419 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2021
    1. it’s good to say yes when you’re starting out, wanting any opportunity

      This. If you don't yet know what opportunity to take, you need to try / commit a little to more things.

    1. Provide a one-on-one personal service.

      I don't think this is possible for all things, for example for software tools or social networks. You could argue those are bad opportunities to work on, but I'm not sure if that's constructive advice.

      Building small technical tools can also be a way to prove demand.

  2. Nov 2021
    1. In the conclusion to the memo, titled "What can we do about it?" the writer acknowledges that Facebook needs to become better at recruiting remote talent, that it needs to hire more recruiters (but is facing a similarly competitive market there) and that a group was created to address the short-term imbalance in supply and demand.

      This is saying very little, and commits to nothing - exactly what you'd expect from large co' communications.

    2. Not terribly surprising, but Meta is bottlenecked on recruiting after taking advantage of less hiring during COVID last year (also 53% senior eng offer accept rate in the Bay Area vs 81% in London)

      It's fun to see internal large company posts with actions that say very little and commit to nothing:

      "We need to communicate better", "Misson Control is exploring", "we need to build the muscle to become great", "working on a plan to better navigate"

    1. Facebook was able to take advantage of other companies pulling back hiring in 2020 because of COVID-related uncertainty

      Benefit of long-term thinking - being antifragile agains disruptions like COVID.

    2. Facebook was determined to invest in engineers outside of the Bay Area, but that managers often failed to do so because they were more interested in hiring quickly.

      If the core teams are located in the Bay Area that's understandable. They should move large overall orgs to other locations (e.g. the metaverse efforts).

    1. Interesting insight into how tech companies provide information to the media without being accountable for it (e.g. if some people react negatively).

      If you see "sources familiar with the situation" in any article, as yourself where the information is coming from, and who benefits from it

    1. Very resonating read on how you gradually adopt to bad situations that seem normal and hard to change. Your eventual solution will be to quit, without having a clear reason why.


      • Really think about WHY complex processes exist. Even if you know how to deal with them, they'll get to you over time.
      • Fresh perspectives are especially value to uncover issues everyone is hurting from. Don't teach them that these things are normal.
    2. Engineers need to follow a long deployment checklist

      A famous Google-internal video about their complicated deployment process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t6L-FlfeaI

  3. Oct 2021
    1. Terrifying story of a pretty ordinary heroin addiction.

      My thoughts:

      • Most terrifying about drug addictions is that they destroy your ambitions in life. Which is the only things that can get you to change.
      • We’re all aware of shitty parts of life, and the good parts that make it worth it. It’s chance really if you get opportunity to find some good parts before making bad decisions.
    1. Thoughts:

      • There are different kinds of content: "fast" and "slow". These are often mixed on social media platforms, but each have their own value and purpose.
      • Which type of content a site houses is part result of what the UX incentives, part what the community expects. There's a wide range of possibilities to adjust these factors to get the content you want.
    2. Perhaps it would help more people’s contextual thinking if more sites specifically labeled their posts as fast and slow (or gave a 1-10 rating)?

      There are so many fast, in the moment comments on site like Twitter that I go elsewhere for thoughtful content. It's just too difficult to separate mixed content on the same site.

      I'm wondering if there needs to be a platform which does everything.

    1. Author arguments:

      • There's a "bookish" quality to physical books that's not present for ebooks, which is why many people prefer the former. It's partly about tradition / nostalgia, partly missing features.
      • Ebooks cater to specific users who read many books, and care less about the form. Annotations and bookmarks (which should be the prime feature of ebooks), are somewhat neglected.
      • But this doesn't matter too much, because we can just continue reading physical books.

      My thoughts:

      • I like physical books primarily because they get me away from a screen, and because I can place them in bookshelves. That's in a way "bookishness".
      • But I think digital annotation features would really add to the reading experience if done right. I'd be interested in indexing notes more easily, or what passage my friends thought especially good.


      • There's some nostalgia about print books that people associate with worthwhile long form reads. Maybe this is a form of inner rebellion against the modern noisy world.
      • Current (Kindle) Ebooks are made for popular best-selling genres. They are not made for heavy highlighting, note-taking, or bookmarking. That's an opportunity.
    2. “We’ve been thoughtful,” Amazon continued, “about adding only features and experiences that preserve and enhance the reading experience.” The question of whose experience doesn’t seem to come up.

      I like having books as a reference, and to re-read great ones carefully and slowly. But from an economics perspective, it would make sense for Amazon to prioritise the consumption of as many books as possible.

    3. I hate ebooks because I don’t read much genre fiction, but I read a lot of scholarly and trade nonfiction. I also buy a lot of books on art, architecture, and design, whose subjects work best—or feel most bookish—when they are large-format, open-spread, and richly illustrated. As a somewhat haughty book person, I also can’t quite wrap my spleen around every book looking and feeling the same, like they do on an ebook reader. For me, bookiness partly entails the uniqueness of each volume—its cover, shape, typography, and layout.

      For me, the reason I like physical books more is that they present a few hours away from a screen of any kind, and the irrational desire pleasure of filling my bookshelves.

      Which I guess relates to this "bookish" definition. Physical books have the same content, but in the cozy tried-and-tested form which rejects the modern noisiness of our digital world.

    4. But when it comes to the gathering of words and images pressed first to pages and then between covers, the book has remained largely the same.

      The basic physical form of books may be the same, but it got more and more efficient to produce them at scale.

      This means the content of books and how we threat them has changed. They've gone from being the only place to record information, to the only mass media, to long-form content as a refuge from the noisy modern world.

    1. Unlike companies that reinvest all or most of the money back into the company every year, we take money (profit) out every year in the form of distributions (we’re an LLC). This means every year we take risk out of the company. Companies that keep reinvesting keep adding risk to their companies. If the shit hits the fan one day, and the company ceases to exist, we’ll have enjoyed the upside as we went

      Diversifying personal rewards.

    1. an antifragile country would encourage the distribution of power among smaller, more local, experimental, and self-sufficient entities

      Being robust to random events, and even gaining from some of them, and then applying them everywhere (antifragility).

    2. The “separation of powers” is hardly the most efficient form of government

      Separation of political power is a way of being robust to unexpected events.