Not a ton of details in your post but I will attempt to decipher what appears to be the problem from a tech dev manager perspective
1. Project time - were expectations communicated up front? What estimation methods are you using? Agile scrum for cadences/daily reporting? Your post reads that you did heads down work for awhile. That is a recipe for disaster for a junior dev. Daily checkins (or at least 3x a week) is the norm for my organization.
2. Requirements - see frequent check ins above - as well as what mushufasa comments as well. A HUGE part of great modern development in enterprise is constantly iterating requirements and getting feedback. This is something I specifically sit down with new college hires. This is not college anymore with a well bounded problem - you have unlimited problem space and you need to define boundaries constantly. One of my favorite quotes is: "the difference between a good developer and a great developer is that a great developer knows when NOT to code"
3. Design decisions - does your group have a design review / peer review process? A junior dev should always have a senior dev review code prior to check in. Your check in's should be frequent (daily is common but there is debate on exact frequency). It should not be weeks particularly for a junior dev.
4. Perhaps your most egregious error is your comment that you should have checked other projects. I assume youre working for a large-ish company. It is imperative you do not re-invent the wheel for every assignment. Particularly for the "glue" or standard pattern parts (which usually amounts to 80% of the work). This is something your manager ideally makes explicit early on (perhaps this was the meeting). I have had lots of frustrating convos where the developer took weeks to solve something that was a known pattern or solution if they just went to the firm's stack overflow or checked another similar projects github.
5. Managers are people too they have off days and can be frustrated with a million other pressures going around. I have definitely had days like that and likely took it out unfairly on a junior dev. More-so if this is your managers boss who likely doesnt deal with junior dev's day-to-day. His/Her expectations are different.
this is only really possible in a very controlled ecosystem. Apple has this down well but MSFT does not. For example for this recent patch certain (major) antivirus vendors rendered computers unusable with the update. What if MSFT force updated everyone and bricked 20+% of windows users? Not a good strategy.
simple sure but let's talk about what it would take to give a meaningful dividend to all americans
If we used a conservative 3.5% average return to give $1,000 USD for each American (~325M) you need nearly 10 Trillion dollars in this fund or over half of our yearly GDP.
Now keeping in mind this would need to be generated from a tax on some good/service/capital which obviously has a cost component at it's base. Just getting the initial 10Trillion in a fund would be ridiculously hard. Now add to that the fact that 1k is a pittance and figuring out a true basic income -- this is wayyyy more complex.
I'd like to point out a HUGE fallacy in this "simple" plan -- it only works in low population high natural capital resource areas. Alaska and Norway happen to be relatively remote/cold places with an abundance natural gas/oil. Norway's 1T dollar fund would be comical at US scale.
If the United States wanted a fund the same size proportional to population of Norway's it would need 65 trillion dollars, which is about the same size as the total value of the top 60 stock exchanges in the world.
The NYT article made me think it was a good idea, but this comment inspired me to run the numbers myself. It's impossible to run a UBI with this type of system in the United States without total state ownership. Why would they publish something like this?
It's as if people in the world have agendas that allow them to handwave away things like facts.
In all seriousness, it's an op-ed, so the NYT hasn't subjected it to their standards of journalistic rigour, and it's written by a lawyer/blogger who works for a think tank called Demos. Maybe I'm biased from living in DC/the Beltway for so long, but in my head whenever I read 'works for a think tank,' I substitute 'professional liar'. The author is the very definition of someone pushing an agenda.
> The author is the very definition of someone pushing an agenda.
I understand people have reasons for writing appealing lies. I understand part of the job of a think tank is to write and publish their ideas.
I do not understand why The New York Times would publish a policy idea that is impossible. A critical thinking person can conclude that the investment fund model cannot be applied to The United States in a meaningful way. The New York Times is one of the most respected news papers in the world. In my mind, publishing this article has the effect of decreasing the paper's reputation among people that critical analyzed this policy proposal. This is damaging the The New York Times' greatest asset, the reputation of their brand.
