> the CIA report predates the attack, which is especially strange
It's only strange if you believe the CIA released notes from their super-secret psychic program rather than the more plausible explanation that this is disinformation that was backdated for a boost of prestige.
Can you give me some evidence that this document was backdated? I'm not saying the government isn't shady AF, but I just wonder what's behind the immediate jump to "this has to be BS" rather than keeping an open mind.
Extraordinary claims (that RV is a real phenomenon) require extraordinary evidence. The null hypothesis is the default position, it requires no extraordinary evidence; the opposite does.
This is scientific method 101. Let's not pretend we're not familiar with it just because some dodgy CIA document surfaced.
I've been working in this field for about 15 years, mostly full stack but focus on frontend. In the past couple of years I've been making this transition from individual contributor/senior developer to a team lead and manager role.
For me, what has worked CONSISTENTLY are 3 things:
1. Take initiative: I can't stress this enough. If you act like a team lead, people will recognize you. And if they don't, you should consider whether this is somewhere you want to be. An organization that doesn't help build its talent, is not one where you will accomplish your personal growth objectives.
2. Speak to your Manager: Assuming you are doing #1, make sure that your manager(s) are aware of your career goals. You need to get "buyin" from others in the organization that are able to carve out this kind of role for you. They will also have good advice for you. Not every manager/team lead role is the same, so YMMV in this regard. It may be that there's a bigger need for a people manager vs a technical manager.
3. Stay at a company for 3+ years: The number might be different, but in my experience this is the point, after which you have been around enough time to have been involved in many different projects. Not only will you know a lot of the tech stack and it's limitations, you will also understand MUCH of the business itself. You'll have positioned yourself at the intersection of the business and the technology, and become an indispensable part of the organization.
One of the companies I worked at was a personal finance startup, and over the years I learned so much about saving, spending, credit, loans, income and investing IN ADDITION TO the technology we were building and everything that was powering it, that I was asked to be a part of nearly every discussion.
A lot of companies will have a career doc that lists expectations for each role. Take a look at the manager version and make sure it is actually something you want to do and then start doing some of those things. For example - lead a small group on a project, mentor someone who needs help, implement a change that will improve team health, reduce chaos on a project, align stakeholders, etc.
Tell your manager you’d like to explore that career path and frequently ask them what they need help with. If you don’t have a good relationship with your current manager, you may consider finding a new one who will help you grow. Look for a manager that is ambitious and looking to develop someone they can delegate to and you can ride their wave.
Everywhere I’ve worked in the last 20 years has needed strong managers, including startups and FAANGS. If you’re slightly patient and show some signal of readiness an opportunity will arise.
I have seen another path for #3. Switch to a smaller company that's growing.
If you're already at the top of your IC skill set, you can likely come in at a relatively senior role with direct lines of communication with senior leadership. As they need more teams, it's easy to throw your hat into the conversation.
This pretty much hits the nail on the head. (3) is necessary for companies with engineering orgs that are most than a 50 or so people, but if you join when it's smaller then it takes less than 3 years. Especially since (1) is kind of a necessity at a smaller company to be successful in general and you most likely won't even have a team lead type manager if the company is smaller so you need to kind of take on that kind of role anyway.
A lot of companies do this just as a matter of course. They call it "trimming the fat", eg, laying off the bottom 5%, 10% or whatever percent of employees, in hopes the future hires will be higher performing.
What makes you think companies actually use performance as a metric to do layoffs? Why makes you think they aren't just using a random number generator to find people to trim?
Yeah, likely just another liberal shill who lost his dream job, eating burgers at Twitter social meeting rooms.
These hi-tech firms aren't much different than state-owned companies where a bunch of "workforce" consists of rulling-party members sitting all day every day, doing nothing.
If the only thing you red was part of about Musk, you missed the point. Nobody cares about Musk in particular, he is just a good example of what can happen with a place you put your content on.
> Maybe then people will learn you don't get to sit there spouting blatant lies without consequence.
That is partly true. The ruling class gets to lie with impunity whenever they want, for profit or power. Remember WMDs in Iraq? And Iran has been "6 months away from a nuclear bomb" for the past 50 years.
>And Iran has been "6 months away from a nuclear bomb" for the past 50 years.
To be fair, that statement has always been "if Iran seriously tried to build a nuclear bomb, it'd take them roughly six months to do so."
That is probably fairly true, but they've constantly lied about how serious Iran has ever been about building a nuke while using the statement stoke fears.
Why do you think Iran is just toying with the idea of building a nuke? Doesnt it make sense that if they had the capacity, or if they had the capacity to make one in 6 months, that they would?
> Why do you think Iran is just toying with the idea of building a nuke?
After 2003's Iraq and Libya in 2011 (and Russia in 2022) it's straightforward to prove that autocrats need to have nukes (or be a staunch ally of a country with nukes) as it's the best way to prevent international sanctions escalating to military action; and conversely Ukraine shows us that not having nukes is a good way to get invaded by certain kleptomanic historically-revisionist irredentist kakistocracies.
> Doesn't it make sense that if they had the capacity, or if they had the capacity to make one in 6 months, that they would?
Consider that these countries need to build "real" nukes: whereas if Iran/NK/etc had only developed a couple of Hiroshima-sized fission bombs (~15kt) then the destructive potential is really limited and I imagine it wouldn't be a credible deterrent. But if they focus on getting 100kt+ fusion bombs (not just boosted bombs) working then the regime in charge can sleep easy at night.
