I work on the ledgering system at clear street and as far as I know we have no plans to do this. We evaluated it internally a few years ago and found that the account and transaction model was too different from ours to migrate over.
Hi Thomas, yes, I was there. However, this is something that Sachin and I subsequently discussed last year (Sachin recently provided the TPS footnote to be used in the report here). However, I understand that roadmap may since have changed, but this is to the best of my knowledge.
Hi -- Sachin here, one of the founders of Clear Street. To clarify:
- The investment in TigerBeetle was done personally, not through Clear Street.
- I'm no longer actively involved day-to-day as CTO at Clear Street, but while I was, TigerBeetle was a solution we very much had in mind as our volumes were increasing.
That said, roadmaps change, priorities shift, etc. If TigerBeetle existed when we started Clear Street, I very much would have used it, and saved me from many headaches.
"Alcohol has a greater impact on people from low socio-economic backgrounds, who are more likely to experience its adverse effects compared to people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, even when consuming similar or lower amounts."
Can someone provide some insight here? What does your wage have to do with how you body handles booze?
The two major negative effects of low social-economic status on health that I commonly see mentioned is increased stress and reduced amount of cooping mechanics that provide protection.
The human body is pretty able to withstand most injuries, viruses, bacteria and so on. The more stressed a person is the less the body is able to do that recovery. In addition, if and individual is low on the socio-economic scale they might not have available cooping mechanics like resting, taking a day of, or access to social support. A lack of cooping mechanics is also a source for stress, making the body prioritizing other things than recovery.
which says in its abstract: " Individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES) experience disproportionately greater alcohol-attributable health harm than individuals with high SES from similar or lower amounts of alcohol consumption." and "Alcohol use explained up to 27% of the socioeconomic inequalities in mortality. The proportion of socioeconomic inequalities explained systematically differed by drinking pattern, with heavy episodic drinking having a potentially significant explanatory value."
I'm not 100% certain about this, but my initial thoughts are that low socio-economic backgrounds will have less medical treatment (especially preventative) so issues aren't caught as quickly meaning you'll have more health issues at the same consumption rates. Other stats such as higher socio-economic backgrounds tending to eat more healthy foods, exercise more, have a greater ability to have a fruitful social life etc, will all be additional factors.
It’s true across the board, but is relevant to things done across the board. So it is more relevant to public health than the disproportionate impact of scuba diving.
This is a statistical claim. Not a causal claim. But we could make some assumptions about it. For instance low income people may be less likely to afford childcare or driver services like Uber which result in them being more likely to drive or child-care under the influence. Furthermore they may be more likely to have diabetes and heart issues, which may make them more susceptible to comorbities from alcohol toxicity.
The solution is not to increase them, that's for sure. The solution is to abolish the quota system which Democrats keep upholding for their Big Tech overlords.
ITT: People criticizing the H1B program for reasons that have nothing to do with why it was suspended, or considering the fate of people/families who are already here on H1Bs.
This is a pretty obvious move by the administration to discourage immigration, in any form. Could the H1B system be more equitable to workers, more efficient, less confusing, etc? Absolutely. But suspending H1Bs and green card applications like this does the opposite of all of that and throws thousands of families into limbo.
> This is a pretty obvious move by the administration to discourage immigration, in any form.
I have many immigrant friends and families who want this to happen. The admin has said it many times - "legal immigration is good, illegal immigration is bad". Yet people believe whatever lies media tells them. At a time when 40 million are unemployed, importing more H1Bs is asinine.
You shouldn't dismiss comments about H1Bs that are divorced from the perceived motivations of the White House. The effect of suspending H1B is not dependent upon the motivations of the decision. The decision is substantial. It has consequences and externalities that extend beyond whatever single motive we could ascribe to the White House.
As I said in the other thread, please don't hurl epithets at people. If you disagree with me, you don't have to call me deceitful.
Do you disagree that there are consequences and externalities to the H1B suspension that go beyond our best guess at the motivations of the White House? That's what I suggest in my comment, but you haven't addressed that at all.
I know the difference between "deceitful" and "disingenuous" and if I wanted to call you deceitful I would have. Besides,"disingenuous" isn't a name or pejorative, like calling you "ugly" or something. It's not an epithet. It literally means pretending to know less than you actually know which is exactly what I feel you are doing here. It does not require mind-reading to determine the intentions of the current executive administration around immigration. We have their previous behaviour with regards to different immigration policies to go on.
I think that regardless of how anyone felt about the H1B program that this change is bad for America and was done for the wrong reasons. If this was about the H1B program then why suspend L1 visas, student visas and green cards? What does suspending au pairs have to do with H1B issues?
