thats what you get when you government mandate things. You cant expect things like diversity and culture to be processed by law. You pretty much have to make it non profitable for companies to not be diverse.
Then they company has a personal responsiblity to change rather than a checkbox to check off , much like the "what race are you" checkbox given to pander to their diversity quota.
I blame society, people cry about diversity but all they want to see is someone of a particular type in a manager position and never really as, "what is this person doing", "do they really get to make an impact". Diversity propaganda is all so shallow and has only made relationships different cultures worse.
Things can be made non-profitable outside of government interventions like fines of tax incentives etc.
In fact, the parent's position is an 100% consistent libertarian position: they believe that such a problem will (or wont) be solved by the market itself, and that companies should follow such incentives not being forced by laws.
E.g. diversity would be good economically for companies, because else they will lose black, asian, indian, etc talent they could hire.
It's an example of treating the symptoms. The company has a hiring pipeline biased toward white people so it tries to compensate by having a second pipeline biased toward non white people when the actual solution is to make one pipeline that works for everyone.
This reminds me of a VC/incubator who was offering a favorable equity loan hybrid where you get no strings funding with the additional benefit that you can buy your equity back at any time for 3x the original investment. It turns out that this met the needs of a lot of black and female founders even though diversity was not even an explicit goal. You could literally feel the HN commenters roll their eyes while they said "So this is just a terrible loan with high interest rates?" as if having access to business loans is completely natural like breathing air, when it's the exception for black people.
> The trend of innovation is increasingly becoming grassroots-driven
Please qualify this, I call bs. I acutally think its harder and harder to innovate now a days and we need large companies to innovate because scale is now the battle for any product that makes an impact.
If its a "trend" then you must have historical data that displays the change and im sure you have a hard definition for "innovation" and "grassroots". This is basically a flippant comment that Im not even sure you feel strongly about but it sounds nice.
> down the knowledge acquisition cost to probably bare minimal
you dont understand how important experience is. Books have been around for centuries, all this knowledge was not much more difficult to get decades ago but you still have people cant perform surgery from reading a book or create a rocket ship. Knowledge is about 10% of the solution to any problem.
>individuals are becoming more and more sophisticated
Complicated yes, sophisticated no. Look at music, you think this is a sophisticated society???
well I guess innovation has a price (or maybe a cost). And as long as ISO puts up a paywall they have determined by market forces what that cost is.
My perspective on this idea is that altruism is dead when it comes to open source. Peoples work needs to be paid for. Weather its ISO or the guy creating a program using it. We are not to be slaves to the future and I dont wish that for future devs. Making a profit isnt evil but wanting others work for free is selfish. People can always make their own standards and come together across nations and do the work. But they much rather cry and call hardworking people bad.
no dont give into this guy ... this is done over the net. The rate of transfer has to be taken into account. Unacceptable is a measure of comparison.
Unacceptable to who, you have a faster provider for cheaper, with as many features???
Im pretty sure he doesnt because if he could he would go there. There are tradeoffs and Atlassian has many project they are working on. They understand that there is room for improvement in performance. Its one of Atlassian's priorities, it is a tech company (a pretty good one I would say).
I guess one question is about server redundancy. Where is this guy loading from and where is the server he is loading from? Getting things below 1s is nearing the speed of the connection itself. Also at that speed there is deminishing returns. Something that happens at 1s vs .5s doesnt make you twice as fast when you dont even have the response time to move your mouse and click on the next item in .5s.
Sometimes techies just love to argue. You are doing great Atlassian and have tons of features. But maybe it is time to revisit and refactor some of your older tools.
> Getting things below 1s is nearing the speed of the connection itself
That is absolutely false. Internet latency is actually very low - even e.g. Paris to NZ is only about 270ms RTT, and you _do not_ need multiple full round trips to the application server for an encrypted connection - on the modern internet, connections are held open, and initial TLS termination is done at local PoPs.
For services like this - as they are sharded with customer tenancy - are usually located at least in the same vague area as the customer (e.g. within North America, Western Europe, APAC etc).
For most users of things like Atlassian products, that typically results in a base networking latency of <30ms, often even <10ms in good conditions.
Really well engineered products can even operate in multiple regions at once - offering that sort of latency globally.
> Im pretty sure he doesnt because if he could he would go there
Yeah, we don't use any Atlassian products - partly for this reason. We use many Atlassian-comparable tools which have the featureset we want and which are drastically faster.
