supercollision's comments

a concern I've heard of CBDCs and cashless systems in general is that governments will be able to do exactly that, and there wouldn't be a recourse to someone pushed out of the system.

More realistically they could have your purchases and income streams feed into a social credit system or actuarial models.

just to footnote the quote since I didn't know what it meant the first couple times I saw it: It's likely in reference to an article and line in a video as part of the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset" concept. The article generated some backlash so they changed the article title and added some notes to bookend it. (edit: WEFwoof posted this below as well)

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/how-life-could-change...

Video: 8 predictions for the world in 2030

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx3DhoLFO4s

My own normally-cautious family is tentatively having people meet up from four cities in one house for a week, which I feel is taking too much of a risk even if everyone's tested.

I'm likely to cancel and cause some disappointment, stopping short of "ruining the holidays," but IMO that's ok to keep everyone safe.

yes, and IIUC it's already a crowded market. I haven't been car shopping in a very long time so I'm not sure what's the current state of the art, but the Kelley Blue Book (edit: mentioned in a sibling comment) is probably the original and best-known one. First published in 1926, online since 1995.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelley_Blue_Book

Thanks for surfacing the info on health care.

EdJiang, please note this isn't to you directly (either as a poster or Uber employee), my engineer-brain is sort of thinking of loopholes and unintended consequences. I'm not expressing an opinion here.

How many "real" working hours does it take to get 25 working hours? I only found one reference (Berkeley Law) that estimated 1/3 of the time is downtime, so very roughly 40 hours a week? Of course depends on location, chosen time of work, and much more.

More cynically, would these companies be able to distribute work such that rides are given to drivers with more "buffer" before hitting these ACA payouts?

Again, not at Uber, Lyft and others specifically but the USA is a country where if we mandate workers with 30 hours get healthcare, employers may try to schedule for 29. I think it's unfortunate, but that's the incentive.

(opinion mode on: we need to fix healthcare as a country; the current state of affairs and likely the state after the Supreme Court hears Texas v. California in three weeks is ridiculous)

I heard one plan was to gain market share and eventually replace drivers with self-driving vehicles altogether, but I should note I'm spreading at least third-degree hearsay.

One lawsuit was a Department of Justice antitrust investigation (quickly settled) that required a bunch of lawyers, discovery, and having the conduct run up against the Sherman antitrust act. I think a tech union is very unlikely but would rather things get fixed before they get that far.

My understanding is that the related civil class action suit recouped small fractions of estimated lost wages, though there's a lot of hand-waving there and both sides are going to wave their hands differently.

I might be mistaken; this didn't affect me too much, and I most mostly just amused how incredibly afraid of Steve Jobs everyone was.

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point, but might a union actually help in this case?

The 30 hour mandate is from the federal government as part of the Affordable Care Act. If someone was moved from 40 hours to 29 hours because of this, that's bad, but they were likely not a union member, right? Unions would have a negotiated contract for however many hours they wanted (either more or less than the norm), and would have also already negotiated benefits on the side so the incentive for the employer to cut to 30 hours would be gone.

Regarding the fewer hours points - I wasn't advocating that shorter weeks are always better, but rather that unions are responsible for, or at least contributed to, many of the gains that workers got over the last 150 years, and that IMO have been eroding.

Pretending we lived in the early 20th century, isn't the benefit of 40 hours a week in a factory over >60 hours a week in a factory clear? In terms of health and safety, unions have also made sure that e.g. you were less likely to become trapped and burn alive during the workday [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

+1 to your post and links. I'm also surprised by how much anti-union sentiment exists in the US; things like the 40-hour workweek and concept of overtime were paid for in blood.

This question looked interesting, and it's a matter of opinion but IMO none of them started out nearly as simply as we're discussing in this thread. I think they all fail the 4-weeks-to-revenue test (Not seeking to argue, was just curious).

Facebook is probably the simplest: one month initial development time, launching after that month, adding three more colleges the month after. It looks like they had funding within about five months. Maybe worth noting they're the most software-only of the bunch, and that the v1 product was a CRUD app with great market fit (that's a good thing here for velocity, I'm not downplaying their success). And especially when they were founded, revenue wasn't really seen as necessary, so they probably get a pass on the "be profitable in 4 weeks" bit.

Amazon did start out sort of simply, as a bookstore, but it took a year from incorporation to launch and Bezos had a significant investment from parents. Remember luck and survivor bias, they caught the dotcom boom and bust, too.

