Not that I disagree with them, but their forecast is based on never believing it would work in the first place. All their reasons for it continuing to fall are reasons it should not have reached its ridiculous, frenzied peak.
> Our view that cryptocurrencies would not retain value in their current incarnation remains intact and, in fact, has been borne out much sooner than we expected
Thanks guy; really went on a limb there with 80% of the world hesitating to jump into bitcoin because they thought it was a bubble. Very newsworthy opinion you have there. I'm glad you admit you had no idea on the timeline either. That was generous.
Author says don't follow a morning routine, but then mentions they have a morning routine (breakfast/trainer).
Author says don't focus on the morning being your peak time, you should find the time of the day that is the peak time for yourself. Ignore the fact that their good breakfast and work out helps power their peak times. Inconsequential.
Okay, but that's why those morning routines have you do the rote/everyday stuff quickly in a short window, so you can have longer peak times during the day. Notice in their long list of things blogger says you should do is none of the real work you get paid to do.
Granted, you don't have to wake up at 6am; but if you're going to have a routine that you do every day, that you should optimize such that it doesn't get interrupted by work messages and e-mails or other responsibilities, when's it going to be?
It's going to be early in the morning.
The author is making the exact point they're attempting to refute. You should have a morning routine, it should be filled with things that are good for you and harder to schedule during the day, you should optimize the specifics to what makes you feel good, and doing it will make you more productive as a result. Great.
I'm glad the author took the time out of their day to correct all those other incorrect bloggers who didn't know what they were talking about.
I think you're missing the point: 4:30am may be the right time for some, but that may be absolutely the wrong time for most. And it's not to do with finding a distraction free window. It's down to - as the article highlights - your body rhythm.
For instance, if I wake up at 6am I will spend hours in an awful state of catatonia. Often, I don't get over it the whole day. It's equivalent to how I felt when I suffered with depression. So, screw that.
All these defenses are laughable when put in any other context. Try answering "why black people don't code" with a straight face and ignoring systematic disadvantages. I have not seen it down without exposing a bigot.
I've seen the "each group has its reasons" fluff as well, but those defenders are happily living in a world where only one type of group makes good programmers. Out of a whole world of groups, only this type of person can write code.
The narrative that this lecturer understands all disadvantaged groups because he's from one himself is a false narrative. Using that to build credibility for his arguments is laughable journalism.
> The narrative that this lecturer understands all disadvantaged groups because he's from one himself is a false narrative. Using that to build credibility for his arguments is laughable journalism.
I think that was in there to show that he's likely not a bigot, because that seems to be the default assumption about anyone that doesn't go along with the dogma of the far left these days.
Your comment gets me wondering though, in the case of the question about "why black people don't code": Are we able to pick apart the causality of "systematic disadvantages" vs "each group has it's reasons"? I ask because the "systematic disadvantages" narrative is seductive and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, but I'm not sure I've seen a nice data on the subject that could prove one way or the other why it really is that "black people don't code".
They're going to have tangential skills to the new platform.
Get your network team to learn all about VPCs and networks and security groups and peering and VPNs, train them to be your in-house experts to deal with changes and expansions and to help trouble-shoot issues.
Chances are you're still going to have systems, your systems engineers can be repurposed to better tie in your monitoring tools, your security tools, etc. You're going to need authentication and identity management, and probably have internal people handling it.
If they're motivated to keep their jobs, all it should cost you is a $5-20K/head in training.
That's peanuts compared to the turmoil of everyone thinking they're going to lose their jobs, or the costs of hiring new people w/ pre-existing cloud skills. It is cheaper than the stop-gap of paying outside consultants till you can bring in the interior staff. Also, these people _know_ your existing systems. They know your business logic, they know what needs to be up and they know what can't break on Thanksgiving weekend. That is valuable knowledge that is a hidden cost in rehiring the work force.
You're going to find new challenges in the new system. If your employees are willing to transition, then transition them. It is your best bet.
If you have a subset of employees that can't/refuse to transition, put them on performance improvement plans. No rumor mill - if you're on a PiP you need to shape up or get out; if you're not on a PiP keep doing well, your job is safe.
The ideal situation is to be in a growing company, and to move employees from shrinking areas into growing areas.
For example, if the company needs 8 fewer people to install and set up servers, but 10 more people to work on robust automated code deployments to support business growth, and both jobs need Unix skills.
Hence, the setting-up-servers department budget shows cost savings, the overall technology budget grows by 2 employees instead of by 10, and business growth means overall profit increases.
The cost saving from going cloud in a large part comes from utilization. 1 box that you can keep busy at 100% by clever workload timing is cheaper than 10 boxes that are idle 90% of the time that you just need to spike on. Or capacity that you can give back when you don’t need it. Rack space is expensive, power and cooling are expensive.
The job of the people is to translate the business requirements into stuff actually happening, and that doesn’t go away with cloud. If anything you need to do more of it (someone has to take care of auto-scaling, a thing that wasn’t possible in your legacy DC, for example). The worst thing you can do is sack the people then realize you need consultants at 5x the cost to do anything now...
This claim of massive savings is ludicrous for an f50 in the first place. It’s doubtful their cost is primarily maintaining and admining fleets of x64 servers, which is what the “cloud” is optimized for. These companies generally have massive costs from legacy mainframe, iseries, mvs etc systems. The ops creds are suspect to say the least.
Your comment would be more palatable if you gave the OP benefit of the doubt. It seems reasonable to assume that someone who is in the position to affect such change, and is willing to ask HN for advice, likely has actual cost savings estimates.
