181–190 of 218 posts
This is fairly coming financial technology except less base and more bonus. I've seen plenty of $500-800k base with 4x bonus (and more especially if you are close to the money or on the front desk). I think it is very healthy. It creates tiers in the profession because some developers are that much better. Being good glueing together frameworks isn't going to command that salary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe we should get rid of capitalism, then. It's obviously not doing the job of allocating resources to beneficial goods or raising productivity.
I was unaware allocation of resources toward "beneficial goods" (to whom?) was every a touted positive effect of capitalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's more valuable than building a top notch system for delivering news (and everything that tends to go with that) to a billion people? Making it remotely accurate? Wiping out infectious diseases? Providing a billion people access to a healthy, nutritious diet? Saving the planet from ecological devastation? I can think of a lot of very hard problems that have far more value than delivering advertisements packed…
Software developers are not wiping out infectious disease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ads kill communism.
AIDS kills communism and everybody else
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An equal amount of money is spent on lost elections too. That's false. There's a pretty strong correlation between outspending and winning elections. The losing side usually spent less. In aggregate, much more money is spent winning elections than losing them. eg: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/th...
I think the problem is that elections are this ridiculous zero-sum game that is able to consume ever increasing amount of resources, where almost entire contribution of one party goes to cancel out the contribution of another party.
EquityZen is a platform that lets employees sell shares before IPO: https://equityzen.com/?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing devil's advocate a bit here: maybe the negative impact of open plan offices is much lower than typical if every single employee is feeling exceptionally motivated through far beyond market rate compensation? Of course there would be more boxes to check than just that, e.g. how often are people on the phone.
It is possible to demotivate people by not paying enough but it is unlikely that such strong motivation is achieved purely from greater pay. A frustrating work environment will eventually cause th motivation to fizzle. One might continue working to keep the paycheque coming but it is a tall ask to keep the motivation levels high.
As for open plan offices, it's not the open plan that is frustrating, it's the coworkers that the office is shared with. Nobody is a perfect office-mate all the time. But open plan multiplies not only negative but also positive morale, so I would not generally rule out the possibility that it can be net positive in places where all other factors are close enough to perfection and that the problems only really start when they are copied by the less exceptional. High pay would be an important contributing factor (maybe even one of many necessities), not a silver bullet solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem is that elections are this ridiculous zero-sum game that is able to consume ever increasing amount of resources, where almost entire contribution of one party goes to cancel out the contribution of another party.
I don't actually feel it is zero sum. There is a lot of learning that happens through debate at all levels. One might argue it is the foundation of our society.
There's a lot of talk about work-life balance on HN, and I usually lean way towards the "life" end of the spectrum. For the last few years I've only been doing a couple of hours of paid work per day. But yeah, I'd be happy to work 70 hour weeks for $3M per year.