Those (cars, housing, renovations, education) are things financed by debt and can continue rising. But I suspect they are conveniently down-weighted from the CPI.
For example, if they let the CPI-entry be monthly car payments instead of cash price, then CPI inflation is flat as long as rates are falling.
Consumer price inflation won't rise unless a relevant proportion of consumers get more money to spend. There should be enough slack behind all goods in the cpi basket that disruptions won't permanently affect the price of milk, bread, toilet paper, flat panel TVs and so on.
It is true that there is exploding inflation in asset prices brought by central bank credit, but it won't affect the price of milk and bread.
> They get extra visibility + traffic clicks from Google -- but also want to be paid for it?!?
Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European newspapers (they are not unknown hobby bloggers.) The issue is who is capturing revenue from the work. The newspapers make money from people browsing their site (long ad exposure) or paying for subscriptions.
The news model: journalists discover "news facts" which they make into "news stories" that can hold reader attention.
If Google collects all "news facts" in one place with their own ads, they are benefiting from journalists while undercutting the newspapers.
It's not intended to be read as instructions on how to be promoted. It is directed as much to managers and higher levels so they understand the boundaries and expectations.
One basic idea; a) recognition of level based on observed impact, as opposed to b) promotion to power as reward for effort/loyalty. With a), management is not a "final destination" of engineering careers. Old/sloppy organizations seem to devolve into b).
The instructions here seem to be written with this in mind, and directed to everyone in the org.
The reason this simulation is so inaccurate relative to reality, is that it's assuming the only basis for individuals' decisions are government policies.
In the beginning everyone was searching for information, reading articles, and sharing experiences and listening to stories. It was the main topic of conversation for months. In places where the first wave hit hard, personal experiences were a much more credible source of information, and motivator of behaviour, than random edicts from officials.
And the reason "hard" government policies are so problematic is that they shift responsibility for both actions and consequences from individuals to some faceless authority. What does a restaurant owner think after six months of lost livelihood, when they finally catch it and it feels like a cold? That's more responsibility than any random government official can bear, and why voluntary measures first is so important.
It can depend on what the agent "sees" and how many time-steps away the "consequences" are. If the ghosts are so far away that any action will take t time-steps before consequences to the agent, the actions are pseudo-random because there is no reward to optimize on.
The number of outcomes in branching_factor^t (very large) makes the action-values at t=0 (where the agent chooses between two/three actions) almost uniform random.
An app with it's own icon and login is a much more "sticky" presence than a web page that the user must navigate to. It can add notices and alerts to the phone.
The total IFR is essentially an exponential function of the age and health distribution in the population. Without specifying the population further, many numbers can be correct.
When high IFR:s are presented to the public, most people (both old and young) believe it applies to them, it is misguided in both directions.
Images from an inspection show rusty water leaking out of the parking garage roof. They mention "standing water". So the reinforcement steel was in various stages of decay.
This exemplifies how housing is a depreciating consumer good, not an "investment" like owning land. But the time-scale of depreciation is on the order of human lifetimes, and since humans are generally only exposed to renovated surface layers (floors and kitchen cabinets), it is rare to get an intuitive understanding that the buildings and foundations are depreciating.
It seems the easiest and coolest way to make a watertight case would be to plug the usb-port with hot-glue and then pot the assembled board in resin (epoxy/polyurethane). Either pigmented or clear.
> You are responsible for the success and the growth of the people who report to you. You must deeply understand and know your people.
Not sure about this at all. I'm more attracted to the model where the "manager" is a hands-off character that finds and communicates information/resources on behalf of the team. Parallel to that, there might be another "coach" character tasked with helping the team be more effective. Both of these have limited influence on the careers of team members.
What must be avoided is to trigger managers' narcissism such that they start to believe that the output of the team is their work, and the members of the team are "appendices" of them. Separating roles/responsibilities, changing job titles, and so on might help with this.
Avoid using promotion-to-power as a reward, because it attracts the wrong people. Rather, find ways to reward people that influence positively without power.
Views are equivalent to "query templates" unless for example they do operations on subquery aggregate columns (for example group by sum().)
So views don't add complexity relative to giving the query explicitly. It might even help since the incoming queries can be smaller, thus less parsing/processing.
The point here is to do migrations live while clients randomly connect and stay connected for random time. When all old clients have disconnected, the old schema can be removed.
The point is not to let old clients work indefinitely.
In other versions of this idea, all views/procedures are prefixed with some revision-number but that looks messy.
I think the European equivalents of faangs were killed in the dotcom bubble. These business models were probably considered "toxic" by investors in the 2000s because of dotcom trauma, which might have been worse in Europe?
We are left with US survivors in these particular cases.
The reason this happens is not because "large organizations move slowly" or "interoperating with old systems is difficult". Rather, it's because the people who are directly responsible for ux, error messages, etc have no incentives to do more effort than bare minimum. But changing these incentives is usually orthogonal to the career hierarchies of these organizations.
In businesses like in the article, acknowledging that software development is now the main value creating activity means rebalancing the rank hierarchy and revoking old career ladders and promises. To avoid this, they need to treat software and developers as peripherals, like copy-machines and technicians.
The hope/belief behind this is that the current pain of software is temporary, and eventually good cheap enterprise software will be available to everyone, similar to things like gmail and salesforce.
Those (cars, housing, renovations, education) are things financed by debt and can continue rising. But I suspect they are conveniently down-weighted from the CPI.
For example, if they let the CPI-entry be monthly car payments instead of cash price, then CPI inflation is flat as long as rates are falling.