It's amazing how such a short comment manages to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of stimulants, tinkering, human nature and, implicitly, neurodivergence.
Struggling with poorly organized docs seems entirely like incidental complexity to me. Good learning resources can be both faster and better pedagogically. (How good today's LLM-based chat tools are is a totally separate question.)
Nobody said anything about poorly organized docs. Reading well structured and organized complex material is immensely difficult. Anyone who’s read Hegel can attest to that.
And yet I wouldn’t trust a single word coming out of the mouth of someone who couldn’t understand Hegel so they read an AI summary instead.
There is value in struggling through difficult things.
You're significantly underestimating fully-loaded cost per person + other expenses. An engineer making a $200k salary is going to cost the company something like $300k, and there are some additional fixed overheads. And $200k is quite a bit less than your competitors are paying.
So you're looking at something more like 150 employees total of which <100 are going to be pure engineers, and that's stretching your budget and operations pretty aggressively while also fighting an uphill battle for recruiting skilled and experienced engineers. (And browser development definitely needs a core of experienced engineers with a relatively niche set of skills!)
Working at Mozilla should be more than money. $200k/year is more than enough to be happy in most of the world. You don't need to compete on rock stars that must live in San Francisco, and focus on people that are happy with a high paying job and have enough idealism to accept "only" $200k/year.
None of those figures are what the engineer makes, they're costs. And they're illustrative, not literal. You won't pay everyone at the same rate either for example, and not all will be engineers either, and I totally left both those facts out of it. Oh no! And also omitted the fact that a company whose vision and ideals people agree with can hire said people for less money, which again brings us back around to the point that the vision might be more important.
If something is marginally better, it's not guaranteed to win out because markets aren't perfectly rational. However if something is 10x better than its competitors it will almost always win.
That's because embarrassingly bad writing is useless, while embarrassingly bad code can still make the computer do (roughly) the right thing and lets you tick off a Jira ticket. So we end up having way more room for awful code than for awful prose.
Reading good code can be a better way to learn about something than reading prose. Writing code like that takes some real skill and insight, just like writing clear explanations.
Some writing is functional, e.g. a letter notifying someone of some information. For that type of writing even bad quality can achieve its purpose. Indeed probably the majority of words written are for functional reasons.
The overall trend has been the opposite though, hasn't it? People used to buy a new phone (or new laptop/etc) every couple of years because the underlying tech was improving so quickly, but now that the improvements have slowed down, they're holding onto their devices for longer.
There was an article[1] going around about that recently, and I'm sure there are more, but it's also a trend I've seen first-hand. (I don't particularly care for the article's framing, I'm just linking to it to illustrate the underlying data.)
There's a high switching cost with substantial information asymmetry. Good places are hard to find in some absolute sense and it's hard to evaluate whether a new team is actually going to be good or not. And even if you do find a good team, there's no guarantee it'll last past the next reorg.
All of the pizza examples are about reducing cost. The argument about dating apps is about increasing retention. The dynamics are qualitatively different.
The argument with pizza is more like "people like salty, fatty food, so pizza places are incentivized to make their pizza less healthy so that people come back more often"... which is exactly what happens!
So why doesn't a legitimately healthy restaurant come along and take the whole market? It's partly because restaurants aren't just in the business of selling (healthy) food: it's also about convenience and satisfaction and experience. More importantly, that just doesn't fit with how people largely make day-to-day decisions.
The same thing happens with dating apps. People get drawn in for all sorts of reasons that don't necessarily map to getting married, even if finding a long-term relationship is explicitly their goal. Tinder competes with Tiktok more than it competes with other dating apps.
The other problem is that making a really effective dating app is just hard. It's fundamentally difficult to help people find compatible partners, especially without in-person contact. That's compounded by cultural and demographic issues. It doesn't matter how well your app is designed when there's a massive imbalance in genders!
Also, the pizza examples miss out the competition aspect. Pizza restaurants are competing against other pizza places, but also competing against other foods. If someone starts increasing the price and reducing quality of pizzas, then at some point people will start saying "I don't like pizza, let's go for a burger" and eventually a whole generation will grow up thinking that they don't like pizzas as they've only eaten crappy ones.
Ultimately, these kinds of things go in cycles with the population varying between choosing cheap and trashy products and choosing expensive, quality products.
