The performative annual review meetings can be separate, sure. But managers should be discussing with their directs in 1:1s sufficiently that no criticism or praise contained within is heard for the first time.

But generally speaking, it's a chance for you to speak about your work to the person writing your performance review, and get feedback, which may be in short supply otherwise for various reasons.

How much of the policy prescription changes if the exponential is actually just a series of sigmoids[1]?

[1]: https://x.com/ylecun/status/1799064075487572133

Dude, a a weekly 1:1 should be 30 minutes long. And managers should have at most 10 directs, so 5 hours total out of a 40 hour work week. Something has gone haywire and it's not the 1:1 thats the problem.

> I was requested to set up 1:1s not only with my team, but with each of the other teams we interfaced with, team leads on those teams, designers, stakeholders, interns, product managers who wanted to interface with us, the security team, and an endless list of other people. ... All the managers were just shuffling from one 1:1 to the next. Many never had time to deal with issues from the 1:1s because they were so busy moving on to the next 1:1.

Yes, managers go to meetings but they're not all 1:1s and if they are, the problem isn't too many middle managers, it's not enough of them. But what you describe does not sound like a 1:1. At most it's a cross-functional meeting, and should have multiple people from both sides.

> The worst were the managers who had silly agendas for every 1:1, like my manager who blocked out the first 10 minutes for us to talk about our weekends with each other in a performative manner, 5 minutes per person. I could be dealing with an urgent issue in prod and he’d get angry if I tried to rush past the forced chit chat about our weekend to get back to business.

It sounds like someone got halfway through the ManagerTools guidance on 1:1s and decided they could improvise a better solution and failed. The purpose of 1:1s is to build and keep relationships, and they encourage this chitchat as relationship building, but the key thing is that the direct goes first and gets to talk about _what they want to talk about_. If you want to talk about work that's great! The best way to build a relationship is working towards a common goal, and work is pretty much the only expected common goal anyways. And if your manager _wants_ to talk about their weekend, they can, but the recommendation is to always let the direct set the first 10m of the agenda -- if a manager wants time on a direct's calendar they can always ask for more, but the reverse is much harder.

Perhaps because "US territories" are a thing, perhaps because it's way more newsworthy if LE bans the US, or perhaps im just a dummie.

of course, politicians exempt themselves from the spam call category. Political speech is the most important speech!

1. Google has a history of profits. Their move into AI isn't coming at the expense of Search Ad revenue, and can be seen as defending it for the future. Their last annual report shows continued growth in this sector. So the P:E ratio isn't NaN.

2. Their stock prices has survived the test of market trading and multiple reporting windows, short sellers, WSB regressive behavior, etc. In part because they have a huge publicly tradeable float.

3. There isn't a huge bundle of shares in lockup until six months after the IPO that would put selling pressure on the symbol.

It's also a safer bet as a company, though that technically shouldn't be the criteria for indexing:

1. Google has a diverse product line: youtube subs, search ads, adwords, cloud services, etc. And a demonstrated ability to launch more (probably too many more).

2. They have a huge existing customer base to upsell to; cost of customer acquisition would be low for quite a while.

3. Anthropic and OpenAI are dependend on nvidia to supply them every beefier chips, while Google has their own TPUs to run on and lease out to others.

Immediate Silicon Valley vibes: https://youtu.be/S8MAV9jhf04?t=18

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture) [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia#Abandonment_and_resett...

I've always taken it to be a critique of the draft, aka "the lottery."