Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34108438

Points: 4

# Comments: 2

I didn't read it that way.

But the far bigger point is that Musk was even more uncivil and obnoxious in his response to that situation.

That was no less than an outright personal attack. As an attempt to wiggle out of a perfectly valid line of questioning (aside from the "fucking mike" part) that he apparently has no intelligent answer for. Unfortunately the clip cuts conspicuously short after that point, so we can't know for sure. But that does seem to be the long and short of this exchange.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34100449

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

It's what these companies pretend to believe, at least.

Whether they actually, in reality, act in a way that make their employees happy -- or in a manner that is even fair or rational, by any detached observation -- is an entirely different matter.

The one and only time I stayed in such a place - an intruder was caught entering my room and diddling with a phone I left there - and he only got caught because I happened to double back to get something, and just happened to do so while he was in there.

Never again. And the best part about staffed hotels? "I never have to use my phone, if I don't want to."

Except that it isn't - and you yourself have slipped into a classic fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

The ability to distinguish between the cost-value ratios of the two categories -- and to understand that yes, even for a large, successful company, unnecessary expenses of this sort do add up -- is precisely the sensibility that GitLab[*] is looking for.

[*] Again, a hypothetical GitLab - the Ritz-Carlton example comes from the blogpost author, and not from GitLab.

Because you missed the crucial qualifying phrase, "every night".

The point of the policy wasn't that one should never, ever go out treat oneself to nice things. But that at some point, it get to be objectively (and grossly) inefficient and, to put it bluntly, reckless.

In fact, most people I know who in fact can afford to stay at the Ritz-Carlton every night (when traveling) don't, just as a matter of principle.

And yeah, they seem to also expect you to have a sense for what's called sound judgement, or shall we say business sense. That is, to know (at least approximately) where to draw the line, without an explicit policy for every last expense category.

And if you don't agree with this philosophy (or it isn't basically obvious to you) - then it would seem you probably aren't a good fit for GitLab.

(In the OP author's point of view, that is. The Ritz-Carlton analogy comes from them, not GitLab).

The whole premise of this article is flawed (at least as applies to the example the chose as an illustration). At the end of the day, it isn't Angel who is "doing" all this stuff to Leila; it's really her boss, Gemma. If Gemma was doing his/her job, this would have been over before it started.

A lot of corporate drama works this way - you just have to learn to read between the lines.

As the post acknowledges right about where you stopped skimming.

And you almost always have/need a nested structure, no?

No.

Can you explain the value of these models, please?

This is a serious question. My eyes just see one horrendously ugly (and dystopian) eyesore after another.

Rather than jump on the same horse that everyone is jumping on, maybe one should start looking at where language models fail -- and from the very nature of how they are conceived and what they are made of -- will most likely never be good at.

For West Coast employers, you become an early riser: 6a-8a local = 3p-5p Pacific.

That should be a decent compromise that many employers would be willing to make for a highly skilled developer with a solid track record.