> when you dont even have the response time to move your mouse and click on the next item in .5s.
Not really, I have no particular investment in this - I don't use any Atlassian product, nor do I plan to even if they make massive perf improvements.
But I do have an objective grasp - for tools like this - of what's possible, what good looks like, and what user expectations look like.
> no dont give into this guy
I don't expect Atlassian is going to make any major decisions entirely based on my feedback here, but it is useful data/input for exploration, and I do feel it's right to point out that they're looking in the wrong ballpark when it comes to the scale of improvement needed.
To put things in perspective, the typical Jira 5-second page load time as reported by many people in this forum is equivalent to twice the round-trip time for light to the Moon!
It's the network latency equivalent of a million kilometres of fibre!
The internet is fast. Computers are fast. One second is enough time for my machine to download 10M data points and render them into an interactive plot.
In my mind, anyone doing UI development and seeing user interactions taking over 1 second should be asking themselves "did the user just try to operate on more than 10^6 of something?" and if the answer is no, start operating under the assumption that they've made a mistake.
who says this is an "issue" its just numbers. If you think its an issue thats your interpretation. For instance I used jira for communicate with my team about 3 projects and it only took me 3 hours.
Maybe this person is writing a fiction story where the protagonist is using Jira and they are detailing how they spend their day.
> who says this is an "issue" its just numbers. If you think its an issue thats your interpretation.
No, this is a quote from the comment:
"This is what people mean when they say the performance problems are everywhere - viewing issues, viewing boards, viewing comments, opening dropdowns, closing modals? It's all slow."
The actual text says that you can't "publicly disseminate information regarding the performance of the Cloud Products". So no interpretation required; posting the stats is enough.
correlation does not equal causation. Phone addiction or internet addiction is a symptom not a cause. People are escaping to the internet becuase of the world we live in is cold.
There is a new US marine commerical out that shows a kid wandering the street kind of lost in hyper interactive world. The commercial plays off of this internet addiction and data mining product selling. Then clips to them becoming a Marine and finding purpose. Its a good commercial because its actually something that is a problem and that the Marines do have an answer, although with a great cost.
Brave New World predicted this. We are removed from community and it is scary so we find one on the internet and we go all in. The physical problems come with the fact that its not interactive but if there was a VR internet those could go away.
That still wouldnt fix the problem that you might feel closer to someone across the world than someone right next to you. And that a Maga hat and Antifa supporter might be neighbors but want to kill eachother.
My phone is that internet/phone addiction is not a problem its a solution. An escape from forever war all around us. Or you could join the Marines. I guess war is inescapable. Que the cranberries song.
Addiction is sometimes described as something that is done repeatedly and is harmful. I can't get by without breathing, so I need to do that pretty often, but as it's not harmful, it's not an addiction.
The answer to your question is it depends... I don't think there is anything wrong with playing a dopamine hitting game on a 10 minute bus ride home from work (it's no different than the buzz from a shot of espresso), but if you are spending so much time that you are harming yourself (physically or emotionally) then that's an addiction.
There was a talk posted a few days ago here by Dr Gabor Mate about addiction:
Listening to music is essentially a drug in that it releases pleasurable neurotransmitters. I think we need to understand the positive and negative impacts to ourselves like you suggested.
Escapism is intensely popular, it’s behind the boom in video games, watching people stream themselves playing video games, super hero movies, scripted tv. OnlyFans let’s you have a quasi-partner who takes your money and gives you intimacy. Instant gratification, and if you don’t have what you want, just blame society for not giving it to you.
What’s great is that if you are a hard worker and have a long time horizon, it’s never been easier to extract huge compensation. Wealthy people want to invest to make money without any effort, and learning hard stuff like computer science, mechanical engineering, biochemistry and pharma development, etc. takes a tough decade of study and practice to get skilled enough to really kill it. But once you are an expert you can produce actual stuff that matters and investors can’t find enough smart and talented people willing to actually do stuff, so the premium paid to those that can make entertainment, life saving drugs, productivity-increasing tech, and so on gets ever higher.
Bet on making stuff for the Netflix box and drugs that keep fat people alive longer, and fun games that distract people from reality.
I don't disagree with your take that escapism is popular, but this can partially be attributed to the capable people you reference building technology that exploits our psychology to encourage further escapism.