I do not know a lot about newspapers generally, or The New York Times specifically. What I do know is this discourages me from investing more of my attention into The New York Times.
>I'd like to point out a HUGE fallacy in this "simple" plan -- it only works in low population high natural capital resource areas. Alaska and Norway happen to be relatively remote/cold places with an abundance natural gas/oil. Norway's 1T dollar fund would be comical at US scale.
What makes natural resources different from capital such that these wealth funds work with natural resources but not capital?
Probably something to do with the rent seeking problem. It’s wealth tied mostly to possessing rights to exploit valuable land, not to the labor or ingenuity of people.
but Value derived from luck of the draw (e.g. Norway's current citizens banking on their ancestors settling in a land rich in oil).
Frame it this way -- would Saudi Arabia be as wealthy as it is today without Oil? Do you think their social and political structure would have produced equivalent wealth as their oil companies?
I have to believe that the original author was astute enough to understand these numbers and the inadequate nature of the dividends, so I'm forced to think his 'solution' to inequality is solely about taking capital from the wealthy. This is just a convoluted way of doing that...
Sure, at the price of violating the 5th Amendment (eminent domain clause). Also probably at the price of the future productivity of those 30% of companies (government owners usually turn out to not be very efficient managers).
Who said anything about managing?
Govt should merely own shares (30%, or more, of each company, not 30% of companies), and let existing capitalist/free-market incentives continue to do what they're good at, driving innovation and efficiency.
While replacing, at least partly, what they're not good at, which is distributing the profits fairly to all contributors, and supporting the wider society that enables them to operate at all.
> I would hardly call them the epitome of a highly functioning workforce
A mixed bag, IME, as are private orgs. But, even insofar as your claim is true, it would only be relevant as counterevidence (weak, perhaps, because of potential compounding factors) to the article’s claim that government agencies are an environment in which full pay transparency is not demoralizing and demotivating.
Why is this trait desirable vs. teaching self reliance?
Philosophically I personally dont see why the obligation should be on the children to support the parents. The parents choose to have children not the other way around.
I love my parents but do not feel any requirement by them to care for them. They have saved for retirement just as I am. If people choose to not save then their poverty in their older years is a problem they brought upon themselves.
TLDR: 60% DNA shared with humans + 4 chromesomes for easy mutation tracking + 2 week reproductive cycle for fast generation studying + easy to house/keep alive = great lab specimens to test genetic mutations
But, unless this has changed recently, impossible to preserve without housing them and keeping them alive. You can freeze cell lines, nematode worms, and vertebrate sperm and eggs, but there's no analogous technique for fruitflies. Once you've made a useful mutant, if you want to keep it, some poor graduate student is going to have to keep flipping those flies forever.
That 60% shared DNA metric is rather misleading. But, yeah, flies are an amazing tool for studying biological processes, from the simple to the complex.
It's striking how useful they were when we really new very little about how the information of life was encoded and how they continue to be a powerful and relevant model system for studying more complex aspects of biology, such as the brain e.g. https://www.janelia.org/lab/rubin-lab .
the article doesnt mention this but I will ask ... does sephora attract more female candidates because it is a very popular makeup brand?
Or perhaps do they also get less male applicants because it is a female dominant brand?
"“Everyone spoke,” she says, “and felt comfortable offering opinions on anything from e-commerce to a shade of blush.”"
For me as a male I would not feel comfortable offering my opinions on a shade of blush. I am not offended by this -- I just have zero experience with blush.
Am I sexist because I wouldnt want to work there but also can see why women would be more successful there in tech-centric roles?
Their "tech team" includes the content producers/writers/managers/web marketing for their website, which I suspect is a sizable (if not majority) chunk. It's not really comparable to a software-heavy company having a 62% female tech team. So yes, it makes sense that having people who are traditionally much more interested in make up would be attracted to these positions.
I'd be interested to see how their dev team (split out from frontend/backend/fullstack) compares to the rest of the industry. I've worked at a lot of companies that were at least close to 50/50 if you counted all of marketing as "tech".