Honest question. Why does nobody consider the fate of US university graduates that are up to their neck in debt and unable to find a job because companies would rather hire an H1B worker with 10 years working experience for cheap? There are large swathes of American workers that have been plunged into homelessness, drugs, or cannot feed their families because they lost their jobs to labor arbitrage. I understand that due to inherent bias, non US citizens couldn't care less about the fate US citizens but I believe it is abhorrent that an American citizen would balk at suspending H1Bs, especially in an economically tough time like this. If you have children or plan on having children, you're essentially selling out their future.
The unemployment rate for university graduates in the US is 7.4%, which is not great, but is considerably lower than the civilian unemployment rate of 13.3% in that same report. In past reports the unemployment rate in IT fields is even lower than that of university graduates. US university graduates have been hit the least in the covid economic downturn.
Please explain how suspending L1 visas is going to help this same set of debt-burdened American graduates. Or perhaps these people are all expected to become au pairs now that those visas have been suspended as well?
There are two requirements for L1: working for a related (subsidiary, parent, etc) company abroad for 1 year and having "specialized" skills. Apart from the 1 year requirement it's weaker than H1-B as it does not put any requirements on education or salary. Furthermore, a big enough company can get a "blanket L1", which does not require DOL certification like H1-B. Did I mention there is no cap on this and you can have as many L1 workers as you wish?
1 year requirement is not a big deal: everyone using these has already offices all over the world so they hire somebody in a foreign office, wait one year and transfer to the US, considering that H1-B is a lottery it's faster than getting an H1-B from abroad on average. And, bonus, unlike H1-B, the L1 workers cannot easily jump to another employer: for a new job with a different employer they need to get some other visa, likely H1B, and, unlike a worker who already has an H1B, go through lottery. And if you fire them they will have much more trouble staying in the country: a new H1B application will take at least 6 months (file on April 1st, get the status on October 1st, if you won the lottery and did not get any RFEs) so they likely will run over 180 days out of status and get banned from the US for 3 years unless they find some other status like F (student), which won't let them work anyways so they will have to live off the savings they've made from their lavish L1 compensation.
Essentially it has all problems of H1 plus its own: less scrutiny, no salary requirements, stronger bond with the employer.
I'm not familiar with L1 but I was referring to H1B. Many intern/entry-level positions in tech are assumed by H1B workers. In every company I have worked at (large corporations + startups) in SV, the overwhelming majority of these entry-level type positions were assumed by H1B workers. Many US grads from CS programs are forced to take on low paid jobs irrelevant to their training.
>Getting caught up in the parts of a job that don’t matter is a dangerous trap and for some reason one that a lot of people fall into. Let other people play political games and avoid them as much as you can.
My experience at big companies is the inverse. The people who advance are the ones who spend 80% of their time focused on politics, while the heads down engineer will get a thank you and inflationary raise.
It seems to me that you have to be really good at politics in order to avoid politics. If you don’t understand politics you usually get taken advantage of. You don’t have to play the game all the time but you need to understand it.
+1. Maybe this is more important at a big company that at a startup where your business model and your tech is either good enough or it isn't. But even then you still have backers, etc.
Some people understand this stuff, and some people don't, and I don't see a lot of ways for someone who doesn't get it to become someone who gets it.
They have a lot of books on the subject. Many of the articles in eg Harvard Business Review are about it. Who knows whether someone without the natural skill will ever become great, but I am convinced it can at least be learned to competency.
Would you characterize his success since starting Loopt as being primarily about "working on things that matter" or strong relationship management and "political" skills? He managed to exit a failing startup with 5mil then get several much richer people to give him seed capital to invest (which he did fantastically) if I understand correctly. The man is clearly successful, but this type of maneuvering is definitely what I'd call "being good at politics" if you want to use that term.
A heads down, passion-driven, "no politics" founder would likely have gone down with the Loopt ship; Sam adroitly found a way to turn a failure into a success. That's politics.
No, but you need political capital even if your goal is making cool shit and not moving up the corporate ladder.
Human interaction is political - unless your work is entirely self sustaining, you have to be able to navigate the politics of human interaction. These get worse when money is involved, and all of the other competing interests at a company. I'm not saying focus on politics to the exclusion of directly productive work, but this idea that you can ignore politics and still accomplish things larger than one man projects seems incredibly naive. I don't buy for a minute that Altman hasn't engaged in plenty of politics over his career.
“I don't buy for a minute that Altman hasn't engaged in plenty of politics over his career.”