I don't understand the desire to bet on things that would personally enrich you and your investments/companies but decrease overall wellbeing. The capable should build that which guides society towards connection and elevates collective goals, not exploit the exploitable.
The market demands this stuff. If human nature is to be lazy, fat, desiring instant gratification, and blaming everyone else for their problems, then someone will fulfill it.
I wrote a “hot take” above and am exaggerating, but I truly feel like the world we live in now makes it so easy to avoid discipline and hard choices. So those that accept that getting nice stuff takes effort and discipline will earn great dividends.
It's not even that they're asserting that there's no causation in that quote, they're rather asserting that the causation is backwards, which is also undemonstrated.
well ok, but while we are on the subject, we have no proof of any causation anywhere in the universe, all we have is the correlation that we've never seen (for example) gravity repel, only attract.
Not really true. If two things are strictly correlative, that means there is an additional factor causing both.
If you eliminate all reasonable additional factors (by controlling variables), you can demonstrate causation. Arguing that there can be unknowable external factors behind everything is not very scientific.
Identifying causal relationships involving humans is difficult due to the excessively multivariate nature of all our interactions, and by extension how difficult it is to "control" humans (as opposed to water, or a wheel). That does not mean it is impossible to ever demonstrate causation.
Leibniz denies the existence of causation in his Monadology[1]. In short, everything acts solely according to its own nature without any interaction with anything else, but in a harmonious way that creates the illusion of causation. That strikes me as a bit far fetched, but it does show that accepting the existence of causation is a metaphysical choice and not necessary.
> Leibniz denies the existence of causation in his Monadology
This sentence is incoherent unless one assumes the denial of causation is bunk, since it makes no sense to attribute either Monadology in general or the specific claims from it being discussed to Leibniz unless he caused the existence of the work, which clearly he cannot have if there is no causation.
>Marines do have an answer, although with a great cost.
Do you mean an individual cost or societal cost?
I think one of the ironies about the human condition is that we value things that we’ve sacrificed toward much more than the things we have not. E.g., Marines have esprit de corps in part because of their sacrifices not despite them.
The strongest connections are often made through hardship. To think we can have that connection without a cost doesn’t seem congruent with how we’re wired
> The strongest connections are often made through hardship. To think we can have that connection without a cost doesn’t seem congruent with how we’re wired
This is the irony for me, my closest friends are people I crunched with at work. Going to breakfast together at 5am was a bonding experience. Staying overnight the day before shipping, etc... I'm not saying I want to force that on anyone but they are actually good memories for me and I made good friends. It helps that they were creative products so we were putting ourselves in them. I don't know how I'd fell crunching on someone else's goal/deadline/project.
A good read is Sebastian Junger’s Tribe. To your point, the UK civilians he interviewed who lived through the WW2 bombings referred to them as “the good ol’ days”
The society they are a part of does consider it a worthwhile skill, which is why they’ve created a niche for it.
There may be disagreements on the individual level, but society creates institutions (like the military) and the policies they execute based on their aggregate values. Or in cliched terms, people get the government they deserve
> The society they are a part of does consider it a worthwhile skill, [...]
It only mitgologizes it. That's not the same thing. When they rejoin economy nobody says "let me offer you a job or money or food or a place to live because now you can kill people on miltary command".
The only places where people might find your "skill" worthwhile outside the place that conditioned you are criminal or borderline criminal.
It’s odd to me that you have a concept that the military is somehow not part of society as a whole. For better or worse, the military is interwoven throughout society. It is an institutional construct of society. It is a part of society like other institutions like Congress or the courts. I don’t know that your point of “rejoining they economy” holds up well in that context. People have felt the military is the strong arm of the economy for a long, long time. (If you disagree, look up War is a Racket, coincidently written by a Marine).
The point I was trying to make is that if society did not value that role it wouldn’t exist. Society as a whole has decided there is a need for a standing army, and funds the continuation of it. Again, individuals may disagree but society at large has decided its of enough value to keep in existence. We don’t do this because of it’s “mythology”, especially not to the tune of $700B a year. We can argue about whether society has a misguided value system, but I think it’s very hard to make a case that society doesn’t value the purpose of the military. That’s a high price tag for mythological storytelling.
The veterans I know would likely argue that the skills they were taught in the military go far beyond the ability to kill. I don’t disagree that (in Rumsfeld’s words) the base intent of the military is to “kill people and break their things” but this is similar to the oversimplification that the only purpose of a company is to make money, full stop. The Marines I know spent more time on humanitarian missions than combat missions.