Perhaps saying something like, "Are you sure the cost savings are really there, and you won't face unexpected hidden costs in the future? I have experience with X,Y,Z, and we found that while the cloud is optimized for x64 deployment, we had hidden costs A, B, C, crop up after 9 months."
As it is, it's only added noise and made you look bad.
Your comment would be more palatable if you gave the parent poster the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps using http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html and avoid dismissing the content because you don't like the way they said it (DH2, responding to tone).
He mentioned 90% of their datacenter operations. I assume the remaining 10% would be the assorted legacy every large company has of SPARC, PA-RISC, POWER, i and zSeries accretes over time.
Those will remain where they are and, eventually be ported or replaced (or kept alive - IBM mainframes have been legacy-friendly for over 50 years now) by newer systems as they are phased out.
The "non-profit" group is a scam, where the operator of the group gets paid very well from the operating expenses of the non-profit.
An event like this would be leveraged to draw attention to the cause, thereby the group, thereby raising more funding to spend on further self-gaining operational expenses.
As someone who missed out on Bitcoin, these stories make me feel better about myself. Probably self-deluding myself into missing out on more opportunity, but there is a clear wild Wild West feel in these messages.
Covering up bad code and bugs by yelling hacker Wolf. Either way that doesn’t absolve the banker. If your bank is robbed they still owe you that money. That’s the deal. They insure against that. But what is a financial institution in the crypto world is telling customers that they can’t pull out their direct deposits because they left an ATM unlocked.
People would riot in the streets if that happened with BoA.
Worse is the begging in reddit comments for everyone to HOLD their nano. It’s begging for regulation.
It is theft. It's not a scheme, or a game, or a trick. They are stealing money. It needs to be made punishable.
As these frauds get more sophisticated, it won't just be "dumb" money getting burnt. The answer to "someone stole this from me" isn't "well you shouldn't have been so dumb" - whether it is your wallet, a package from your doorstep, or a bit. Theft is theft.
There is a dead comment here that I think raises an interesting question (even if perhaps not in the most appropriate way).
When dealing with electronic goods, where do we draw the line with theft. Even in video games, electronic goods do have an effective market value (even if real money trading is banned), and there have been a few court cases surrounding items of great value. Often times the items stolen has a market value too small to be worth investigating, but what of the cases where there is a significant investment. Eve Online has some interesting cases where the market value being above a few thousand US dollars. Diablo 3 use to have a real money auction house with items worth up to $300, and with a gold market that allowed for items to be sold for even more than that.
Now, Diablo 3 bans scams and would take action against players engaging in them. But in Eve Online, it looks like some of the tactics used are allowed. In another game, Path of Exile, scamming people is allowed (and there even seems to be some protections for scammers). While Path of Exile bans real money trading, there is still a black market and certain items do have a market value, some worth noticeable amounts.
And while I can't think of any case yet, it would be possible for a video game to be created where the in game currency is a crypto currency that is usable outside the game as a crypto currency as well.
I'm not saying we should legalize all scamming, but I do think it is worth discussing further where we draw a life, if we draw a line, and what that line looks like.
The same line is also drawn with physical goods too. If you report something worth a few hundred dollars stolen, the full extent of the investigation will probably be to file a report and then include the item in a list of things to look for in periodic checks of nearby pawn shops.
If someone takes a pallet of hundreds sitting in the open on the back of a truck. It's reasonable to say: "Take reasonable precautions, temping targets promote crime."
Bitcoin forums are filled with people that are both incompetent and well off, that's going to attract sharks. For similar reasons Google brought in investment advisers pre IPO to educate staff that where about to become targets.
PS: That's not to say any form of theft is ok. Just locked doors keep people honest and let police focus on more important things.
If someone takes a pallet of hundreds sitting in the open on the back of the truck, and it doesn't belong to them, it still meets the legal definition of theft. It might not be the best idea to leave it there, but that doesn't magically absolve the thief of legal responsibility.
This example isn't even one of those murky ethical grey areas around property (see: copyright law extensions, squatters' rights, medieval concepts of hunting rights, privatization of public resources, farmers' rights to re-grow seeds, etc.) - it's out-and-out theft.
I completely agree. However, a large chunk of society would take it even if they had never stolen anything before and did not intend to commit a crime that day.
PS: Look up Duty of Care, people can share responsibility even if a third party is commuting a crime. Placing a 10 lb solid gold statue on your roof and advertising this is is not just negligent, but flat out dangerous.
What you say shows the exact same mistake (but in opposite direction) as the "victim-blaming" crowd - conflating moral responsibility with practical wisdom. Yes, putting that gold statue on your roof is just stupid, because of the world we live in. No, that doesn't make the burglars less responsible, morally and legally, for robbing you. Those two statements are true at the same time.
> looks like you're disagreeing with the idea that theft is theft
I don't. If you're reading that into what I said that's on you.
A mass murder will commit fewer crimes in solitary confinement. That does not mean solitary confinement makes them a better person, or not a murder. It simply prevents future murders. So, the concepts are independent.
That's not how the law works. If you lie to get someone's money, that's fraud. If you take their money, that's theft. People being taken by obvious cons don't make these things not theft or not fraud.
That's not what I am saying. Bank vaults among other things prevent many bank robberies. If someone does not rob a bank then they are not a bank robber.
The above says nothing about people who do rob banks.
Most webmaster@ or admin@ e-mails aren't monitored at all, or so flooded with spam that it's easy for things to get lost.