He is probably a natural at it so he doesn’t even notice that he is doing it. Reminds me a little of Steve Jobs. He was able to cut through bullshit but he was also naturally a world class bullshitter himself.
It seems like the kind of advice that's meant to correct against bad tendencies. I know people who'd spend 100% of their time on politics if they didn't control themselves, because their instinct is to resolve all personal conflicts they see.
He sold his startup at a loss to investors and walked away with millions of dollars and a plum role at YC. That’s not moving up the corporate ladder, it’s jetpacking up it.
As a technical person, you have actual work to do, and you have to keep your skills current, and then you have to go to all the meetings and provide info for the non-techs.
They on the other hand, have all their time to think and scheme on how to sell themselves and get ahead. They even have time create meetings and ask for reports.
If you are a technical person you need to be will to spend as much time as they do, and forget about your technical work. You is ok if that is what you want. Otherwise you will be in the short end of the stick.
This ignores the principle to avoid being constrained by illusionary local maxima. Why is the person still at a company where politics takes up 80% of day instead of "important" work? Although as other commentors have mentioned, climbing the corporate ladder to regional/country manager probably isn't the kind of success the author is talking abou.
Why there is politics? Because resources have to be optimized based on fuzzy future estimations and non deterministic outputs?
There is always politics but in smaller ventures its unimportant due to the bounded description of the end product and the simplicity of the teams vision.
Politics is more of an end result than a specific ooerational design of any business.
It is not that 80% is politics fir everybody but only for the decision makers with cross department visibility.
You're not wrong, this headline is very poorly worded.
From the article:
>A recent study estimates that more than a quarter of all that waste could be pouring in from just 10 rivers, eight of them in Asia.
>The 10 rivers that carry 93 percent of that trash are the Yangtze, Yellow, Hai, Pearl, Amur, Mekong, Indus and Ganges Delta in Asia, and the Niger and Nile in Africa.
So to say "10 Rivers Contribute Most of the Plastic in the Oceans" is not really correct, they contribute something like 25%.
Law suits seem to be the standard tactic for dealing with other types of corporate negligence (for better or worse). Why aren't they employed more for these types of obvious security vulnerabilities if you can demonstrate harm?
> The cause? A coder had mistakenly programmed a router to send placeholder bids as live orders. If not for the good graces of the options exchanges, the bank would have lost $500 million, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Cancellations and price adjustments reduced that to $38 million
It basically outlines a cascade of failure in controls, bad configuration defaults, and poor SDLC. In particular:
>In addition, the firm’s operation and management of its electronic “circuit
breakers” did not effectively block the erroneous orders sent on August 20. These circuit
breakers existed to prevent erroneous orders by halting all message traffic to the exchanges once
that traffic had exceeded a certain rate. However, on August 20, the firm’s control personnel
repeatedly lifted the circuit breakers blocks between 8:44 a.m. and 9:32 a.m., thereby permitting
additional erroneous orders to be sent to the exchanges. Before lifting the circuit breaker blocks,
the control personnel did not obtain authorization from the responsible technology employees, as
required under written firm policies.
>The firm’s policies relating to the manual “lifting” of those circuit breakers were
not disseminated to or fully understood by the employees responsible for deciding when the circuit
breakers should be lifted, and, prior to August 20, 2013, GSCO personnel had lifted circuit breaker
blocks shortly after learning of the block and while still investigating the cause of the circuit
breaker trip.
From what I remember, this circuit breaker was notorious for raising so many false positives that control personnel just got used to lifting it without thinking.
That’s really a terrible place to put people in. From what this says, the SEC put part of the blame on the employees who lifted the circuit breakers without approval, and also state that employees didn’t know that they needed approval?
Before lifting the circuit breaker blocks, the control personnel did not obtain authorization from the responsible technology employees, as required under written firm policies.
The firm’s policies relating to the manual “lifting” of those circuit breakers were not disseminated...
Why can't you publish multiple salary ranges per job post (level 1: $X1 - $Y1, level 2: $X2 - $Y2, etc) or multiple job posts (one for each level)?
Neglecting to publish a salary range seems more like a negotiation tactic on behalf of companies of not wanting to be the first to name a number. Either that or you know your company can't compete on salary, which is my typical assumption when it's a company I've never heard of and I don't see a range provided.
As someone who works in a bank, if I sent trading data off to an external service I'd be fired almost immediately. Even things like pretty printing services are monitored and blocked.
Totally agree, but they would not fire you if you price a bond in Bloomberg. I guess is more something about who the banks trust, which is a closed set of actors that does not seem to change (again, I'm not saying anyone has to trust with this, but maybe something will change some day)