> Again, individuals may disagree but society at large has decided its of enough value to keep in existence.
I firmly believe that's the other way around. Society has ybo say about whether military should exist.
There are always people who prefer to focus on arming themselves and extorting others. Either by threatening or offering protection from threat, which blend together.
People argue whether goverment rules the people, or if the people are actually stronger then goverment and goverment rules just because people will it.
The truth becomes apparent when government and people can't keep stable relationship between themselves and ability to collect tax is threatened. Then the military steps in and supports either government or the people.
That's because the only reason military allows goverments and people do what they do is that it results in steady stream of taxation that military can feed on.
Of course people also benefit from tax being collected in stable and predictable manner instead of military just roaming their country and taking whatever it desires randomly.
Nations, armies and goverments are most advanced mechanisms of keeping human violent extortionists and most dangerous technologies from interfering with the economy.
It's of tremendous benefit to our civilisation, except for two world wars which I hope were enough for militaries to learn that they can't efficiently steal economies to extort from neighbouring militaries.
But nontheless if you join the army you join the organisation that's freeloading on everybody else while sharpening teeth that will be used against them if they misbehave. Until you stay there you are golden. But if you plan to rejoin the rest of the world at some point, time spent in the military will be at best wasted years for you and cause of much damage to your life and psyche at worst due to conditioning and abuse you underwent.
Can you get something good out of it? Sure. But how many ex-military end up in dangerous jobs or without purpose in life outside, treating damage done to them by military with opioids? You probably don't have them in your social circle but I'd say there are at least a few for each one of your ex-Marine friends doing charity.
This belief of mine is mostly based on concept of "monopoly for violence" if you want to read more about it.
That’s a good point and probably why there is an increased focus on the transition to civilian life. I suspect the distinctions between civilian and military life are what makes the transition difficult. The #1 thing they miss is the camaraderie, not the ability to blow shit up (although the adrenaline of the job is probably high on the list).
To the overall point of this thread, that lack of connection in society is part of what draws many back to rejoining
Yes, difference make it hard. They also acquire both physical and mental health issues. Mental health issues in particular makes them more likely to end up homeless or in prison, more likely to be violent.
It is not just camaraderie and connection, it is whole different expectations on what you should do. It is difficulty to find and keep job for example. Not having required skills, having trouble to communicate.
Marines certainly are closer to harms way generally was the impression I got.
As the child of an enlisted Air Force solidier who served for 20 years, I always thought the Air Force got the worst rap of the branches. The "chair force" moniker didn't help.
What do you mean less valued? My impression is that the Marines are the most respected of the services. (I am not serving nor a veteran of any armed service).
I don't want to tell tales out of school or anything. I've met an ex-marine who suffered damage in training and stories from internet videos all corroborate the general story. The marines are the offensive branch, and the individuals get treated poorly. You get a lot of respect for your title, but other branches have a better quality of life and better jobs available.
https://youtu.be/UMoLKLM8SMg Fun story time by an ex-air force guy who was going to join up to the marines (4:30).
Counter to this anecdote, I’ve met a reasonable number of Air Force, Navy, and Army who retrospectively wished they joined the Marines. I’ve never met a Marine who wished they joined another branch (with the exception of when other branches offered even more difficult opportunities Marines didn’t, like before MARSOC was established)
> And that a Maga hat and Antifa supporter might be neighbors but want to kill eachother.
That Maga hat and antifa might not be as opposed in views if they talked to each other. The problem is that we've reduced friction for finding like minded people so far that it's not worth it to go through the unpleasantness of talking with strangers.
The platform also magnifies shallow thought from a minority of contributors. One of the signals we use to mediate our thoughts is how we think our cohorts feel about something, this is even more true for people without much critical thinking skill.
An individual can have extreme views and end up inside an echochamber that makes them think they're in the company of millions when in reality it's just a handful of others (and probably some bot accounts).
>And that a Maga hat and Antifa supporter might be neighbors but want to kill eachother.
You seem to be ignoring the possibility that these people come to these ideologies because of the Internet, which leads to the hollowing-out of community coherence that you mention.
I think it was just an example of how little we can be connected to our local community. It's not bad in itself, and you can likely have both strong remote relationships and strong community ties at the same time.
