The biggest factor for me is really simple the benefit of investing in my office.
I can now spend my money on my home office and build it as i like it for me and as long as i can work remote, im getting those benefits directly and i'm no longer bound by a company because of those benefits.
I got myself a standing desk at home with a nice real wood top, which is awesome.
I haave to have a work space at home anyway for taxes, learning/writing, playing games, doing something with pictures etc. Now i have a great home office and a great private 'home office'?
And yes holy shit finally a clean nice bathroom i like going to.
Funny enough, while i have worked in a company like HubSpot and we did those excersizes and stuff, we were just a normal company.
In my current company, all those culture things are also communicated, they are just not a blog post on the internet and they do not feel like a cult :)
Its actually nothing i want anymore; There are many reasons why people earn a certain amount of money but being involved in that process in a company wide group setting was horrible annoying and didn't make me feel any better.
And on my salary discussion, it was mentioned what extra perks i got from the company and that amounted to a certain amount which suddenly meant "Look we give you less money because we think it increases the social factor if we force you to be in our company on a day with everyone else to eat together etc. in a forced social setting, which was nice don't get me wrong, by you paying indirectly.
And thats the issue, either the company is paying for it, or you don't do it.
At the end of the day, you can easily find nice people you wana hang around with while you work in plenty of normal companies. Just make sure you find a good Team.
And yes all those things they do it for 2 reasons: 1. keeping employees 2. getting new employees. Being a little bit of edgy might just be cheaper than paying head hunters and if you can take unlimited good people but you just don't get them, every person going through your door because of all this hipness, is one person more earning money for you.
There are not a lot of those companies which are that big.
You also might not want to manage that many it experts for your infrastructure or you are not able to get them.
Also if your companies product is very technical, i would argue that those companies are much better equiped doing it by themselfs then others.
Nonetheless, it also doesn't need to be all or nothing. You can easily combine a MultiCloud approach.
Build only the stuff which is easy to build and costs a lot on cloud yourself. I would say Buildsystems or compute instances are good candidates.
Like i could imagine putting netflix authentication system on a cloud provider while doing the compute stuff in my own data center and building the CDN myself.
> Nonetheless, it also doesn't need to be all or nothing. You can easily combine a MultiCloud approach.
There may be reasons to go multicloud but ease isn’t one of them. You double your infra support overhead (or more likely, half its quality) and have a “least common denominator” experience.
The natural tendencies of large organizations is a diffusion of investment but the cheapest costs frequently come from a concentration of investment.
My employer does have a luxury of focus in its product offering, though we do have a moderately heterogeneous approach in development, certainly compared to many of the peers that operate at similar scale.
Heterogeneity in compute location has a multiplicative effect on accounting, security, capacity management, network management and is dilutive in terms of expertise -- instead of being able to justify the worlds leading experts in one system, you now need more staffing to cover a wider surface area (and they all need to have collaboration overhead to ensure they arent working at cross-purposes in strategy or tactic.)
I think this belief in marginal benefit from "right tool for the job" is a local-optimization where the costs of coordination and overhead are not borne locally and so are generally undervalued/discounted.
My employer runs on a single cloud provider, but -- do to its scale and closeness to core competency of our business -- we do operate our own CDN infrastructure, and this is a decision I happen to agree with. As a result of this division, I am acutely aware of the impact it can have on an engineering organization and only in certain specialized use-cases would advise considering DIY or multi-cloud.
I hear this sentiment repeated frequently, but I’ve never heard multicloud as leverage actually getting a better deal than an exclusivity deal. If you have a different experience I’d love to connect and learn more - email in my profile.
There are lots of entities that are big enough. Given that the cloud stacks change from time to time, you don't reduce your need for engineers and other SMEs -- in some cases you need more.
I would say as someone who supports lots and lots of apps that cloud services are usually financial winners in a SaaS perspective and in a rapid growth scenario. Nobody can deliver Exchange cheaper than Microsoft. My team stood up apps for covid related activity for 20-40% of the cost and more importantly type than services under our organizations control.
That said, for what I would call "base load" scenarios, in many scenarios it's exactly the opposite.
Our society defines it as okay. You apparently don't agree with this but you are not the majority here.
No human aborts a fetus for fun.
My wife and i lost our 'fetus' on the 3 month mark. There have been a lot of thoughts about this experience and lots of emotions. And i would probably abort a fetus with Down Syndrom.
No one is doing an abortion easy. It is never easy for whatever reason and its not your place to criticize it when its not your responsibility.
You have to understand one thing: People are able to seperate the wish of not having a kid with down syndrom from other human beings who have down syndrom.
Posts like this confuse me. It is absolutely killing a human. This is a scientific fact. The moral question is whether or not they are a person, or otherwise, whether or not they deserve rights, at various points of development, and apparently, any medical conditions they have or may have in the future, based on probabilities from current medical research.
" The other question related to the beginning of human life is even more difficult to answer. It is the fertilization of the egg cells; but a conglomeration of cells in the early phase of pregnancy can hardly be characterized as a human person. The human identity, personality, and worth is associated with the functioning of the brain, so only when the brain is fully developed can there be any talk about an unborn human being." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7476658/
Just because you say 'It is absolutly killing a human' your statement is wrong.
Except those links are exactly my point. "Human" is a species of intelligent animals. "Person", is an entity typically associated with traits humans have. They are different things and the distinction is important. The purpose of your "dehumanizing" language is to detract from the "personhood" being debated.