The article says the company is already 74% female. If 62% female is more diverse than 50% just imagine how diverse a 100% female team would be. Diversity mathematics are tricky like that.
it is possible to do hard "work" and produce zero value. Example: digging a large hole in the middle of the desert.
Conversely it is easy to do little "work" and produce tremendous value
Example: writing a script in 15 mins that automates hours of tedious CSV combinations and data grooming (I used this example bc I once did this and saved about 15 weekly hours of a highly paid financial analyst's time)
So now we are clear on work != value in the real world
I'll quickly tackle your investment income -- that was a risk buying 20k worth of Telsa. That easily could have gone to zero as an early stage tech growth stock. When buying a stock you are putting your money on a bet that the company will provide more value to the economy. When your bet pays off it is because the company is doing better and presumably, if following all relevant laws, providing enhanced value to the economy.
There is no law of physics in economics. In fact this thinking is practically dangerous and at the least fosters the wrong attitude towards success. Your success is not someone else's loss. In fact in a market economy, your success will ALWAYS be another's gain since they voluntarily gave you money for a good/service they couldnt do as efficiently as you could.
Economics is NOT a zero sum game. You can quite literally create value from nothing and grow the proverbial pie of value in the world. If you work in programming you realize this quickly.
The downside to a market economy is that work and value will never be a fair ratio. While in some ways unfortunate the more unfortunate alternative is everyone produces equal value from doing equal work. But take a minute to think critically about how that would be possible. I'll give you a hint -- innovation and ingenuity would plummet to zero.
See, it wasn't really a risk for me to spend 20k. Comparatively speaking, that's probably something like a minimum wage employee risking a dime.
That's the inherent unfairness in the system. I can just give 20k to my favorite charity and not even be mildly impacted. Chances are, I won't even save the receipt to give to my accountant for tax purposes. That'd buy someone a nice new car.
It's not fair. I am definitely at an advantage. Now, I earned that advantage. I worked for that advantage. That doesn't make it any more fair.
I'm not happy with the word fair, as it implies morality. I'm also far more able to help those who need it, and I do. So, from a moral viewpoint, I'm very much okay with it. That doesn't really make it fair, however.
What's Joe Sixpack going to do by investing a dime in a single go? Not much. I made enough on just Tesla to buy Joe's house, spending the equivalent of a dime.
It is what it is, but it's a huge advantage. I'm not suggesting it's morally unacceptable, just a reality. I'm not even suggesting we can change the system, just expressing the reality.
1. Project time - were expectations communicated up front? What estimation methods are you using? Agile scrum for cadences/daily reporting? Your post reads that you did heads down work for awhile. That is a recipe for disaster for a junior dev. Daily checkins (or at least 3x a week) is the norm for my organization.
2. Requirements - see frequent check ins above - as well as what mushufasa comments as well. A HUGE part of great modern development in enterprise is constantly iterating requirements and getting feedback. This is something I specifically sit down with new college hires. This is not college anymore with a well bounded problem - you have unlimited problem space and you need to define boundaries constantly. One of my favorite quotes is: "the difference between a good developer and a great developer is that a great developer knows when NOT to code"
3. Design decisions - does your group have a design review / peer review process? A junior dev should always have a senior dev review code prior to check in. Your check in's should be frequent (daily is common but there is debate on exact frequency). It should not be weeks particularly for a junior dev.
4. Perhaps your most egregious error is your comment that you should have checked other projects. I assume youre working for a large-ish company. It is imperative you do not re-invent the wheel for every assignment. Particularly for the "glue" or standard pattern parts (which usually amounts to 80% of the work). This is something your manager ideally makes explicit early on (perhaps this was the meeting). I have had lots of frustrating convos where the developer took weeks to solve something that was a known pattern or solution if they just went to the firm's stack overflow or checked another similar projects github.
5. Managers are people too they have off days and can be frustrated with a million other pressures going around. I have definitely had days like that and likely took it out unfairly on a junior dev. More-so if this is your managers boss who likely doesnt deal with junior dev's day-to-day. His/Her expectations are different.