Apple sort of fits simplicity - you had a couple people who worked together before identifying the potential of a product, founded a company, and get to prototypes and incorporation in a few months. On the other hand I think it's a tough case for simplicity since step 1 is "Invent the Apple I" -- and make sure it's during the beginning of a new tech revolution. Plus, in terms of success we are probably talking about the Apple II, released the year after the I.

Netflix started with funding from a previous successful venture and right out of the gate needed to fund N copies of nearly 1,000 DVDs. Wikipedia suggests they had "only" 30 employees at the beginning. One of the cofounders had prior mail-order experience--which is great, and counts! But the post here concludes with "I'll try a new career in marketing;" I hope it works out for him but notice there's a trend of prior experience or domain knowledge through several of these companies.

Google was the result of a multi-year PhD project and involved coming up with a new ranking approach (or, for the detractors, adjusting and applying an existing mathematical concept to directed graphs) and a somewhat fresh take on search UI. Then later they had to figure out ads to turn a profit.

Adding the M, Microsoft was founded after Gates and Allen had already created a tech company together prior, and they saw a market opportunity. I'm sort of sketchy on the history, but a quick search shows they developed Altair BASIC in around four months, reusing some of the work they'd one prior, had the advantage of using Harvard's infrastructure at least briefly, and IIRC sort of pretended they had a product when they didn't. Paul Allen is said to have written the bootloader they'd need while on the flight to their sales pitch. Probably no wi-fi or laptops on board that flight :)

You could say they all pivoted at some point or didn't hit on what would be their full potential from the outset, so it's important to get going on something. At the same time, it seems they found one solid product and took a risk on it, rather than taking a shotgun approach and seeing what stuck.

Overall I think there's much more planning and medium- or long-term slog involved in these companies to say they started simply. Though for most small businesses I do agree with the sibling posts to get going and test things out ASAP. I think being aggressive about culling ideas that aren't working is ok for SaaS or CRUD businesses, so you don't risk becoming a zombie company.

Nice project idea and congratulations on launching the first set!

One suggestion in case it's OP's project or the author is reading: if your video editing workflow has audio adjustment tools or supports plugins, consider using a de-esser to reduce the sibilance a little bit. Everything's easy to understand but some of the s's can be just a little harsh.

Good luck!

FWIW thanks for being responsible.

I'm just a W2 worker but have seen plenty of rationalization around this including "well my competitors are taking the forgivable loans so unless I do I'm at a disadvantage and thus negatively impacted" or "I can't plan 100% for the future and that worries me, so therefore I'm impacted." And that's just the small fishes; a sibling comment mentions our leaders promised to cooperate with oversight then immediately about-faced. No consequences anymore. I know they're supposed to be used for wages but I've seen someone take it anyway as a non-qualifying business because they expect the requirement to follow up with documentation will go out the window since it'll be too much work (to be fair, this last thing was one isolated case).

I think it's unfortunate how much grifting and opportunism goes on, and as we get closer to the election or need to prop up more businesses with more aid, we'll have further programs and rounds with avenues for abuse.

Hindsight is 20/20, and not really fair, but leaving any judging tone out of it, yes, AAL would have benefited from more cash on hand. Or, maybe it was the right decision after all if they get bailed out.

There's also more than revenue and profits.... AAL may also have had debt or a lack of spare cash; I couldn't find exact breakdowns but some articles suggest their buybacks caused negative free cash flow

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-16/u-s-airli...

Contrast with AAPL and GOOG who had, and have, tons of cash on hand. As of 2019, $102B and $117B respectively, which makes them them #2 and #1.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-07-31/move-over-...

Had a teammate do something similar but much simpler in the past (think limiting execution and FS permissions). This is unlikely to end with management appreciating your initiative.

OP can maybe comment or correct (btw Congrats on making the jump, OP!) but given the business/operations language this might be the Ops Manager ladder, on which there is an entry-level manager position. IMO interesting, and cool if it works out for everyone.

https://www.amazon.jobs/en/jobs/899809/amazon-operations-are...

(trivia, Amazon is listed as having 840k employees, I knew it was high of course, but wow)

100% serious, not a low-effort political comment: I don't think they're at all afraid of being accused of being partial.

Over the last few years, one of the things that has bothered me the most is that the strategy of saying "fake news" or "bad journalist" (for males) or "nasty question" (for women) and proceeding full steam ahead is proving to be remarkably effective. There is zero accountability.

from the article, 3 million masks.

fwiw most of the the Google rows look to be consultants, contractors or vendors. Amazon had fewer with details but tentatively had full-timers.

though IIRC at least a couple of the FAAMNGOs try to keep C/C/Vs from portraying their jobs as being employed by the contracting company. Perhaps Google doesn't or perhaps it's more for linkedin than arbitrary spreadsheets or resumes.

