I think it still depends. More test can also result in more estrogen. There is selection bias in athletes who dope because they're the ones who happen to respond positively to it.
There must be a graveyard of athletes who tried doping and it made them worse lol.
Darwin took 21 years to publish his findings on evolution. In fact he couldn't finish the actual book that he had set out to write and published a summarized abstract instead, which is what we know as On the Origin of Species.
Plus he would have kept working on it until Alfred Wallace wrote him a letter about coming up with his own idea independently so it was publish together or get beat to the punch.
I ran some rough numbers a while ago and I found single-region GCP Spanner to be the most cost-effective relational DB option (out of the ones I looked it) if you don't mind that it can't scale to zero (min $65/mo), if synchronous replication for durability is a must and you need serializability. It's more cost effective than any Aurora offering including DSQL (which isn't serializable afaik but even then).
The real test of this is whether a manager can fire their single most productive employee because he/she is ruining the social harmony of the team.
I've seen managers in my career bend over backward to protect people who were outright abusive to their coworkers but were individually very productive. Those managers didn't go very far. Your team is not a car collection.
This is so important. One of the things that kills company culture before the company even takes off is getting a sense from the founders that they're just trying to fool desperate/clueless people into working for them for less than what they're worth.
The startups that actually succeed have the philosophy "find the best people and pay them a lot". All the successful unicorns and decacorns over the last 15 years have a reputation of paying people well. There is literally not one startup I can think of that succeeded but has a reputation of underpaying.
And if you're unable to pay employees well then you're simply not well-capitalized enough and should drop the project.
By definition, paying employees well means paying them above-market, not market rate. If you pay people market-rate, nobody writes home about the compensation. Market-rate is also not "underpaying" i.e. below-market.
Paying above-market rates is walking a tightrope. On the one hand, experienced employees who are well-versed in your systems and your organization are indeed worth more than market-rate (i.e. someone new), and compensating them as such will retain them. On the other hand, it also retains poor performers, who you want to steer to finding roles elsewhere. Being ruthless about firing fast is one option, but it's a deal with the devil - it erodes psychological safety among people who stay unless the firing is unanimously desired and there is a consensus among everyone who remains that it was necessary. So if you handle the firing wrong, you affect performance and social cohesion everywhere. If you pay market-rate, it's easier to just make someone miserable until they self-select out and find work elsewhere.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), all successful startups pay above-market because equity compensation in the right company can be a life-changing amount of money. So most successful startups seem to successfully walk that tightrope.
I define market rate to be the best rate that somebody will pay for your talent (minus Faustian outliers).
"Above-market rate" is an oxymoron. If someone is offering to pay you above the prevailing best rate then obviously you're going to sell to that buyer and it becomes the new market rate.
It really depends on the organization, its mission, the employee pool, and the local cost of living.
Most software engineers are relatively well-paid compared to the wider labor market, even the engineers who are "underpaid". Kahneman's research showed that once you have enough money to pay your bills, making more than that has rapidly diminishing returns for your happiness. It's much more important to fit in - like your boss, like your coworkers, like your work, be recognized, have good work-life balance. None of that really requires above-market compensation.
When a firm pays below-market rates, it's a sign of one of two things: either they're abusing people who can't find work elsewhere, or people are happy to stay in spite of it. The latter are often really good places to work.
HN loves to complain about how money ruined the software industry. Let the people who will chase a raise from $180k to $210k go elsewhere. Let the people who want their moonshot at life-changing wealth go talk to a VC. There are other opportunities for people who realize that money isn't everything in life.
I don't think we actually disagree here. I agree broadly with everything you said. My point was mainly I don't see a reason to support that assumption that if pay pushes out low performers, I don't see a reason why it wouldn't equally push out high performers? This goes on the assumption that lower performers optimise more for pay than higher performers?
Low pay pushes people to leave, regardless of performance. The argument I'm making is that, in such an environment, you retain high performers through non-economic incentives (sense of belonging, appreciation, etc.) and push low performers out by not providing those. Why would anyone ever stay in an environment that also underpaid you and where you also weren't appreciated and gave you subtle hints to leave? Under-paying actually makes it easier to push out the people you don't want. Under-paying does indeed risk pushing out high-performers; my argument is that this is risk and not a guaranteed destiny, and that high-performers may be incentivized to stay by other means.
Even startups that beat the incredibly long odds to become successful mostly aren’t successful enough to make up for a long stretch of not earning BigCo RSUs.
It's not that. Maybe some voted based on entertainment value but it was an ad hoc alliance of:
People who only ever vote GOP
Pro lifers
People who thought he was somehow being unfairly prosecuted for Jan 6 and having crates of classified documents in his pool house
Podcast listeners (people who are heavily influenced by Joe Rogan, Tim Poole, and the like)
People who are ideologically aligned with Stephen Miller
And, drumroll...
Centrists who believed the GOP talking point that Biden was the sole or primary cause of inflation. To their discredit, the dems seemed to have no interest in refuting it.
Dems seemed to be running on a platform of "We're not Trump". That was enough in 2020, after four years of Trump. It was not enough in 2024, after four years of Biden.
Every US presidential election is baseline 50/50 and ends up decided by a small number of people who are as fickle as all get out and dumber than dirt. They don't vote for anything recognizable as a "reason."
Nobody, but maybe it's a similar phenomena of how people choose brands. Where, people tend to buy brands they recognize most, even if they don't actually know much about said brand or it's quality.
Trump was the name on everyone's lips. Could it be possible that introduced an implicit bias in his favor? Is this a case of "any publicity is good publicity"?
There are no simple explanations in this arena. All campaigns min/max messaging for sought after demographics to maximize votes. One could argue that the collaboration brought on by Elon/X gave the Trump 2 campaign some of the most sophisticated frameworks for data driven, atomized political messaging/monitoring ever seen in federal electoral history. That is a monumentally effective effort to convert and acquire voters-- I advise avoiding such simplistic explanations, especially when they double as thought terminating cliches.
I'm pretty sure mosquito populations in India have been evolving in response to those electrified tennis rackets. Mosquitos now are much faster, smaller, and have more evasive flying patterns.
I have a feeling this is exactly what happened in Frankfurt. It very glaringly points to some failure in the healthcare system.
Healthy working adults with access to healthcare don't just die of malaria. Two deaths means it's not some unique susceptibility in one individual either.
The more interesting investigation would be how the system let two people die of malaria, not how malaria got there.
> It very glaringly points to some failure in the healthcare system.
Does it? "Have you been near the equator recently?" is a rather common question that GPs ask when you go see them with high fever. Doctors in Germany are absolutely aware of malaria, given how much we like to travel to all those beautiful, but unfortunately malaria-ridden countries.
The only thing, of course, is: That question wouldn't have helped here. However, this[0] source says airport staff are made aware of the possibility of contracting malaria and are told to watch out for symptoms.
I don't think so. The Frankfurt University Hospital is used to weird shit like Ebola. There is a fuck up somewhere in here, but I don't think it's this detail. Frankfurt had airport malaria before as well.
reply