Peace Corp or something like that. I can't remember the name of the gorup that was started during the depression that put people to work doing things like building the national parks and other type of things. These groups provided jobs, life experience outside what ever town you grew up in, and could be a good solve for today's situation.
I would quit my job and drop everything in my life to join a program like that. The Intercept did an episode on it over the summer and I got chills listening to it.
Just slightly older guys then I am had mandatory service. I never heard someone say anything positive about the experience. Mostly learned how to avoid effort in highly controlled environment. Many stories about bullying is various kind.
But purpose was never mentioned, they seen it more of as waste of time.
> "Brave New World predicted this. We are removed from community and it is scary so we find one on the internet and we go all in."
That isn't how I remember Brave New World; it was about amusing ourselves to death with trivia instead of dealing with "important" things, but the sense of community in it was pretty strong - people grew up with and lived with the same local group of people, worked together, played Centrifugal Bumble-Puppy together, orgied together, and took soma to keep them all content. The main complaint they all had was why Bernard couldn't just be happy and join in the community.
Brave New World celebrated the twist-reveal where Bernard learns that exile to Iceland isn't a gulag but is really joining a distant group of people who don't like the society and want to live their own way like he does. I'm never sure if that should be taken at face value, or if it was a lie and the place was really a prison camp, but let's assume it was an honest and accurate reveal - that would be the opposite of your complaint, Bernard was lost and scared at having no community, was pushed toward a remote one he might fit in, and the book is all about how great that is that he doesn't have to waste his life doing just what the people around him are doing and that he can feel closer aligned with a group across the world than someone right next to him, and should take advantage of that.
> "An escape from forever war all around us"
The forever war was 1984, and that's not about Winston joining the Marines to find meaning in his life, it's about using the two minutes' hate to reinforce tribe membership by uniting everyone against a hate figure/group, and the strong (IngSoc) beating down the weak (objectors) until everyone is stamped into the same shape (boot on human face / industrial machine moulding stamp), the reveal at the end of 1984 isn't that Winston joined the Marines and escaped the forever war like Bernard escaped the trivia, it's that Winston came to love Big Brother and agree with everything good that Big Brother is and was and always would be, it's the equivalent of Bernard taking the soma and blending into the society and agreeing it was right all along, it's one or other of your Maga hat and Antifa supporter becoming overwhelmingly dominant, the state enforcing it, and the other being subsumed by it and liking it until there isn't anything else.
> "internet/phone addiction is not a problem its a solution. I guess war is inescapable."
Hence the Yin-Yang forever circling each other. There's no solution to whether white or black is better, or whether matter or energy is better, or whether hot is better than cold, both books posit an end - one that is either agreeable or disagreeable to the reader, but an end nonetheless - real life doesn't have ends it has circles, loops, repeats, back and forths, changing fortunes, ups and downs, births and deaths.
Maga hat and Antifa supporter both love their America, and their America doesn't include murdering thy neighbor. They might "want to kill each other" but each would like the other one realising how dumb they are and changing sides.
> their America doesn't include murdering thy neighbor. They might "want to kill each other"
Well, you can find a lot of message boards in which they fantasize about doing this. And it sells a lot of weapons. But the energy barrier is high; people like Kyle Rittenhouse cross it only rarely enough that they can be dismissed as isolated incidents. It's not every day that someone blows up a telephone exchange. Just another isolated incident.
Its also much better for your health to focus on helping people who support you then, to worry about what a few bad apples might do without you ever noticing.
its simply the cost of enforcement. The tax will help make sure the public is getting a cut, you cant just have a shell company on the backs of the american system without paying some locals. The tax will help fund enforcement efforts for better security, some of these "big" companies will be corrupt and there will be more money to help catch these bad actors. Also there probably has been some data done on how these shell companies run and with this one law you take out 90% of corruption.
There might be some good actors that get caught in this too and have to go out of business. If there is such thing as a good shell company???
You cant catch every drug dealer so you either focus on the big offenders and make them pay or you make drugs legal. I think its better for society if we do the former. Drugs are unhealthy.
Then they company has a personal responsiblity to change rather than a checkbox to check off , much like the "what race are you" checkbox given to pander to their diversity quota.
I blame society, people cry about diversity but all they want to see is someone of a particular type in a manager position and never really as, "what is this person doing", "do they really get to make an impact". Diversity propaganda is all so shallow and has only made relationships different cultures worse.