> For 50 years Iran rules have been on the fence?
Iran has been actively trying to produce a nuke all the time - they just don't talk about it - nor do they talk about Israel's often successful clandestine air-strikes to their bomb production facilities - nor does Israel talk about it either. No-one talks about it.
Most of the things necessary to build a nuclear bomb are also used for nuclear energy and research. The estimates are that Iran could alter their completely legal nuclear program into one to develop a bomb in six months.
To be fair, they're probably going the israeli route and have 'turn key' nukes. No way they don't have enough highly enriched material for a bomb or two by now. It's just not in their interest to advertise it.
Let's ignore how incredibly difficult that'd be given the amount of scrutiny Iran has been under for decades.
We basically know Israel has nukes because testing nuclear bombs is easily detectable worldwide. There aren't any other unexplained bombs activated. If Iran secretly built one, they have next to no idea if it works or how powerful it is.
So even if it wasn't nearly impossible, there's no reason to suspect they've built any.
The ruling class gets to lie with impunity whenever they want
You seem to be parroting the exact thing that Alex Jones said in his video responding to the $4.2 million verdict. It's simple Whataboutism.
The fact is, people's children were murdered. He created and spread a conspiracy theory that the entire event was fake, and that the parents of the murdered children participated in the conspiracy.
He admits he was wrong. He admits he did harm to the parents. A jury found he was liable for $4.2 million in compensatory damages. We'll see what the punitive damages end up being soon.
In the meantime, talking about lies that other people have done doesn't take away from his reprehensible actions.
No its not in this context because GP responded to a comment that said this will teach people about general principle of 'lying = bad'. GP responded with 'it won't because ..' .
Context here isn't alex jones at all. Its wether this a general teaching moment for 'people' about dangers of lying.
If Jones can't run his mouth without financial repercussions then politicians shouldn't be able to run theirs either and their PACs shouldn't be able to run those stupid lying ads.
It's not whataboutism. It's complaining about inequality under the law.
The lesson being learned here isn't "don't lie". It's "don't lie unless you're one of the more equal animals"
The "edge" didn't really exist at the time, along with concepts like cloud, serverless. I seem to remember that even CDN was an evolving architecture idea at the time.
AWS et al had not yet turned web servers into a commodity, so it wasn't feasible to "just deploy the software to multiple regions" to improve latency.
This is absolutely untrue. When you look at the political landscape, evangelicals have no power. And yet, when you look at any vote in Congress regarding Israeli issues, such as the recent vote to replenish the Iron Dome system, it was overwhelmingly voted in. The only "controversy" was the 3 or 4 people who objected initially, and were then bullied BY BOTH PARTIES into voting yes.
Evangelical Christians have enormous political power. That's why the last three appointees to the Supreme Court were vetted by pro-Life organizations and Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger.
Evangelicals Protestantism is the biggest religious category in the country (25%), yet no Supreme Court justice is Evangelical. By contrast, 6-7 are Catholic (21%) and 2 are Jewish (2%). That doesn't seem like enormous political power to me.
The Supreme Court includes a number of conservative Catholics, appointed by Presidents who were either evangelical Christian (Alito/Bush) or closely allied with them (Kavanaugh/Trump, Barrett/Trump), who tend to take positions on policies that are similar to that of evangelical Christians.
Amy Coney Barrett may be Catholic, but she was heavily favored by evangelicals, with specific interest in overturning Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, they are a large voting base of an alliance of religious conservatives (along with Mormons, conservative Catholics, etc.) that is hyperfocused on that one issue, and so seemingly having some success on it.
But it's not like Amy Coney Barrett is barely Catholic. She's been heavily involved in the church her whole life, and her career has been centered around a deeply Catholic university. She only represents Evangelicals in situations where their belief overlaps with those of the Catholic church.
Barrett is both deeply Catholic and part of an organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise) that features aspects typically more in line with American evangelical Protestantism. The Catholic Church can be a surprisingly diverse group theologically; American bishops are frequently feuding with the Pope over issues like the death penalty and abortion.
American evangelicals didn't get in line behind Barrett and Kavanaugh on account of their Catholicism.
Sure, this is all complicated. Groups have similarities and overlaps. Anything "charismatic" gets strange. And red state politicians have been able to put a lot of pressure on abortion by basically being supreme court single-issue voters on it.
But I still tend to believe that if Evangelical Protestants were really the ones controlling who is nominated and confirmed to the supreme court more than anyone else, we'd see at least a single Evangelical Protestant on it.
Have you ever seen one of those art pieces where when you look at it from the front it looks like a jumbled mess of shapes, but when you walk around it, your perspective shifts to reveal a meaningful message or image?
Imagine if rather than gaining its independence from the UK, the USA instead of becoming its own independent country, was still called the United States of America, but over time, in practice it had become totally servile, dependent on, psychologically submissive and subjugated to the British aristocracy that rules the UK and Americans worshipped them as demigods.
And yet, abortions continue to be legal everywhere. It's almost as if, the supreme court is there to just rubber stamp what the elite class of our country already dictates.
> The second rule of SPAs: we always underestimate the complexity of reimplementing history and link navigation. Often by a large margin. But we get away with not caring because nobody tests history management properly.
Exception to the second rule of SPAS: Users will always test your history management properly.
It's only strange if you believe the CIA released notes from their super-secret psychic program rather than the more plausible explanation that this is disinformation that was backdated for a boost of prestige.