Yep, Peter Drucker wrote about this all the way back in 1964.
> The competition is therefore all the other activities that compete for the rapidly growing “discretionary time” of a population
His examples were bowling ball manufacturers competing with lawn care companies, but the idea is the same, go up an abstraction layer, and the competition is for time.
This is a restating of an older idea that fancy restaurants aren't competing against other restaurants, they are competing against movie theatres. Because they are in the date entertainment market
People who uses dating apps are on a very specific mission (to get laid, a.k.a "to meet more interesting people"). They'll optimize their profile to specifically archive that goal.
TikTok accepts wider range of interest-based (instead of goal-based) contents, and have much wider demographic spread. On that platform, you show more aspect of you and your life to your viewers, and that creates a degree of trust and maybe even empathy, both are beneficial in creating a closer relationship.
And it's not just on TikTok, I first noticed the effect in online games. For example, people who act kindly often get a lot of friends, etc.
I read the comment about Tinder and Tiktok being in competition differently: To me they said that both Tinder and Tiktok are in competition over eyeballs.
Meaning for example that if Tinder shows me profiles I find less attractive, I'm more likely to churn to Tiktok. So Tinder will show me profiles of people I have no hope of meeting, to keep me engaged nonetheless.
> The other problem is that making a really effective dating app is just hard. It's fundamentally difficult to help people find compatible partners, especially without in-person contact. That's compounded by cultural and demographic issues. It doesn't matter how well your app is designed when there's a massive imbalance in genders!
Really true. Most of dating seems to be dominated by that people want to be comfortable and dating is an inherently uncomfortable experience at times and many people seem to have a hard time with it.
I’m writing this as someone that made the conscious decision to face every form of uncomfortableness in dating if I noticed it was needed. Some people look at me bewildered with how I met my wife. They found what I did was way too much effort. But I am thinking to myself: you’re going to spend the most time with them! You better be damn sure that you’re long-term compatible.
Yet, enough people seem to act the whole process is more like buying something from your local Chipotle/<name your favorite establishment> where comfort is king.
Can you expand on what types of uncomfortableness you faced and what you mean by effort (to the point of bewildering people)? Curious what worked for you. Not sure if you just mean you forced yourself to go on a million dates and were super selective.
I think I've met (or trying to meet) 5000 to 10000 women over my lifetime. I've been on 100 dates at least. While I was in relationships, I tried my best and hardest and tried to get it down to a science when the breakup would come as to why that is the case.
Oh, and learning to be playful by unleashing my inner silly goose.
For relationships, what works for me:
* Similar personalities. I can now intuitively see people who have a similar HEXACO to me in 2 minutes. Note, not everyone that has a similar HEXACO to me I can see, but a subset of them. I've never been wrong (I only did this twice). I'm high in openness, and it's easy to see other people high in openness. Then seeing how the other dimensions fall out is quite predictable.
* Same coping style
* Secure attachment style
* Ability to be reasonable, pragmatic and emotionally intelligent in ways that I characterize those terms
> I can now intuitively see people who have a similar HEXACO to me in 2 minutes.
Is that a good thing in a partner? I can see the case for similar openness, but with extraversion and emotionality, for eg., in my experience you probably want someone on the opposite side of the scale to balance things out and have complementary strengths and weaknesses that make life easier for the both of you.
Fair question, I am not sure if there’s a general answer. I simply know what works for me. I can imagine that in some cultures, it doesn’t matter much as the idea of what love is and what a relationship is, is culturally really different. The simple example I think of is being married out by your parents. I know nothing about how that works or what the emotions involved are. And I can imagine there are quite a few cultures that I am clueless about.
I feel that people are different enough in ways that the HEXACO doesn’t capture. It’s just much easier to communicate with someone, because you think in a very similar way. So far, I have seen different strengths and weaknesses come about. We both are have a subclinical case of ADHD so being with each other is basically body doubling all the time which removes a lot of the annoyance that ADHD has. So oftentimes it’s not a 1 + 1 = 2 thing because there’s also an interaction effect as psychologist would say.
I am not saying this is a generalized theory by the way. I simply know it works for me. I have been in a few short relationships (of a few months) and 4 that were a year or longer. Women that think like me are way more suited as romantic partners and it’s not even close.
