> Get the experience you want ASAP, invest as much of your salary as you can, and then job hop.
This works in tech but not necessarily in other white collar fields like finance. In finance, there is an unwritten rule that you are supposed to settle with a firm by ~30-35 and stay there for the rest of your career. Many firms don't hire laterally unless they have no other choice. Professionals like investment bankers and CFAs are recruited straight out of university and groomed to assume leadership positions in the long term.
> In finance, there is an unwritten rule that you are supposed to settle with a firm by ~30-35 and stay there for the rest of your career. Many firms don't hire laterally unless they have no other choice.
Eh, I would say it depends... Investment banking and hedge funds, sure, you better join early and stay for the long term. But for private equity and other investment management (notably family office, fund of funds and endowment management), you can still be recruited laterally. I've even seen veteran MD level guys being regularly hired at my previous PE firm.
In fact, with leadership at the top not yet retiring at the biggest and mid-tier firms, it's becoming increasingly hard to justify staying around for that promotion. In my personal experience, I have yet to see anyone make anything beyond Principal (the tier below partner/MD) at the large PE shops before their 40s. Most instead go down a notch to mid tier firms, go to an emerging market office, or start their own. Not to mention the number of seats higher up is also on the decline.
If you're determined to stay in finance, you'll probably have to stick to this model. But for a finance professional, there are many opportunities in other lines of business.
What causes El Niño to happen every few years? What mechanism drives the phenomenon? I was thinking maybe sun spots, but sun spots have 11 year cycles on average, so I don't think it's the cause. Why doesn't El Niño happen every year, like hurricanes?
"El Niño and La Niña reflect the two end points of an oscillation in the Pacific Ocean. The cycle is not fully understood, but the times series illustrates that the cycle swings back and forth every 3-7 years. Often, El Niño is followed immediately by La Niña, as if the warm water is sloshing back and forth across the Pacific. The development of El Niño events is linked to the trade winds. El Niño occurs when the trade winds are weaker than normal, and La Niña occurs when they are stronger than normal. Both cycles typically peak in December.
El Niño and La Niña aren’t the only cycles evident in this image series. The Pacific Ocean is moody: It turns slightly hot or slightly cold every couple of years. This bi-annual pattern isn’t the distinctive, well-defined stripe of warm ocean waters near the equator typical of El Niño, but rather, a general warming of the ocean.
On top of the two-year warm/cold cycle and the El Niño/La Niña pattern is a broader decadal cycle in which the Pacific has a warm and a cool phase. In the 1990s, the Pacific was in a warm phase. The strong El Niño of 1997 marked the end of the warm phase."
Coriolis. There are timescales set up by two big mechanisms: one is westward-propagating oceanic Rossby [0] waves just to the north and south of the equator and the other is eastward-propagating Kelvin [1] waves along the equator which hit the Peruvian coast, split in two and flow north and south bouncing along the coast. Sloshing back and forth.
There’s nothing we could do to this planet (including climate change, ocean acidification , or even “launch all the nukes”) that would make it less hospitable to humanity than the moon/mars.
More expensive cars are better for the environment if people start driving less or stop driving. But it's worse for the environment if people hold on to older cars, because they are less fuel efficient than newer models and release more fine particles in the air.
Is that still true of new cars made in the 2020s? I assume the emissions difference between a 6-10 year old ICE vehicle and a brand new ICE vehicle are probably pretty negligible in light of the footprint required to produce and bring a brand new ICE vehicle to market.
White people are _not_ more intelligent than black people. And it is both factually incorrect and racist to believe so.
- "I never said white people were mo--" Sure, but that is nevertheless the belief held by 99% of the people who think that some ethnicities are inherently more intelligent than others. It's a reasonable assumption that that is what you think.
At no point did they say anything remotely related to race. You choose to make it about that.
If you take two people of the same race and one of them happens to have better genetics that lead to them being smarter, they are more likely to grasp the information provided to them and succeed in life.
I’m not going to pretend that there aren’t racist people in the world who believe what you were saying. I won’t pretend that there aren’t massive systematic issues in the western world that lead to non-white people having a harder lot in life.
I won’t pretend that you aren‘t trying to pour gasoline on the fire when it wasn’t even necessary. They made a polite comment and you just raged at them for no good reason. Calm down.
