Totally. Stopping at a specific time is a good rule of thumb, but you can obviously compensate for one half life by just consuming twice as much at the start.
And the surprising thing too for me: how low the threshold is where it can impact your sleep.
Neat idea. Who is the audience? How often do you think a piece of evidence comes across, significant and noteworthy enough, for the average person? Is that happening daily or close to it?
Thank you. Audience, everyone interesting in health. We are sending daily mails. Currently you have many papers or studies about semaglutid and glp-1, gut microbiome
I've been struggling with poor sleep for months. The 3am wake ups (can't fall back asleep) are really bad.
I figured it couldn't be coffee because I fall asleep easily. But it turns out that lingering caffeine can let you fall asleep at bedtime and then come back to haunt you later when you move into lighter sleep.
I've been in denial about my caffeine consumption because I've gotten away with it until now.
I vibe coded a little caffeine metabolism tool to face reality. I wanted something with a simple half-life formula and drag and drop using common beverages.
What becomes clear very quickly is: my caffeine consumption needs to be way lower and earlier to fix my sleep issues.
I agree on both points; government work can involve very little real work with no real stress of being fired. Similarly, doing meaningless work will destroy your soul and will make you hate your time in the office even more. I'd even go so far as to say caring deeply about your profession is a western value, and trying to work as little as possible is going to be difficult in a western country
I do satellites now but when I worked in insurance the work we did was meaningful. People need insurance, their policies are stored as data, and the company had to manage millions of policies.
Increasing click-through rates may not feel meaningful, but writing unit tests for a satellite which has already launched and been decommissioned will eat your soul, and you likely won't become a better developer because of it since you won't be given a budget to improve things or try new tech.
I've worked in all three sectors. My experience in the federal government suggests that government jobs are clearly defined, but not necessarily easier than a corporate job. If you want to do a specific thing for the next decade, you're better of going gov. But if you want to make a lot of money and don't mind your job changing with every CEO transition, go corporate. And if you want somewhere in the middle, go non-profit.
You could look at 16% as roughly equivalent to a dice roll (1 in 6) or, you know, the odds you lose a round of Russian roulette. That's my charitable interpretation at least. Otherwise it does sound silly.
I can see why it would affect startups not making a profit but why would it dramatically affect FAANG (e.g. some of the most profitable companies in the world that have been running for decades)? The article contributes all these large layoffs in FAANG, in part, to this tax rule.
There's a difference of $24 but I have $1200 in cash reserves. And I make up the difference later. Oh no! Guess I have to lay off 10% of my employees now.
The iPhone 1 featured "touch screen, GPS, camera, iPod, and internet access. Its software capabilities were a turning point for the smartphone industry" (random source: https://www.textline.com/blog/smartphone-history).
If you want to doubt that it was in fact a not a turning point you'd need to provide very strong arguments.
All of the things you mentioned were available in phones before the first iPhone (assuming by ipod you mean mp3 player). In fact from a software point of view it was lacking a bunch of functionality and software ecosystem some competitors had.
In my view the reason the iPhone felt so new was almost entirely the incredibly responsive capacitive touch screen with a finger ui, everything I'd used before it did resistive and preferred pen for detail. Pen actually is better for detail so in some ways it was that more than anything else that turned the device from a creation device to a consumption device which was whole new way of thinking about smart personal devices.
Of course it was also sold in a decent package too where Apple did deals that ensured it was available with good mobile internet plans which were also unusual at the time.
Also, the touchscreen was the type that unlike all previous touchscreens (except the ones made by a startup that Apple had bought)
could detect touches at more than one screen location simultaneously.
as someone who owned a number of smartphones and PDAs prior to the first iPhone coming out, the real advance was a usable mobile browser. i'd had all the same capabilities with devices for quite some time before the iphone came out, but their browsers were painful to use. the touch interface was also a big advance over previous touch interfaces. in other areas the first iphone was lacking compared to other smartphones.. copy and paste and 3rd party apps were missing for example.
> If you have spent 20 years as a software engineer amassing wealth (3 houses) and not making significant contributions to your peers or the field, everyone knows where your priorities are. It's okay that you aren't that interested in engineering.
Lots of unfounded assumptions and snobbery in this.
You seem to think that I am making a negative judgment here. His lifestyle is fine with me and I assume he is a great person. He clearly has made many smart decisions around things like building lasting wealth through real estate and keeping good relationships with his family. He also clearly values his flexibility and his lifestyle, looking for 100% remote jobs almost exclusively. He talks quite a bit about the tax code and his three houses and how he wants to renovate them and use them to make money. However, if you look at the time spent on these things, it pretty strongly suggests that he prefers these things to programming/engineering.
I don't judge him as a person for this. In fact, he's probably better as a friend than many of us who did sacrifice a lot of this stuff for a career. Unfortunately, many careers in knowledge work are "up or out," and if you don't choose "up," "out" will be chosen for you.
Fair enough, but I don't think you realize how the original comment comes off. There's a lot of wiggle room in the terms "interested", "engineering", and "unremarkable", but the way I take it is: if one hasn't become a legend in their field by age 40, not only do they not deserve a job, they don't deserve to be here (since they're clearly not interested in engineering).
You're right on many of these points and I probably take it personally because I'm coming up on 20 years and am unremarkable. You never know what people went through to get where they are.
I went to a cheap state school, didn't major in CS despite wanting to desperately because my family convinced me it was a bad move, graduated into the GFC, got pigeonholed into QA for a while, spent years getting my masters in CS, wasted energy on side projects for many years, cared for sick family members for many years, struggled with major impostor syndrome and insecurity.
I've done things I'm proud of and I made it to FAANG after all that, but am unremarkable. It's kind of offensive to then hear that I'm not interested in engineering because I'm not a Distinguished Engineer or whatever.
If you made it to a FAANG without going to a top 20 college, there's a near 0 chance you are unremarkable. The rest of the story more than confirms that you aren't coasting.
> The easiest way to do this is to deliver things that they already know about, such as projects that they’ve asked you to do
I've struggled with this recently. I feel like advancement requires getting credit for the idea itself, otherwise you're just implementing other people's designs. But ideating (will actually good ideas) is pretty tough.
I'm often surprised when someone will paste a screenshot of a tweet with the name blurred (presumably to protect them from harassment). The contents of the tweet are easily searchable...
Public tweets are a different scenario, they are things that have intentionally been shouted out into the void for anyone to hear. Blurring out names is a courtesy to prevent low-effort harrassment (which is most of it), while using the tweet for its intended purpose (i.e. showing its message to the public).
And the surprising thing too for me: how low the threshold is where it can impact your sleep.
reply