I'm another REAPER fan. It's wonderful if you're looking for a reliable, slim, portable, cross-platform DAW.

A few notes:

+1 that you can get most of Reaper's plugins for use in other DAWs (maybe only for Windows though?): https://www.reaper.fm/reaplugs/ - almost any DAW seems to have decent stock plugins these days but Reaper's do some nice stuff like a clean N-band multiband compressor.

Upgrades do go on for quite a while - though @abaga129, unfortunately your free update train just ended a couple weeks ago. Purchasing a license at version N gets you all updates for major releases N and N+1, but N+2 is a paid upgrade (and would come with all upgrades through N+3). Version 6 was just released this month, so it's a great time to jump in and get a license if anyone's been running that trial past the intended period.

Reaper is absolutely worth $60 (for studios with a decent amount of revenue it's $300 or so IIRC), but for some musicians I think other, more expensive DAWs can be a better deal, for example Studio One when it's on sale, or Logic Pro X for Mac users at $200 - it has a huge amount of stock plugins and instruments that Reaper really doesn't match. Perhaps you don't need them. And many people likely end up with tons of third-party plugins anyway so it won't matter. And of course there are plenty of good, free third-party plugins online.

Though elephant in the room (for me) for Logic is whether Apple will continue to support the pro line. Having a nice MBP refresh and the new new Mac Pros out is a good signal.

Students can grab Apple's Final Cut Pro X + Logic X + other stuff bundle for $199: https://www.apple.com/us-hed/shop/product/BMGE2Z/A/pro-apps-... For everyone, you can likely purchase iTunes gift cards at a discount and use that for apple's pro software.

Reaper has a fully-functional 60-day trial and is a well-behaved app on your system (no USB dongle drivers for example). Totally recommend trying it out.

I'd advise giving your current lead every benefit of the doubt to figure out if the problem is truly a mismatch of their skills to leadership or if there's something happening beyond your team. In the latter case you may not want the job...

Your lead was around when hiring was tough. Moving from IC to eng lead is the clearest growth path for an IC that I can think of, so I'm not sure that aligns with their rationale of "never be[ing] able to grow within the company." Knowing nothing about this person, I think there's a chance there's information you don't have here (not your fault, you weren't around to get it!). "I'm a better IC than lead" is a solid political answer--and it's true for many/most? of us. But it's also a _safe_ answer.

Why were jobs unattractive to external candidates during the time he was hesitant to take on engineering leadership? If the answer is "no one wants to relocate to our un-hip city" that's understandable. Most other reasons? Dig. Keep in mind this person, regardless of skills fit or raw coding prowess, has been exposed to different information and experiences at the company than you have. They have insight into culture and middle management that you might not.

Part 2, to actually answer "What do I do?" - OK, so you gathered data and the lead is indeed simply not a good fit in their role. Every other team around you is firing on all cylinders - in fact they whisper about your team's localized problems. Everyone on your team would be supportive of a change. What then?

If you're going to go to your direct manager or skip-level and ask for a bigger role, make sure you have a good argument from their perspective of why. I'm sure this is in the 80,000 negotiating books that are out there that I haven't read a single one of. Doesn't matter how you see the world, it matters how they do.

Knowing nothing about how awesome you're doing in your current role: what have you done for the company recently? Do skip-level managers know you? Do you have a reputation as a problem-finder and fixer who can work across teams and just gets things done? Have you been owning projects mid-level managers have heard of, even if you're not team lead? Are you "the hero of GDPR compliance" or even "person who wrote the extension that fixes my email nit?" If so, awesome, say that. "I think I'm a better candidate than person X" and "I had a similar role at my last company" are less likely to meet the bar.

If your team's problems are affecting your personal output, then unfortunately that's going to make your case a little more difficult :(. If that's true, try to find a role that lets you show IC skills at the "very good" level (need not be "incredible") while also adding an informal leadership merit badges here or there and getting at least some reputation beyond your team. That's what I've seen in pretty much every case of IC getting leadership responsibilities (which isn't a formal promotion at our company).

Just get enough info in advance to be 100% sure you want the job :).

Semi-related concern if you did take on this team's leadership: are there coworkers that think they could do better than you if you did get promoted? That can cause some people to find other opportunities. Make sure you'd be ok with that.