“high payouts”? Good programmers are worth their weight in gold. (As for AI researchers, bad ones are worthless, good-but-not-good-enough ones will simply kill us all, and good-enough ones are literally beyond value...) NYT:
Then there are salaries. Google is paying computer science majors just out of college $90,000 to $105,000, as much as $20,000 more than it was paying a few months ago. That is so far above the industry average of $80,000 that start-ups cannot match Google salaries. Google declined to comment.
“half pay (and half time)”? I’m just a programmer, not an AI researcher, but I’m confident that this applies equally: it is ridiculously hard to apply concentrated thought to solving a problem when you have to split your focus. As Paul Graham said:
One valuable thing you tend to get only in startups is uninterruptability. Different kinds of work have different time quanta. Someone proofreading a manuscript could probably be interrupted every fifteen minutes with little loss of productivity. But the time quantum for hacking is very long: it might take an hour just to load a problem into your head. So the cost of having someone from personnel call you about a form you forgot to fill out can be huge.
This is why hackers give you such a baleful stare as they turn from their screen to answer your question. Inside their heads a giant house of cards is tottering.
A policy of downvoting posts that you disagree with will, over time, generate a “Unison” culture, driving away / evaporatively cooling dissent.
Though you’re correct about interruptions and sub-day splitting, in my experience it is entirely feasible to split your time X days vs Y days without suffering context-switch overhead—that is, since we’re presumably sleeping, we’re already forced to “boot up” in the morning. I agree it’s harder to coordinate a team some of whom are full time, some are half time, and some are the other half time—but you’d have 40k to make up the lost team productivity.
A policy of downvoting posts that you disagree with will, over time, generate a “Unison” culture, driving away / evaporatively cooling dissent.
What do you think downvotes are for? It’s just a number, it’s not an insult.
(Now, if you want to suggest that perhaps I shouldn’t announce a downvote when replying with objections, perhaps I could be convinced of that. I think I’d appreciate a downvote-with-explanation more than a silent downvote.)
but you’d have 40k to make up the lost team productivity.
What do you think downvotes are for? It’s just a number, it’s not an insult.
Downvotes are for maintaining the quality of the conversations, not expressing agreement or disagreement. No matter what someone’s opinion is, as long as its incorrectness would not be made evident by reading the sequences, downvotes should only express disapproval of the quality of the argument, not the conclusion. In a case like this, no argument for the opinion that you disapprove of was made. Unless he refused to acknowledge the substance of your disagreement, which was not the case here, no downvote was warranted.
A policy of downvoting posts that you disagree with will, over time, generate a “Unison” culture, driving away / evaporatively cooling dissent.
STL’s downvote was appropriate and he gave far more justification than was needed. I similarly downvoted both your comments here because they both gave prescriptions of behavior to others that was bad advice based on ignorance.
Downvoted.
“high payouts”? Good programmers are worth their weight in gold. (As for AI researchers, bad ones are worthless, good-but-not-good-enough ones will simply kill us all, and good-enough ones are literally beyond value...) NYT:
“half pay (and half time)”? I’m just a programmer, not an AI researcher, but I’m confident that this applies equally: it is ridiculously hard to apply concentrated thought to solving a problem when you have to split your focus. As Paul Graham said:
A policy of downvoting posts that you disagree with will, over time, generate a “Unison” culture, driving away / evaporatively cooling dissent.
Though you’re correct about interruptions and sub-day splitting, in my experience it is entirely feasible to split your time X days vs Y days without suffering context-switch overhead—that is, since we’re presumably sleeping, we’re already forced to “boot up” in the morning. I agree it’s harder to coordinate a team some of whom are full time, some are half time, and some are the other half time—but you’d have 40k to make up the lost team productivity.
What do you think downvotes are for? It’s just a number, it’s not an insult.
(Now, if you want to suggest that perhaps I shouldn’t announce a downvote when replying with objections, perhaps I could be convinced of that. I think I’d appreciate a downvote-with-explanation more than a silent downvote.)
The man-month is mythical.
Downvotes are for maintaining the quality of the conversations, not expressing agreement or disagreement. No matter what someone’s opinion is, as long as its incorrectness would not be made evident by reading the sequences, downvotes should only express disapproval of the quality of the argument, not the conclusion. In a case like this, no argument for the opinion that you disapprove of was made. Unless he refused to acknowledge the substance of your disagreement, which was not the case here, no downvote was warranted.
It’s not just that I disagreed with you, it’s that you are wrong in a more objective sense.
How can you tell the two apart?
STL’s downvote was appropriate and he gave far more justification than was needed. I similarly downvoted both your comments here because they both gave prescriptions of behavior to others that was bad advice based on ignorance.