Whatever you say, Marie Antoinette. You're the exception to the rule and can perhaps create a new kind of corporate culture (though I sincerely doubt it.. if you do, you'll owe it to society to write a management textbook. Or - you will act like most people do - and hoard the information for personal benefit, until one of your underlings reverse engineers it and publicizes because you're just not paying her what she's worth. Case in point: Michael O Church). Most great work is stymied by politics, because the great creative thinkers and engineers haven't been groomed and trained in politics/management. So due to their social flaws, their projects fail, and they're stymied.
Michael O Church is crowdsourcing political support, and he believes the crowd will throw out the hegemony. Well, Michael O Church just might be on to something.
A downvote without a reply is a form of impotence. It says: I don't like what you said, but I don't have the verbal dexterity to articulate my position in a cogent & cohesive way.
For whatever it's worth, that's not me down voting you.
I will say two constructive things, and leave it as that:
- Startups cannot possibly afford to pay people what they are worth in cash salaries, because the value that they create is realized in the future. In order for startups to be fair, employees actually have to recognize some of the potential value of stock.
If employees were in a position to realize it, they could earn far more in equity. But people reasonably need some cash to live, so that is the tradeoff.
- The best experiences are worth more than equity or money combined. This is, to my mind, not sophistry. It's the only way to live. Money ultimately just gives more options for experience. You have to actually live life, and enjoy it.
Startups cannot possibly afford to pay people what they are worth in cash salaries, because the value that they create is realized in the future. In order for startups to be fair, employees actually have to recognize some of the potential value of stock.
Of course, that is true and so I agree with what you're saying. The problem with startup equity/options is that it's often so pathetic. 0.03% of a 50-person company for Engineer #20? That's ridiculous, especially when useless nontechnical VPs are still getting 1%.
Software engineers, in most companies, get next to nothing in equity. What they get is a token, a lottery ticket. Only founders and those horrible executive implants pushed by investors get a real slice.
The best experiences are worth more than equity or money combined. This is, to my mind, not sophistry. It's the only way to live.
Few people have the luxury of not paying attention to compensation. There are STEM PhDs out there who end up working retail because they have no safety net and when they fall into the working class, they can't get back out (often, they can't even afford interview expenses to get out of whereever they are).
Living life and enjoying it; a.k.a. "presence"; is not available to everyone. Most people, including workers in Silicon Valley such as engineers, literally get used and farmed. You happen to be of rockstar talent level and your ride will be more pleasant than most. Don't feel guilty - but don't get upset either when we mock you.
at EOD write "how you are going to quickly jump back into code". This introduces a business process to enforce a cognitive best practice that leads to much faster "stack load" times.
Can one of our resident cryptography geniuses (e.g. cperciva, tptacek) weigh in on how Peer2PeerCoin (PPCoin) does/doesn't address Bitcoin 51% vulnerability?
The ability to mint blocks without mining makes a long term attack harder (since even if you leveraged coin-age in your attack you have finite coin-age to work with).
This is because if you have 51% of the power you can beat the rest of the network when it comes to generating N blocks. However if someone mints a coin-age block you can't make that guarantee anymore. Note that this is especially painful because attempted takeovers like this require giving up valid blocks. (So if you tried to do a 6 block rollback you would need to give up 6 blocks in the case of failure)
So I would say that long term a complete shutdown of the protocol due to a 51% attack is unlikely, as coin-age would make it require more than just a lot of hashing power, especially as the protocol gets older.
However I think it may provide a weakness in some edge cases. I wonder what happens if someone tries to use a significant amount of coin-age to do a quick double spend (say spend 1,000 peercoin that are about 3 years old then use the peercoin age to create a parallel block chain to undo the spend). You would have to give up your coin-age in such an attack, but that could be a good trade depending on the rate that coin-age pays out at.
However to be fair, this would require a lot of faith in peercoin, since it appears the protocol calls for a significant timelapse to acquire coin-age. So the likelihood of it happening is lowered.
If he is, it's only because he's managed to take that load of crap job posting and somehow turn it into an article advertising the fact on Quartz.
A bigger false dichotomy I have never seen in my life. Good vs nice, with some kind of implication that nice people cannot have integrity? It's the worst kind of these posts — just enough truth sprinkled in with the bullshit to make you think he's onto something.
He didn't really create a false dichotomy. Of course there's a big overlap between nice people (without quotation marks) and "good" people (his take). In the OP he created two models of people, which he labelled "good" and "nice". The characteristics of "nice" are, to the outside observer, socially apt and likeable. "Good" people fall into this category too, and so do people that lack the "good" qualities. To simplify things he simply talked about a "nice" person that was nice in your sense but lacked the qualities of being "good". Obviously they share characteristics, but the point was that he has developed a way of hiring, which I personally thought quite interesting (that it worked/works), of figuring out whether a nice person was also "good" or was he/she just "nice".
Admittedly it's a weird, awkward, maybe even creepy job posting, but that doesn't mean it's just bullshit. His methods will probably fail in a larger workplace context but he never claimed that they would the contrary anyway.
No, he's got some decent concepts, but the way he uses them comes off as inauthentic. He really doesn't have the full picture of human relationships here. Though it may very well work for him—and more power to him if it does—what these kind persons have pointed out is that it is not generalizable advice, since it alienates a good portion of people from making contact in the first place. I tend to agree.
However, he makes some excellent points about keeping the hiring process honest and genuine, and I think you could use that advice generally and apply it to your own personality with ease.
Whatever you say, Marie Antoinette. You're the exception to the rule and can perhaps create a new kind of corporate culture (though I sincerely doubt it.. if you do, you'll owe it to society to write a management textbook. Or - you will act like most people do - and hoard the information for personal benefit, until one of your underlings reverse engineers it and publicizes because you're just not paying her what she's worth. Case in point: Michael O Church). Most great work is stymied by politics, because the great creative thinkers and engineers haven't been groomed and trained in politics/management. So due to their social flaws, their projects fail, and they're stymied.
Michael O Church is crowdsourcing political support, and he believes the crowd will throw out the hegemony. Well, Michael O Church just might be on to something.