What are you talking about? What "technological innovation" would Adam possibly bring to housing that improves social cohesion and affordability? Like, an app?
Not sure I follow your point. NYC is not affordable. Are you implying the New York real estate market is in a desirable state because people still want to live there despite exorbitant rents and never being able to buy a home?
I'm not advocating for death marches, but a small project being built in a company that has a money machine printing billions of dollars a quarter isn't reflective of most environments.
Yeah I think the identification of "gifted" children is pretty imprecise and error prone.
Also it's unclear the kids doing well (better than everyone else, I imagine) are the ones who'd most benefit from special treatment, versus the struggling kids.
I don't care if people wanna WFH. Not for me but more power to them. However, I know several people with 2 full time jobs now. I believe this "drop in turnover" is largely because if you don't like your job you can just stop working and keep collecting a paycheck and nobody will know about it.
I didn't say I have a problem with it existing personally, but rather that the statement isn't true. It's not personal. All the things you're asserting are also not true, you're just stating your opinion as fact.
It's unclear to me how you'd think the norms and cultural practices of a society don't affect someone living in that society, unless you believe everyone is completely atomized. If everyone is a junkie, and I'm sober, my life is still markedly different living amongst junkies. Just like if a devout Muslim moves from Saudi Arabia to San Francisco their life will be different, even if they maintain their Muslim practices.
If everyone spends their nights playing video games, they'll be tired all day, talking about video games all the time, and I may have difficulty making friends since I'm not into video games and prefer to spend my nights sleeping.
That's really not true. We live in a society and interact with each other, we're not isolated, atomized robots (despite Silicon Valley's best efforts).
I can share some. Had a similar experience as the parent comment. I do support "one big database" but it requires a dedicated db admin team to solve the tragedy of the commons problem.
Say you have one big database. You have 300 engineers and 30-50 product managers shipping new features every day accountable to the C-Suite. They are all writing queries to retrieve the data they want. One more join, one more N+1 query. Tons of indexes to support all the different queries, to the point where your indexes exceed the size of your tables in many cases. Database maintenance is always someone else's problem, because hey, it's one big shared database. You keep scaling up the instance size cause "hardware is cheap". Eventually you hit the m6g.16xlarge. You add read replicas. Congratulations, Now you have an eventually consistent system. You have to start figuring out which queries can hit the replica and which ones always need the fresh data. You start getting long replication lag, but it varies and you don't know why. If you decide to try to optimize a single table, you find dozens or 100+ queries that access it. You didn't write them. The engineers who did don't work here anymore....
I could go on, and all these problems are certainly solvable and could have been avoided with a little foresight, but you don't always have good engineers at a startup doing the "right thing" before you show up.
At this point, unfortunately, "take responsibility" it just a PR phrase. It doesn't come with any consequences, responsibility, or costs to the individual in the corporate class.
I may be wrong about my assessment of the leadership's competence in this case (I'm not, but I can see how you may not be able to know) but that doesn't mean jealousy is the motive. Your skepticism should be equally applied to the psychological motives of the commenters, in my opinion.
But why does capped compensation help? The issue is not that people are highly paid, but that undeserving, corrupt, and even fraudulent people are highly paid. Capped compensation may well be a good idea (not sure), but it doesn't really help with corruption and incompetence. The point is that there are already double standards that apply to the average worker, but less so to the C-suite (particularly in startups).
I don't think it would be accurate to consider my anger over the CEO who awarded themselves a $25M bonus while laying off hundreds of my colleagues and tanking the company to be "jealousy".
Edit: I apologize for the aggressive tone in the original reply, though I disagree with your take it wasn't necessary.
Without fail, there is always one comment on HN that is faux-insightful but really just being contrarian towards the general tone of other comments without much substance.
You don't need to advocate for capped compensation or removing autonomy to be righteously angry over inept leadership. You should be angry over inept leadership, it's essentially corruption, and hurts everyone else in the organization. I don't even know what the point of this comment is.
I worked for a large, late stage, Softbank backed company. They brought in some C-suite execs while I was there. A CTO paid several million annually with large, public company experience. They were totally clueless, and the engineering org was almost revolting within 6 months, trying to stage a coup to the CEO. No technical experience, no leadership, installing cronies, speaking in opaque platitudes.
I'm not angry about it, though they did oversee us being on the cusp of a promising IPO to a pretty bad outcome that cost me a lot of money, but I'll say that any illusion that you have to be competent to be a C-suite exec, and any imposter syndrome I ever had, went out the window after that. Ironically it increased my personal confidence, if these idiots can do it I certainly can.
I think the old saying "nobody gets fired for buying IBM" kinda applies to some execs maybe, like nobody gets fired for hiring some stellar resume exec with lots of experience, but they may get fired for taking a chance on an upstart.