You might want to look at the GP's name.
Yes, they didn't mention it explicitly. In the context of being named "theclansman" though, it's very likely to be the line of thinking the user had.
The logical implications of genetics determining IQ is obvious.
If genetics can determine physical appearance and genetics groups many certain physical aspects into a collection of common features for a race then if genetics determines intelligence, by what black magic does this grouping suddenly stop at intelligence?
Are we saying genetics can make Asians all have black hair, brown eyes, a tendency of a smaller size and suddenly zero effect on intelligence? Doesn't seem logical.
Thus when someone brings up intelligence and genetics it is by inescapable logic that they are also saying something about race.
Hair and eye color are simple epigenetical traits, and very easily measurable. As for size, I don't know if you've traveled to East Asia recently, but the young generations are just as tall as we Westerners. I follow a number of Asian bodybuilders and they aren't any smaller than your average white bodybuilder. The stereotype is likely the product of a historically poor nutrition, but that has changed, and Asians born in the last 30-40 years are proof.
Intelligence, on the other hand, is far more complex to define, measure and test than eye color or height.
Average size is still smaller according to data. Google the stats according to age range. The results still point to the generality that Asians are smaller.
One metric for intelligence is IQ. If you don't think IQ is a good measure of intelligence then let's not talk about things with vague definitions. Replace every usage of the word "intelligence" in my post with "IQ". Now we can talk on more exact terms.
I love how straight forward you are, seriously, let's not beat around the bush this is basically what the conversation is gonna come down to.
IQ might be a completely useless number (as it has been pointed out, it doesn't predict success or anything like that), but denying that it's related to genetics is absurd too.
Agreed, if genetics didn’t have a factor then it’s like saying you can’t prove a human is smarter than a dog (the difference of course between species stems from genetics - similarly as between humans).
IQ is only a slight predictor of individual of individual success there are many other factors that are superior to IQ for predicting individual success.
However the paradox is that while IQ is not a good predictor of individual success, the economic success of a country correlates heavily with the average IQ of the people in that country.
It is a paradox. One cannot simply say that IQ doesn't "predict" success. From the data, the answer seems much more complicated.
IQ is a much better predictor, controlling for other known contributors, of success for individuals within, say, the United States, than it is for countries.
Sure, IQ “correlates strongly” with national economic success, but that’s because of other causal relationships, like that economic success predicts environmental conditions which are known contributors to IQ.
First off IQ only has a slight correlation with individual success past a certain point (someone with below 60 IQ is obviously going to have a hard time succeeding). The data shows that for high IQ and average IQ there is only a slight correlation with success.
Second what you said is patently false. We do not know if there is a causal relationship because a casual experiment is nearly impossible to conduct. This is very different from saying there is "no causal relationship." A correlation points to a possibility of causative relationships. Literally. You make a statement as if it was true, tell me the exact causal experiment you used to determine your statement about "no causal relationship".
Third. The correlation between economic success and IQ is much much stronger then the correlation between individual success and IQ.
Makes sense. If you're a genius in a country of people who make worse decisions (IQ/culture/other), you may ne worse off than an average person in a country with an average average decision making level
Even if ethnicities correlate with IQ, clumping them together into "white" and "black" buckets would just average out any differences because both "white" and especially "black" people are so genetically diverse.
But Ashkenazi Jews are undoubtedly more intelligent than both. They also end up with a disproportionate amount of over-performers across the arts, sciences, finance, media, and entrepreneurship.
Can't their success be more attributed to a culture that favors learning and education, as well as the relative financial prosperity of Ashkenazi Jews compared to other groups? That the children of successful artists, scientists, or financiers become successful artists, scientists and financiers themselves is least surprising.
I highly doubt it. For example in New York City there were historically immigrants from lots of different backgrounds all living in the same place working in the same industries. Is it just a coincidence that the most intelligent of them also became the most successful across every metric (on average)?
> (UK) Internet traffic took a significant nosedive, dropping by as much as 18%. The Sunday trends didn't stop there. As night fell and Prince William took to the stage to deliver a speech during the Coronation Concert, there was a clear drop in Internet traffic.
