> With those odds populations cant have everyone taking risk. Such populations sooner or later go extinct.
Not trying to be a jerk, but there is a logical fallacy here. If you've ever read the Selfish Gene the central idea is that there is a common misunderstanding that animals/societies evolve for "the good of the population". A population is better understood as a collection of individuals with each being a collection of genes, and really it is each gene that is trying to replicate itself. Applying it to your example, a risk-taking gene with .998% chance of failure would probably not replicate itself successfully, unless the .002% of individuals that succeed were quite prolific at procreation. The good of the population does not really come into it.
Selfish Gene story is detached from how systems survive environmental change and unpredictability. Thats where Explore Exploit Ratio comes in. And how many Explorers a population can sustain has an upper limit. Which is always low. The Limit is not dependent on whether people are explorers or exploiters but on resources available in the environement around them which is constantly changing.
In my 30 year experience across 10 jobs, a line level manager can’t be “good”, the most they can do is “not be bad”. They are completely useless in helping their reports get raises and promotions and they rarely control budgets.
For the 2 jobs I had before going into consulting (working full time for consulting companies) where I was a strategic hire, one of my requirements were that I reported to the director/CTO and not the line level managers. Someone who could actually sign off on a decision.
In consulting it doesn’t matter. The client drives the decisions.
Most people automate things just barely enough to work. The thing is, having a barely working script or process can save someone thousands of hours. It's actually hugely valuable. Trying to make it more robust/productionized/whatever may have diminishing returns.
Some of my favorite qualities in various managers:
- Deep technical knowledge. Someone you can respect as a fellow engineer.
- Really loud and forceful in meetings. Someone who can represent your work well to a team of other managers
- A good friend
- Super honest and transparent
- Combination of deep technical knowledge and passion/involvement in the team's mission. This was my favorite because I felt the manager could truly appreciate the work I did.
I really don't think bad Product Manager's is a good explanation for the UI. Any big company like Netflix is going to heavily A/B test any and every change to the UI. They will only ever add things that boost metrics like engagement. You may not like the UI; it may annoy you, but you should have some appreciation for the fact that they are using sophisticated techniques to optimize for what they care about.
For real, what the parent is suggesting is like appreciating that the burglar who robbed me cared enough about stealing from me to spend a week parked on my street learning my schedule.
As a morning parent of a toddler, part of the morning routine is playing a toddler exercise video. It's funny, my initial thinking was to burn some of the toddler's energy before sitting down to breakfast, but at this point it's definitely more for me. Sometimes the toddler even complains but I've come to really enjoy doing some stretches in the morning.
> There's a reason people pay for Netflix despite pirating proposing a higher level of quality; Netflix is just easier
I'm slightly annoyed how this comment completely ignores the moral and ethical reasons someone might want to avoid making an illegal copy of something while denying it's creators any compensation. I need more coffee.
This reminds me of when cities in the Bay Area started considering restrictions on free meals at work, because local restaurants were annoyed it reduced their lunch crowd. I'm sure that same group has a vested interest in people commuting to jobs.
LOTR
The Matrix
Gladiator
No Country for Old Men
QT: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs
PT Anderson: Boogie nights, Magnolia, There will be Blood
Fight Club
Nolan: Memento, Batman
Galaxy Quest
Dumb and dumber
Jurassic Park
Terminator 2
Princess Bride
Star Wars OT
Indiana Jones 1 & 3
Office Space
Not trying to be a jerk, but there is a logical fallacy here. If you've ever read the Selfish Gene the central idea is that there is a common misunderstanding that animals/societies evolve for "the good of the population". A population is better understood as a collection of individuals with each being a collection of genes, and really it is each gene that is trying to replicate itself. Applying it to your example, a risk-taking gene with .998% chance of failure would probably not replicate itself successfully, unless the .002% of individuals that succeed were quite prolific at procreation. The good of the population does not really come into it.
reply