Given the grammar mistakes, I'm assuming English is not your first language, and you aren't properly understanding what I'm saying. It's fine if you don't want to engage, but if you are going to engage, please do so in good faith, seeking to understand the other person as completely as possible, particularly if you are working against a language barrier. I had assumed you were being disingenuous/willfully ignorant before, but I doubt that now, my apologies for making that assumption.
There is a common theme among people who argue over abortion; they choose particular words that are either unscientific or misleading, in a disingenuous way, to promote their side as being more rational. My initial assumption is that you were doing this, and you may still be, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I feel it is very important that when we discuss abortion, we do so in a way that is scientific, rational, and consistent.
Your choice of words is particularly egregious, in my opinion. Killing is not the same as homicide. Human is not the same as person. A fetus is not a clump of cells, or a baby.
A "human being" is just a human (a common usage scientific term), and human is just a species of animal. So yes, a "human fetus" is a "human being". "Person" is a legal/philosophical term, not necessarily a scientific one. "Killing" simply refers to ending the life of a living thing. "Homicide" (the mention of which you removed?) is a legal term for killing a person. To drive this point home further, we have concepts for non-human persons, and non-person humans. They aren't interchangeable in all contexts.
The scientific reality and proper usage of the English language is abortion is killing humans (human fetuses). This is not up for debate. The debate is whether these humans are "persons", which entitles them to rights, or if they are not, if they deserve rights in some other capacity (e.g. my dog isn't a person but has rights).
Again, when people say "it's not killing" or "it's not a human", or tangentially, "it's a clump of cells" or "it's a baby" they are factually wrong and are deliberately misusing those words in an attempt to strengthen their argument, when in reality it makes them look either dishonest or ignorant.
To me, your posts are either dishonest, or ignorant. That was my entire point.
To kill simply means to put a living thing to death. A fetus (human or otherwise) is a living thing. I don't know what the purpose of your link was, or how it has anything to do with the misuse of words above. Unless you think I'm implying that all forms of killing are the same, which obviously I'm not. That being said "killing <animal> fetus" is merely a subset of "killing <animal>" by basic logic. Were you implying otherwise by citing that link?
> That being said "killing <animal> fetus" is merely a subset of "killing <animal>" by basic logic.
No, that is not logical. Killing a caterpillar is not killing a butterfly. Known forms of life are not absolute in classification. You have decided to classify a fetus as a subset and others do not. Good luck with whatever.
They're still the same animal though (e.g. a butterfly caterpillar vs a moth caterpillar). The only distinction, which is specific to this case, is that the words caterpillar and butterfly imply a stage of development where the word human does not, making it a poor analogy. I just want people to stop trying to change the definition of words for the sake of perception.
You insistence on using scientific terms is misplaced in this case, as definitions are imprecise. This is not axiomatic geometry we are talking about.
For example, by some definition of species, many people with Down Syndrome do not belong to homo sapiens or any species really, due to inability to reproduce.
The closest definition you seek is DNA matching arguably is not favorable either because the syndrome causes severe DNA structure difference.
Forgive me for thinking "kill" and "human" are grade school vocab words with clear definitions. I really don't feel like I'm being too pedantic here (maybe a little, but for good reason). I think the biased and incorrect way people speak when discussing abortion is ridiculous and isn't conducive to healthy conversation. If there were pro-lifers in this thread talking about a genocide two orders of magnitude bigger than the holocaust I'd be talking them down too.
A human foetus w/o personality or any human trait, or a person that have a life to live and don't want to forcibly stay attached to that violonist for 9 months, i think i'm pretty okay with killing the foetus and everyone should be too.
Are extreme religous people okay with any abortion? Then there is no tension for them either and as far as i know, those are the more/real prominent examples of groups who saying something about this topic at all
I think there's actually some legit questions about if we tailor folks to be X efficient or manage their potential and who they were made to be... that might have a profound impact on happiness and how we see ourselves, what freedoms we are allowed and etc.
When you refer to Gattaca: it doesn't reflect our society very well.
While i like that movie very much, he still got on a spaceship having much worse physical abilities than all the others of his crew.
Also in this specific topic, i'm not talking about a human who is able to overcome most/all of his obstacles given at birth. I'm talking about me and all other humans who are not able to do so.
I would also argue that on an ethical level, you would require to make sure that every new human being has the best chance our society can provide for him/her. Like if technology is so far advanced, that you can just scan an embryo, you see why it would become much smaller or way too tall which would lead to medical issues and you could fix it with a press of a button, you would need to do it.
I would argue that not doing this, is the same thing as denying a preterm baby an incubator.
And we are not doing this with a lot of other factors?
Why would this be different than planed parenthood?
I'm also not following that we should draw the line here just because it can be missused when you draw the line further away.
I would even argue, that it is our duty to do tests as we have the means and therefore the responsibility to do so. We do know that nature is not perfect. We can't control everything before like the pill and everything while it grows (supplements, no work etc.) and after birth by helping babies which came out to early or operations etc.
Why would we control everything but not this specific aspect?
The general notion quite globally is, that an abortion before 3month is ethical okay for us as a society and this timeframe was not choosen through some random events. It probably evolved.
I can now spend my money on my home office and build it as i like it for me and as long as i can work remote, im getting those benefits directly and i'm no longer bound by a company because of those benefits.
I got myself a standing desk at home with a nice real wood top, which is awesome.
I haave to have a work space at home anyway for taxes, learning/writing, playing games, doing something with pictures etc. Now i have a great home office and a great private 'home office'?
And yes holy shit finally a clean nice bathroom i like going to.