Microsoft has been bleeding talent for the last 5-6 years due to low compensation. It's why the SLT authorized a "correction" in pay last year that saw many people get a significant pay bump. Lots of new college hires have even stated that Microsoft's offer was the lowest offer they received. Levels.fyi tells basically the same story as well if you compare Microsoft to many other tech companies.
One thing to note is that the bonus and stock award budget have been reduced from last year where it was inflated. So, it's back to normal. What is frustrating is that it's also likely "back to normal" for the executives when it should be minimal to non-existent. The pessimist in me says that this is nothing more than juicing the quarterly stats so that Satya and his directs hit their targets for their "normal" bonuses.
Honestly, this is the closest I've seen the company to unionization and I'm willing to bet that efforts are going to start soon. Especially if the Q4/annual results exceed expectations.
Every time a company is one day telling the employees that they need to take a pay cut to keep the company "competitive" (and this pay freeze is actually a pay cut), and the next day they're doing a stock buyback and the C-Suite is giving themselves enormous performance bonuses they need to worry about unionization.
Dividends should be a sign that a company has excess cash and can't find a good place to invest it. Paying a dividend while asking workers to take a pay freeze signals they don't believe the workers are returning enough value to justify paying them more.
Buybacks are actually better for employees with unvested grants. If you have 100k in unvested stock and a dividend is issued, you get nothing. But an equivalent buyback raises the price and now you vest a higher amount.
Because I have to sell the shares and I get a bunch of cash. Dividends could happen yearly and for significant amounts, considering how cash rich these companies are.
For the whales, sure, they're great, since they do the whole "borrow against the share price and extend forever".
Not to sound too much like a libertarian, and I'm not against unions, but isn't this something that can be more or less corrected by a lot of engineers finding work elsewhere? It's not like Microsoft has anywhere near a monopoly on the software engineering space anymore, and most of the engineers there can probably adjust to remote work without too much of an issue.
Then we get the cycle of Microsoft complaining that they can't hire enough people, and then they bump salaries up again to be competitive.
> but isn't this something that can be more or less corrected by a lot of engineers finding work elsewhere?
In this market? I'm skeptical. I'm sure some fraction of them can do so at equivalent or higher pay, but the tech market at the moment is quite soft and I wouldn't be surprised this was taken into account and served as another motivation for this move from MS.
That's fair, I was a victim of the layoffs of 2022 (well, sort of), and it took months to find a job paying well enough to cover my mortgage. I did find one, and I really like it, but it took a lot of time and effort to find...certainly harder than it was early last year.
> Microsoft has been bleeding talent for the last 5-6 years due to low compensation.
I have been hearing this for awhile now. When I compare MS pay and benefits to what is on offer at other companies, almost the only jobs I see with better TC are at Meta and Google. And that will likely not be a thing of Meta's future.
Things have probably changed in the last year or so since the pandemic, but due to a combination of stock appreciation and much smaller company size pretty much everyone was paying more than MSFT : Uber, lyft, airbnb, snowflakes etc... and a bunch of pre-ipo company depends on how much one believed their valuation.
The only company paying worst than MSFT were the hardware company such as AMD,Qualcomm and intel. But hardware companies are known for low wages
Unfortunately for Taiwan, it doesn't have the ability to prevent the U.S. from destroying TSMC's factories with: long range cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, PGMs, or special forces. But that wouldn't be necessary to deny China TSMC.
> Last year we reported on TSMC Chairman Mark Liu, who told interviewers that, “Nobody can control TSMC by force.” He reasoned(opens in new tab) that, “If you take a military force or invasion, you will render TSMC factories inoperable.” But, explosives wouldn’t be needed, according to Liu, as TSMC's fine-tuned operations would simply crumble as its real-time connections with the outside world evaporated. However, we should remember that China’s motives should not be measured against business rationality. Instead, its policies may be colored by a leader seeking glory, destiny, a legacy, and so on.
From a strategic asset perspective, the "gold" of fab and diffusion shops are in software and equipment configuration. It would be better to exfil and sabotage crucial equipment to retain the power to either return, exchange, or destroy it rather than irreversibly blow it up. It'd be a whole lot more geopolitically "acceptable" too than making bad press of one colonial power or another victimizing tiny Taiwan.
