No problem :) Only other talk so far is a very similar talk from the iOS side available here - https://youtu.be/rvfVs_29MsI?t=4578. We do intend to talk about many more things in the near future. Ill try to remember to report back here when we do.
It’s funny, they way I describe the relationship I have with weight loss is exercise is that the exercise is giving you the reason to eat clean. You won’t want to make that effort worth nothing. It’s not the same for everyone but I certainly notice it
Sorry, but the term dirty bulking, and the existence of "eat big to get big" videos among the body builder community shows that many in the high end to elite strata of weight training not only just don't eat clean, but they also get their enjoyment and muscle from the absolutely nasty food they eat as part of it (... Yes and roids)
Honestly it's not technical things that are hard to hire for its finding engineers who show initiative and can communicate well with stakeholders. Its like finding gold especially now in remote working.
I not only am good at communicating with stakeholders, I enjoy doing so. But every place I’ve worked doesn’t even allow it. There is always a product team to act as a go-between/wall between stakeholders and engineering.
I have 32GB of RAM and I would still do that trade off. The 60MB is there all day long doing nothing for me. The internet connection is actually being used for something useful which is synchronizing my files (the actual purpose of the software). I feel like I'm wasting more resources with the first option.
Also it's not even that bandwidth expensive with most users' workflow. Maybe this should be a concern for video editors. Majority of people who are just editing word documents (or code, for what I believe is most HN's audience), wouldn't notice the difference.
Personally, I have joined a company and scaled the team from 12-52 engineers over the pandemic. Our productivity is through the roof and everyone is getting really well and forming good connections.
I suspect much of the hate for slack is from two types of people. Those who are too young to know the tyranny of email and those who used to ignore their email. As to why it’s so popular, it was the first good business chat solution that went mainstream. And I still haven’t seen another that matches it’s quality
Why is email more of a tyranny than Slack (or any chat app)? I'd say it's less of a tyranny, because there's less of an expectation of real-time response.
I respond to e-mails 2-4 times a day during task transitions. The sender does not anticipate an immediate response so the 1-2 hours delay is OK.
Compare this to Slack which requires constant monitoring where senders anticipate an immediate response. Not to mention the increase in casual "water cooler" conversations.
The find the same people that recommend Slack are the same people that recommend 3-hour meetings. It's procrastination veiled as productivity.
If you think that Slack requires constant monitoring then I think you are using it wrong. I believe there is zero difference in the reply expectations of Slack and email. As per my initial comment, you are someone who doesn't check email and that's ok, in my engineering manager role I receive over 200 emails a day. Most of these could be 3 - 10 word slack messages but they arrive in my inbox with the same urgency as every other message requiring the same level of triage as a very important contract.
I check (and respond to) e-mails multiple times a day. I said that in the comment you're replying to. Your replies make it clear that you do not have experience at scale. Replying to e-mails in 2-3 hours is not "someone who doesn't check email" and receiving 200+ e-mails where most could "be 3 - 10 work slack messages" is not effective nor efficient leadership.
This seems more a problem with the culture. Where I've worked, messaging and emails are used for non-urgent, handle this when you're available type notices. If something was urgent, we walk up to their desk and tell them. Slack actually cuts down on desk-related interruptions; we'd literally just Slack each other even though we're sitting across.
Water cooler conversations are a kind of stress dissipation response for some people. It's great for some, bad for others. Slack means that it stays in a channel instead of at the water cooler when all you want is a drink, not a chat.
Most software development companies of any size, even small companies, have some mixture of people in office, working from home, remote workers, separate offices etc.
We are a smallish B2B SAAS company where new clients (whales) can add 5% to our revenue and enough load to our servers to need to monitor and add resources.
The first few weeks before and after a major go live, especially if there is new functionality, management will expect their team leads/single responsible individuals to respond immediately. Even if they don’t say it. The CxO’s, sales, and implementations folks will send you an email then immediately send you a Teams message asking you did you get the email and if they don’t hear from you, call you on Teams.
On the other hand, most days if it isn’t a major client issue, it’s mostly like you said, there isn’t a real expectation of an immediate response.
I don't use slack but what 's wrong with email? Slow , long form responses is a feature, not a bug in our lines of business. Maybe customer service people do need an instant messengers, but the rest?
There is also the question of relative airspeed. Planes need to create enough lift to stay in the air. With a large tailwind they need to go faster to keep enough air flowing over the wings thus higher ground speed to keep the same relative air speed.
This is a common misconception, but very much incorrect. I am a private pilot.
When an airplane is in a body of air which is moving across the ground, the airplane moves within that body of air with no knowledge that it is in a strong wind. Airspeed is unaffected, except for gusts or shear events. The airplane maintains it's normal airspeed within that body of air, even though that body of air is moving very quickly in relation to the ground.
This is evident in all phases of flight. For example, landing into a strong headwind does not change the approach speed required or the thrust required to obtain that approach speed. The only allowance is for gusty conditions, during which a gust will momentarily affect airspeed due to the inertia of the airplane. The heavier the airplane, the more time it takes a gust or shift to defeat the airplanes inertia.
I'm confused. Are you saying that it'll maintain its normal ground speed despite flying through fast-moving air? Or that it maintains the same air-speed?
The former doesn't make any sense, but the latter is what the GP was saying.
The original comment seems to mean, that the plane has to (actively) keep a larger ground speed in high winds while the reply meant that this just naturally happens as the plane is only "aware" of its relative air speed.
The ground speed will vary, but the airspeed will not be affected by wind (except momentarily for gusts or shears).
The poster I replied to was implying that due to the strong tailwind, they had to maintain an increased airspeed. That is incorrect. The airplane has no idea it is in a tailwind, and airspeed will be unchanged.
I think the root of disagreement here is that to you, as a pilot, "speed" means airspeed. But to a layperson, "speed" means groundspeed. So saying that an airplane with a tailwind "must go faster to keep enough air going over the wings" reads very strangely to you, as (although it is technically correct) it belies a groundspeed-first type of thinking that is a poor intuition for staying alive in a plane.
I think the confusion here is stemming in part from the fact that "relative airspeed" isn't a well-defined term. In aviation airspeed means the speed of the airplane through the air (modulo specifiers for true vs. indicated vs. calibrated airspeed).
The original was "relative air speed", which I would simply take as the way a person not familiar with aviation terminology would say "airspeed"--speed relative to the air.
I did. Saying “everyone” when it’s just probably one person is not usually ok. It’s fine to say if you interpreted the comment in a certain way, and ok to be the outlier. But assuming your interpretation applies to others more broadly than it does, is counterproductive.
Both comments were significantly downvoted at the time of my comment, which was what I was referring to. The original comment explicitly mentioned "relative airspeed", which I thought was pretty clear (it's the speed of the plane relative to the air that matters).
I think calling it a "common misconception" is also assuming a lot.
I teach people how to fly. Trust me when I say that this is an extremely common misconception. It's one of the concepts students have the greatest difficulty wrapping their heads around.
The first answer is correct, but I think the misunderstanding is because it can be read as the higher ground speed being the cause for the same relative air speed. Whereas it’s technically the opposite.
This is further compounded when they say “they need to go faster”, as though the pilot needs to push the throttle harder. In actuality, the pilot doesn’t do anything differently to maintain their normal cruising speed.
The correct phrasing would have been the relative air speed and high wind speed combined, to result in a higher ground speed.
