Why is the problem assumed to be middle management? Maybe middle management is the only thing preventing the company going from successful dumpster fire to unsuccessful dumpster fire…
I imagine you’re saying that as a software engineer :). As a manager of both software engineers and product managers, I think this view is a bit of a stretch.
Some software engineers would make good product managers, some product managers would make good software engineers, and the majority of both are best suited to their current job.
Personally I'm not sure why people are fixating on this particular point - companies rarely tend to lay off their high performers. Sometimes they might axe entire divisions and that would include both high and low performers, but whenever it's not that the implication is clear.
I did spend the first half of my career in banking though, so maybe I've got a different baseline.
Yes, the $5 wrench in action. The only protection against that is to not have the information on the device or in any account associated with or used from the device.
Impractical for a normal person who wants to just live their life.
I’d argue that what an NFT really is is a vehicle for laundering huge amounts of dirty money.
The banana, the angle of the banana the certificate itself are all theatre, designed to be a plausible high value good that can be created from thin air with the sole purpose of being an excuse to transfer someone some money that they can then claim to be legitimate earnings regardless of where the money originally came from.
Anyone who gets suckered into this scene without understanding its true nature is, well, a sucker.
Correct, as a London bike commuter for over a decade I can confirm that nobody in their right mind uses a shared cycle path. They’re dangerous for pedestrians, and you can’t make any kind of decent progress on them as they’re filled with bins, lampposts, blind driveways, and best of all even bus shelters. Then when you get to the end of it at some random point you’re not expecting there’s no way of joining a road without having to cede priority.
Kids riding to school is the only use case they satisfy.
I was aware of this being the case when dealing with consumers, but had assumed that because B2B contracts are assumed to be between 2 sophisticated parties that there is little legislative protection that could override the terms of the contract.
My understanding of law is generally UK based, but I'm not aware of legislation what would supersede a contract term limiting liability when the event that created the liability was one of general diligence/competence in carrying out the contract rather than relating to health and safety or some other area that is heavily legislated.
For that reason I'm unconvinced on the article's statement that this isn't just a "French Legal System" thing and that the same kind of judgement might be made in other jurisdictions.
My source: I review a lot of contracts. It's very common for things to be explicitly required.
Yes you can go back and forth and argue the toss, but it pushes up the cost of the sale and forces your customer to navigate a significant amount of bureaucracy to get a contract agreed. Or you could just run AV like they asked you to...
Alas in the world of B2B, contracts from larger companies nearly always come with lists of specific requirements for security controls that must be implemented, which nearly always include requiring anti-virus.
It just not as simple as commenters on this thread wish!
That's the point though - if you get your fitness up then 600 kcal/hour should be possible on the bike and it should be sustainable to do day after day at that volume. Mix in the odd day of doing things super hard at 800-900kcal/hour and you're make an enormous difference to your weekly output.
If your goal is weight loss you should probably skip a mars bar every now and then, but I think you're underestimating what's possible after a bit of training and fitness improvement.
I agree with running but not cycling - I’d say it’s merely a question of how hard you try.
Cycling is one of the very few sports (along with maybe swimming) that you can do for extreme amounts of time without acutely harming your body.
The issue that does affect people is that if you started with the bad diet, you probably don’t have the fitness to produce the required output that would overcome it.
If you manage to increase your fitness so that you sustain higher outputs however you absolutely can out-train your terrible diet!
The aero drag is the elephant in the room here. By this study’s measurements there wasn’t much difference, but what was the width of the rim they used with the narrow tyre?
A narrow tyre on a wide rim is a wide tyre. They don’t explain or address this issue. I suspect they would have used a wide rim with all the tyres, which is notionally a sensible thing to do, but in reality it’s completely flawed.
What are the results if you used a narrower rim with the narrower tyre so that the frontal area was actually reduced as much as it could have been?
I hear what you're saying and that would normally make sense, but there are reasons why I don't think its true in the bike industry. It comes down to the same arguments that you often see on HN about whether or not a free market works.
Shimano can decide to stop manufacturing rim brake groupsets and spares for existing rim brake groupsets unilaterally. It doesn't matter if the customer wants it or not. The rest of the bike industry supply side won't object to it, because it pushes people towards replacing whole bicycles which benefits all of them.
Other component manufacturers can play the same games in the areas that they can control. Wheel manufacturers can start pushing to wider rims, and then increasing profitability with hookless. Benefits the frame manufacturer (oh no, you need a frame with more clearance!), the tyre manufacturer, doesn't negatively affect any other the other players who aren't directly affected, spin a marketing story about how great this new thing is based on dubious test results and claims, and off it goes.
Repeat that cycle a few times in a few different areas and you have the situation we are now currently in:
The price of a mid/high end bike has doubled in the last 5 years.
The bikes have got heavier and more complicated and harder to maintain.
The consumers are all pissed off with it and start leaving the sport.
Sales suddenly fall off a cliff.
I'm not saying this as a conspiracy theory nut, but rather that there are a set of dynamics at play in this industry that mean that this kind of thing can happen.
>And I think you're severely overestimating wheel life span for modern models, at least due to the fact that carbon is more brittle than more pedestrian materials. Just look for Pogacar's fall earlier last week in the Giro to see how a simple flat tire makes the whole wheel a risk.
My experience is personal, but I get 50,000km out of a set of rim brake carbon wheels ridden in all terrains and conditions and through northern european winters. At that point you're also starting to lose spokes/nipples to corrosion, but the rim could be rebuilt with new spokes and a new hub if it didn't need a brake track. That riding includes racing, crashing, potholes, punctures.
Pogacar rides on Enve wheels, which are now hookless and therefore a puncture is much more likely to result in damage. Another innovation that makes life worse for the consumer and better for the manufacturer.