has been done to ensure equality of outcome between the sexes. This provides strong evidence that biological factors rather than the environment and learning account for the dissimilarity."
Uh... Why are we talking about Norway and Sweden suddenly? Scroll down a little more, and it makes more sense: "Agreeable people, [...], are more likely to enter professions associated with people, such as teaching and nursing, which are dominated by women. This is true even in the Scandinavian countries, where attempts to produce gender-equal societies has reached a maximum."
Ah. So what we have here is, regardless of whether you agree it's true or not, a political agenda masquerading as a personality test. It's purpose is to argue Peterson's vocal political belief that the gender pay gap is not an issue, because women are biologically better at being nurses instead of engineers. His proof? Just look at those Scandinavians, they have completely solved sexism (citation needed) and still see this gap!
Peterson may have genuinely good self help books and lectures, but the issue is it's not for the purpose of actually helping people. It's to push people closer to his world view, to agreeing with his political agenda. If you truly gained something from reading his books or watching his lectures, don't let me take that away from you. But be mindful of when his self help veers towards political beliefs.
I'm not sure it's a political belief per se so much as a refutation of the implicit assumption that the gender pay gap is entirely the result of sexism and more likely the result of other factors, not least of which are the traits and proclivities of either sex.
I'm not prepared to debate whether or not his argument on the topic is legitimate, but it is something that he has elaborated on and supported with some data.
I can't accept this premise. Optimally the persons responsible for managing engineering staff should be able to independently determine whether the work being produced was of sufficient quality or not regardless of the cohort.
At issue here, I believe is that this is a difficult thing to cultivate consistently in many corporations and so there's some desire to create standardized metrics for performance against which a cohort is measured. Regardless, most large tech firms have some kind of well defined rubric against which the engineers are measured.
It'd doubtful the folks at the company actually mind that the interviews are being cheated. If the candidates appear to be qualified and appear to be fill the role for which they were hired and appear to be competent in that role, that's sufficient for most corporations and one of the problems working in "tech". That is to say, there are plenty of people in it that appear to be doing a thing, but aren't actually capable.
Somewhere in this thread a poster mentioned woodworking, which is a nice contrast. If you hire a carpenter, it becomes obvious pretty quickly if the carpenter is competent.
However, what I have found in the process is that for well insulated homes GSHP probably doesn’t make sense.
Originally I was considering buying a kit from this site: https://www.123zeroenergy.com/pricing/geo-thermal.html
But like it says on the page, because air source heat pumps have been getting a lot better they no longer sell the kits. There are a couple of individuals on YouTube who have used similar GSHP kits and had good success. The main challenge is that you need to dig 100ft of deep trenches per ton of cooling. Edit: should be 300ft not 100
Mitsubishi, specifically, makes a heat pump with the marketing vernacular, "H2i" or "hyper heat" which has reasonable efficiency down to -13F/-25C.
We had a huge Rook/Ceph installation in the early days of our startup before we killed off the product that used it (sadly). It did explode under some rare unusual cases, but I sometimes miss it! For folks who aren't aware, a rough TLDR is that Ceph is to ZFS/LVM what Kubernetes is to containers.
This seems like a very cool board for a Ceph lab - although - extremely expensive - and I say that as someone who sells very expensive Raspberry Pi based computers!
Amazon tends to embrace/reward constructive critical thinking but not disruptive/revolutionary critical thinking and so it may not be possible for Amazon to keep it's culture and adopt a left leaning DEI policy. I think the Amazon culture and staying focused on people who will thrive in that culture are the things that have made it so successful in so many areas.
The performance is a great feature but its also just an intuitive, familiar (pretty much just SQL) tool that makes life easier.
And a whole thread on HN about it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30938842