Bonus point: I don’t have to do the whole “men are like this and women are like that” dance that many people in my social circle explicitly seem to do. Because my dance is “she is like me and I am like her”. I would get much closer to predicting how she is when I ask myself “what would I do?” as opposed to “what would a general woman do?” Of course, in some cases sex and gender differences are there.
Or weird stuff like “women are more emotional and men are more logical”. It doesn’t apply. We can both hold each other to a standard that we both find reasonable and fully understandable. I expect my wife to be logical and emotional. She expects the same from me. I seem to have more of a bias towards logic and she does to emotions (well… more accurately, towards vibes and vibe-based living) but it’s often enough that I see she’s the more logical one or I am, at that moment, the more emotionally in tune.
It took a long time to find her and a lot of relationships and a lot of women to meet (and then to think how many women I secretly/silently rejected, at least 100K). The biggest hurdle to overcome is fear of rejection. I didn’t set out to be in a lot of relationships, but I do break up when I clearly see it’s not working.
> Bonus point: I don’t have to do the whole “men are like this and women are like that” dance that many people in my social circle explicitly seem to do. Because my dance is “she is like me and I am like her”.
That does sound appealing when put like that.
My experience has been with the counterbalancing kind of relationships I mentioned (maybe I subconsciously seek them out that way), with about 50% overlap in personality or interests and 50% divergence. And many of the memories I cherish from them have been from them introducing me to new little worlds, social environments, and experiences that I wouldn't have sought out or even given a thought to, on my own.
But there were also times when I wished we were more similar, when some experiences (that I was excited about) would have been great to share, and were diminished or even skipped out on because they weren't as into it. So seeking out more overlap seems at least worth trying out.
Thank you for giving a thoughtful and well-considered reply, by the way.
On Tinder, after autoswiping 100k to 200K profiles :')
I wish I had the exact stats but I just got some crappy JS code from some Github website, edited it a bit and within 10 minutes the swiper was swiping. I'd then go meticulously go through every "match" (looking at photo's, reading the bio's, all of it) because if you only have around 250 "matches" each month (for each 50K women I swiped right on auto pilot), you can actually take the time. I unmatched a lot of them and was left with my real matches.
I met her in Valencia. She was on vacation and I was digital nomadding at the time. She asked me on a date and I was really tired and really didn't want to go because of it. But I remember thinking "you have to shoot all your shots and take all your chances." I'm so happy I did, she made me forget I was tired in a heartbeat and we were goofing around for the whole 3 hours, to the point where I realized I hadn't even asked one normal question and didn't know much about her haha (and vice versa). I love conversations like that, just fun vibes.
> So why doesn't a legitimately healthy restaurant come along and take the whole market?
The lesson is in revealed preferences. One of my friends, live him to death, has been trying to lose weight since forever. When we try to eat together, hell judge the food. Either what's in my pantry/freezer or from the restaurant we go it. He keeps talking about keto as well. He's pretty knowledgeable about things by this point. But he keeps being unable to lose the weight! Yet no matter how much he tells me or how right it actually is, the lesson is on revealed preferences, aka he's got a ton of dominos pizza boxes hiding out in the trash that he's been eating.
Losing weight is pretty simple. Just stop eating such much food. It's not easy though, unfortunately. That food is pretty delicious. All dating apps have to do, which coffee meets bagel was doing at back when, is rate limit the matches given to women. Let woman rate as many men as they want, but only show women the to p 15/whatever matches so they aren't overwhelmed. it's so obvious and simple, but hard to put into in practice, for reasons that have zero to do with anybody's ability to write code.
I honestly felt like “wtf” reading those examples.
Everything listed there as positives would lead exactly to user(patrons) retention.
For dating apps it’s the exact opposite.
Read the pizza example, and was like "this guy is really clueless". Read the car example (car makers are incentivized to make cars unsafe!), and thought, "This ignorant fool needs to shut up." Car makers are incentivized to make unsafe cars, and before there was such heavy regulation, did so.
I think the point was that, yeah, auto manufacturers are incentivised to make unsafe cars...but in real life, they make safe(ish) ones. Pizza restaurants are incentivised to use the cheapest ingredients possible...but in real life, they have stopped somewhere above the absolute lowest quality. How can this be?
