This doesn't work when you are in a relationship with someone with a personality disorder like BPD. They use it to hurt not to heal.

It is not who you know, it is who knows you! Seems like a small nuance but realizing this changes how you think about building relationships.

+1: the globally unique identifier that is reused across multiple accounts is an antipattern in my opinion. This is just as bad as reusing passwords. There should be no need for anyone to have to reuse email user id's or phone numbers or credit card numbers. These should be unique per online "relationship", the way your CC chip creates per transaction identifiers. The fake account problem needs to be solved in another way. You simply can't take these GUIDs back once they are leaked and that leaves your only choice to burn them or just accept the risks of having that data leaked all over the net.

Your cc has a per transaction password, but still a unique identifier. Signal works surprisingly similarly.

IaaS lockin should be minimal if you make the right investments in automation and think hard about dependencies you can't unwind quickly. An IaaS deployment without automation misses the point of cloud. The easy test is "can you turn it off and get it back on without manual effort?" If the answer is no you are likely locked in. This would also be true in a colo or datacenter. The biggest benefit to IaaS is that you can make changes with reduced risk. You move away from 3 year cycles and big upfront commitments in exchange for the ability to make big changes quickly. If you move to the cloud and don't get that benefit you have not gained the core value. If you don't need that benefit you may not need IaaS cloud.

I have seen many cloud moves that don't leverage autoscaling and I've been wondering why anyone bothered. Is this just an inability to justify investing in modernization? Is lift/shift first a good strategy, it seems to me you miss the opportunity to fix long term tech debt if you just move.

If you don't have a relationship with the executive you should ask for an agenda and clarity on the goal of the meeting. You should say "you need the context so that you can prepare and ensure a productive meeting". Even if there is a one or two sentence description you should ask for more info. This does two things, first it helps you prepare and 2nd if they don't provide an agenda you get some forewarning that something is going on. Worse case they say no, best case they see you habitually doing good prep work.

I disagree with this advice. At least in the US, I think it could easily be interpreted as anxious or rigid. Or even just make you seem too junior. Leaders need to be able to handle ambiguous meetings.

if you flip the script you'd never ask an exec you don't know for a meeting without giving context. This is common courtesy if you do it without seeming demanding.

"Looking forward to our discussion. Can you give me a bit more context for the meeting and an agenda? This way I can be sure to have enough time to properly prepare. Thanks..."

would you say no to that?

No, but I'd likely say "I haven't met with you in several months, and I just would like to check in with you how things are going. What are your concerns, what makes you happy, what are we missing. This is intentionally freeform, with a focus on whatever is important to you".

There won't be an agenda, because it predetermines possible outcomes.

But it's probably worth considering that even skips for exec-level folks are usually quite senior and should be able to handle an ad-hoc conversation. It's not an approach I'd choose with more junior folks.

The hypothetical reply you gave is still useful, IMO. It's important to distinguish between "there is an agenda, but it hasn't been communicated" and "there's no agenda, just an open free-form conversation" cases.

It would also be good to ask your manager for insight into the meeting since they may already know, and if not then they should be able to find out.

This is a perfectly reasonable email to send, with the expectation that the EA may well ignore it.

This is a very good question, but you should also dig a few why's into it: "What type of people are successful here? What type of people are not?"

I also like to ask: "what's the best thing about working here? followed up with what's the worst thing about working here" You typically get some insight based on how open they are to the last question.

My rule of thumb has been to stay close to the revenue so perhaps asking if you would be working on topline related projects or bottom line related project. Related is to ask what the top priorities are and to try to understand where your focus would be in relation to the top 3.

Are you basing this on math or history?

This is a mathematical statement, see the end of the Wikipedia section "Algorithmic solution", where it states "Among all possible different stable matchings, it always yields the one that is best for all men among all stable matchings, and worst for all women."

it is a good book actually!

it doesn't look very good visually and also in terms of dimensional accuracy. how do you finish this without cnc or hand work? It looks warped. This lack of dimensional accuracy is a huge problem with additive processes IMHO. It would be fantastic if we could have 3d metal printers in our garages. It would open up a ton of possibilities.