Depends on the company. At my last job it was rare for anyone to have video on in remote meetings, and at my current job it's rare for anyone to have video off.
At the company I was at from 2014-2021, cameras were always off.
2021-2023, there the cameras were always on. Even during the all-company meetings, at least 80% had their cameras on. Though it was a small company of 75 when I started and 180 when I left (though it was becoming 135 as I was leaving).
At my current place, it's kind of a mix. Small team of 3-5 people, usually on. Larger group meeting, most people off. All-company (about 300 people), only about 50 cameras.
This comment by nh2 (on Reddit) is my favourite response to that line of thinking. I recommend reading the whole thing. Excepts:
> You're not going to get any "credible empirical evidence" already because the sample size is so small. That would require getting, say, 100 companies that are similar in size and tasks, have a working business model and are still around, and also want to spend time on methotically collecting concrete evidence, and care to blog about that.
> people don't really want to spend time stating the obvious
> We don't spend time blogging that on our Haskell server, we get pretty much none of [run time type error or segfault] because well, those don't exist in Haskell
> We're convinced it's the best tool for the server job, compared to other tech we used at past jobs and projects. So we're using Haskell for it, and we started it in Haskell. We cannot compare before/after, because we directly started it in the "best tool available". We can compare our current project to our past individual work experience, but one cannot simply turn such individual cross-project experience into quantitative evidence
As long as you recognize that this is a perfect example of an anecdote and as such cannot be generalized to anything, and others could provide just the same “experience” for pretty much any language being the best. It’s telling that the poster can’t even compare with other languages as they started with the “best”! Yeah yeah I am sure you chose perfectly first time… we all know that doing some research on paper always proves to end up with the perfect choices.
I think you've got it exactly backwards. The comment is supposed to explain that there can't be a scientific determination of such a matter, not that it itself is such a determination.
The first article doesn't say that Israel was the culprit and the second article isn't about this particular case (nor does it actually say that Israel was involved, just Israelis, formerly intelligence service staff).
Are you sure it says that? As far as I can see it only says he dealt with Israeli ex-spies in an (unrelated) kidnapping and that he was friendly with Israeli spies.
Yes, because foldr is equivalent to for_, that is, iterating over a container and performing an effectful action (what in other languages would be called "doing something") for each element. Uses of foldr can always be rewritten to uses of for_, and I find things much clearer in terms of for_!
Well, `foldr` is (up to interdefinability) just the implementation of `for_` (or `traverse`) in the case of lists, in the same way that `map` is the implementation of `fmap`. The point of `traverse` is that it's provided by the functor.
The question of whether to use the most generic (for consistency) or the least generic (for directness) name for a function is the old bugbear of the Prelude :)
I don't quite follow. `fmap = map` is a valid implementation for lists indeed, but `for_ = foldr` is not. They don't have compatible types, for one thing. What do you mean?
I'm failing to see your point. A $9 /hr job that risks serious bodily harm vs a $12/hr job where the level of risk is say 5-10x greater? Where's this safe job you speak of?
Oh you're right, I misread. But in that case isn't it even less crazy? Different levels of risk pay different amounts, up to 33% more in the cases documented above?
> Everyone assumed they were going to do a Venezuela
When you say "everyone" do you mean "everyone in the US military establishment"? I remember very few independent commentators who suggested the US intervention in Iran was a good idea. (Personally I think it's too early to say.)
> Apparently in the 90's the Haskell devs couldn't fathom two different types both having a field called "ID" or "name".
I think it's simply that making field names become functions that select from the record was a simple design that worked, and didn't require anything new to be added to the language.
reply