Pointing out one incentive is not a complete argument without an understanding of the broader dynamics. Auto manufacturers are incentivised much more strongly and in the opposite direction to make safe(ish) cars. Pizza restaurants are incentivised not to make pizza from reconstituted sawdust and rancid milk fat, for multiple reasons.
Then, goes the argument, if we are willing to regulate cars and abandon truly bad pizza restaurants, how come we put up with dating apps instead of e.g. deleting them and offering a $10k bounty to matchmakers, payable on our one year wedding anniversary? Why don't we ditch them? There must be more than just one incentive at play.
That's exactly what I meant when I wrote "Auto manufacturers are incentivised much more strongly and in the opposite direction to make safe(ish) cars".
Out of curiousity, what incentive did you think that sentence meant? Should I have explained exactly which incentives led to airbags and ABS?
> Healthy food, grown naturally, not sprayed with chemicals, harvested in the last week, is just not a cost-effective plan for them.
It's also not a cost-effective plan for most shoppers who have enough other expenses in their lives that they can't afford their food doubling in price.
Most of us are stuck in globally-horrible local maximums, and we aren't going to get out of them without some external push.
To push back on this idea a bit - my family buys a share from a CSA (community supported agriculture). Our CSA is a local organic farm operating on about 4 acres of land. They grow enough food for ~30 CSA shares and sell at farmers markets as well as to local restaurants. For $700 we get enough fresh produce to cover about 2/3rds of our groceries (for 2 adults) for a 20 week period. We spend a lot more than 35/week at Whole Foods typically! And this is in a relatively HCOL part of Colorado - which isn’t known for its easy growing climate.
All that is to say - I’m not sure I agree that supermarkets are the cheapest outcome for food. Locally grown food can be substantially cheaper. What we give up is the year long availability for any kind of produce we could dream of. Instead we eat seasonally and we eat what is available. It requires a shift in cooking practice from “I want to make X - I am going to go buy A,B,C ingredients” to “I have A,B,C - what can I make with this?”.
Maybe that lack of choice is an unacceptable trade off for some - for us we find it fun. It’s well worth cheaper, better tasting (really cannot understate this part), and substantially longer lasting produce. It’s actually crazy how long the produce we get from the farm lasts - we have basically zero spoilage now.
I just wish we could get food like this year round - and I am considering buying a second share next year entirely to can it. So maybe it will be possible!
In 50 years, the proportion of the budget allocated to food, halved.
I'm not saying everyone can have the choice to eat healthy, but probably a small majority has.
I live in an area where small, local, sometimes organic producers are gathered to sell their product to the community in a way it is accessible to every budget.
> In 50 years, the proportion of the budget allocated to food, halved.
Sure. But 50 years ago, healthcare and education didn't cost an arm and both legs. In those 5 decades, every single rent-seeker that you need to engage with to live has dipped his hand deeper into our pockets.
> I live in an area where small, local, sometimes organic producers are gathered to sell their product to the community in a way it is accessible to every budget....
You forgot the "For the brief period of time their produce is in season."
Only selling what you have, when you have it removes a lot of costs from food supply chains. If, like the local grocery, those small, local, organic producers had to keep you fed 24/7/365, their prices would go up - by a lot.
I am also pretty confident that those small, local, organic producers aren't the source of most of their customers' caloric demands.
I live in a part of the world where the healthcare system is also spread across the society in a more equalitarian way than what you describe.
I don't understand your second point. One of my close friends is a farmer, they mostly grow organic apples. They work (insanely hard) across the whole year to prepare the crop and take care of the trees. They are not rich, but it starts to be sustainable.
Locally, it's having a community of farmers that grow different things that make you fed across the year, as long as you accept eating exotic food only very occasionally.
Regarding calories, I honestly don't know. What I know for sure is that apples in the 50s had at least an order of magnitude more calories than apples today. Different times, different agricultural practices, different population also, fair.
Obesity has skyrocketed across the whole world. People already eat too much, too much hyper transformed, too much sugar, too many calories.
When I go to the grocery, food is available to me at any time of year.
Your friend's apples are only available for ~2 months/of the year. The supply chains that feed the world have to work year-round, and all the people that work them expect to get paid. Availability adds to the cost.
> What I know for sure is that apples in the 50s had at least an order of magnitude more calories than apples today
I have a very hard time believing that the average apple from the 50s had 94 * 10 = 940 calories.
Which is the whole problem. Your friend's apple orchard is not a replacement for the modern grocery. It's a seasonal supplement that replaces the cheapest and easiest part of a diet - in-season produce.
And he has to work insanely hard all-year-long to do it.
> Obesity has skyrocketed across the whole world. People already eat too much, too much hyper transformed, too much sugar, too many calories.
Carbohydrates are way cheaper, but the distribution of nutrients you can get for any price has not gotten cheaper proportionally. Then you factor in choices, like paying rent vs eating healthier, etc etc.
> What I know for sure is that apples in the 50s had at least an order of magnitude more calories than apples today. Different times, different agricultural practices, different population also, fair.
>What I know for sure is that apples in the 50s had at least an order of magnitude more calories than apples today.
At least an order of magnitude more calories? Just to be on the same page, you're saying that apples in the 50s had at least 10x as much calories as they do today? :DD
You realize an apple is ~10-12% sugar by weight, right? The rest is just water and fibre. So an apple with an order of magnitude more calories would mean a solid block of sugar. (alternatively, an apple that's 10x the size, but we have photos of 50s apples, and they were roughly the same size as today)
>I'm not saying everyone can have the choice to eat healthy, but probably a small majority has.
I bet the least healthy options in people's shopping trolleys are some of the most expensive items. Cakes, biscuits, chocolate, ice creams, alcohol, pre-prepared meals, etc.
i'm always a little surprised by how low my cart total is when i just go into the store to refresh a few produce items. that said, eating healthy certainly hasn't gotten any cheaper. i've paid $1+ for a single onion which feels absurd
There are very few areas where it's physically possible to live like that.
And even in those areas many staples will be industrially farmed and imported from other countries, or at least shipped from far away within the same country.
> Healthy food, grown naturally, not sprayed with chemicals, harvested in the last week, is just not a cost-effective plan for them.
It's not just "not cost-effective", it's not technically feasible.
Do you want to grow enough food to feed maybe a couple of dozen people and spend every waking minute doing it, or do you want to scale out to feed everyone including the vast majority of the population who do no useful work?
Not only that but there is no real evidence that organic food is better for you.
Even from an environmental perspective the arguments are dubious. The yields on organic food are much lower which means you need more land under production, land that could have been left to the wilderness.
Isn't yield relative? Take a bell pepper for instance, perhaps one grown in x soil another in y, the nutrient contents will vary even if one is clonal.
There have been some rumblings about the nutrient qualities of certain food goods. You also hear about European vs. American vs. garden-grown in terms of qualitative differences. I've even seen it quantitated, indeed there was a documentary surrounding this [0]. There's a researcher that took historical records of micronutrient measures and compared them against modern cultivars, finding a decline in the per-volume contents.
I think it begs several questions about modern practices in agriculture beyond increased volume yield which is too often in the limelight. It just reminds me of Pika, which is associated with micronutrient deficiencies.
Thank you for that link. This documentary was interesting for 3 reasons: A) clarifying that the seeds of all produce we eat comes from 5 international companies, 4 of which also have pesticides as a main product; B) child labour enables prices per kilo seeds of 400k (!) C) journalism that really confronts CEOs with uncomfortable questions is possible. And it introduced me to kokopelli which is where my future seeds will come from.
In the world of human-readable data formats (ie not programming languages), the best one I ever used was Jane Street's sexplib[1] s-expression format.
It was concise and expressive. There was a direct way to describe variants (types with multiple constructors), which is always awkward in JSON, but the format was still surprisingly low-noise for reading and editing by hand. I remember you could even use it as a lightweight markup format:
(here is some text with (em formatting) information)
(The format leaves the interpretation of things like (em ...) up to you; you could use it as a slightly more verbose Markdown, but you could also use it to structure readable text with other sorts of metadata instead.)
And, unlike certain other formats I won't name, it has comments!
It also helps that Emacs with Paredit makes editing s-expressions flow. The tool doesn't need to know anything about the sexplib format specifically; just relying on basic s-expression structure gives us fluid but simple structural editing.
I am constantly sad that nobody else uses this sort of format, and I have to deal with a mixture of JSON, YAML, TOML and other ad-hoc formats instead.
Agree, sexp is quite nice. That was my favorite before json came around. Not that I like json particularly, it just ate the world so it's easier to go along with it.
reply