Your comment is almost completely incomprehensible to me, as someone that doesn't work in the Meta context...
I take it being an L5 is a good thing? but just six months ago you were an L8, and competition to become an L6 was a coin toss? No idea what 'price discovery' could mean in this situation, other than a fairly weird way to say 'salary range'? And any of this having to do with 'the bond market' is just baffling!
The reason I bring it up is that I'm genuinely curious what life is like in other corners of the tech world. Any way you could translate the above into non-Meta terms?
> I worked at Facebook for 4 years and also don't understand that comment.
I have never worked for FB and I thought it was fine. None of that is FB-specific.
> I take it being an L5 is a good thing?
It's implied lower numbers are better.
>> it was me and 20 other L8s interviewing for the same L6 opening
> but just six months ago you were an L8, and competition to become an L6 was a coin toss?
Yes, due to the number of people competing for the same position.
> No idea what 'price discovery' could mean in this situation, other than a fairly weird way to say 'salary range'?
Salary range implies stability. eg What a company is willing to pay for what positions. There has been a lack of standardization in talent across tech and instability in compensation. Another way to think of it is an increased risk tolerance in wages. This has been fueled by leniency in promotion/raises/hiring when profits were higher.
> And any of this having to do with 'the bond market' is just baffling!
Monetary policy (around interest rates) is directly related to profit margins and hiring. Suffice to say, this is common knowledge for anyone who owns property (beyond a car, maybe) or tracks the job market.
Can you further elaborate on why monetary policy is directly related to profit margins?
My understanding is that monetary policy / interest rates is controlled by the FED. When they raise rates then money is more expensive, therefore profit margins shrink, and the hiring bar has to increase.
I was 35 years old before I had the faintest idea how money works, like even a little.
And the only way I learned even a little is because I lived in NYC for a bit and ended up hanging with a bunch of Street cats after work, who laugh their asses off about how clueless we all are (in that moment personified by yours truly).
But you get a few G&Ts into them and they’re pretty happy to teach you Econ 101.
https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Facebook,Amazon,Google&track... says higher numbers are better (more senior, more highly paid) at Facebook, so maybe the GGP post is talking about working at Meta, leaving, and then coming back to apply for a less senior role than they'd had previously? It confused me.
Ah one minor critique, you didn’t tell them about the last time the same office that goes after terrorism and money laundering and stuff took time out of their day and busted all these same firms for wage fixing in the ancient days of just over ten years ago in federal court.
We overlapped in NY. But assuming your username is your real name, I don’t remember you. I worked mostly on iOS infra stuff (crash reporting, battery usage tracking, etc).
They were hired as a level 5 over a decade ago. They got promoted a bunch until they were level 8. At some point they left. Now they are trying to come back. The market is so bad that they have lowered their standards and are only applying for level 6 roles. Still a bunch of other level 8s are competing for that lower level job so the chance of them getting it is lower.
The bond market/interest rate comment is saying this is part of why the economy is bad.
Price discovery I am not that confident in the meaning. I think it means companies and candidates are having a hard time figuring out what each other are worth. So you have highly skilled people not getting the offer numbers they want because their skills are not being recognized.
L8 is a bit of a guess. I was an L7 five years ago and have been training hard since. Maybe I’m still a 7.
I think you and I are thinking similarly about price discovery. Markets get disrupted, it’s not unprecedented or anything, but in general there’s some price between zero and infinity that a person can make, and seeing that go from X to “no transaction” abruptly is less ideal than it going from X to X - Y because supply and/or demand changed.
Well behaved pricing curves are existential in a bunch of really key markets, to the point that institutions preserve those properties.
Whether one is a tech worker or a struc steel pro or a teacher, anything, it seems a weird exception to “we need differentiable pricing curves here”.
Sounds great in theory but I'd suspect that you'd cave pretty soon after your bank adopts this (or whatever essential site/service you aren't considering is captured here).
This is a frustrating yet common sort of take. Yes, this is simple, as the article clearly points out. Yes it is obvious in retrospect. But did you do anything with your brilliant work besides bodge your terrible car a few more miles down the road?
There is value to developing the entire system... to ensuring the keypad mechanism is reasonably robust and tamper proof. There is value to understanding the vehicle as a system and reasoning out this defense strategy. There will be value in preliminary productization of something this for mass production, especially as regards the use of that terrible 12v power port and providing the 'fingerprint' in a safe range of voltage fluctuations to avoid catastrophic and probably non-obvious failure modes. There will likely be D.O.T. paperwork, and UL listing.
$1.2 million is probably a bit meager to truly develop something like this.
Yes, you can hobble some crap together on your Montero. Congratulation. Hardly a solid foundation to speak ill of this team doing something genuinely productive.
It is obvious in retrospect because this concept has been around for 30 years. A common killswitch mechanism that I remember being implemented in the early 90's was a system that tied into accessory devices. On my friends car you had to put the key to ACC, then turn the cruise control on and off, and then engage and disengage the parking brake before the car would start. No other obvious lights, buttons, switches, etc. And you could install the killswitch device to tie into basically any 2 systems that used battery power.
My father disconnected the distributor (correct word?) and took a piece of it with him. Definitely a killswitch. That was in the 70s. Cars got more complicated around 1980.
> My father disconnected the distributor (correct word?) and took a piece of it with him.
Yes, my dad was used to removing the rotor from the distributor (small piece, easy to pop off and unless the thief just happens to have the correct model handy, the car can't run) back in the 60s (maybe he did it earlier).
I'm pretty sure some form of this has been popular for just about as long cars have had an electrical system.
But Dropbox made rsync more user friendly and available to people who weren't techies.
The concept of a starter interrupter has been around almost as long as the automobile itself. Ways to engage and disengage that interrupter have evolved and advanced over the years. Older folks will remember cars with a keyswitch on the front fender, and then a keypad inside, and then hidden switches like I described in my OP, and then IR and RF remotes, and so forth.
The basic concept in the linked article is not very novel, IMO. The specific implementation is cute, and somewhat current in the sense of evolution of these systems. But the whole thing is as noteworthy as the next arm64 advancement.
Is there actually a significant rise in car thefts? Or did we just hit an acute rise in car thefts of two particular models, caused by the discovery (Well, publication, really) that they are still using 30-year-old security?
Good question, it seems like car theft is on the rise, yes. And it’s spiking in particular metro areas (Milwaukee, Chicago) more than average, although national trends are also up.
In California, if youre car is stolen and then found, the cops will give you a fat ticket and tow your car and then give you a ticket for it getting towed. Somehow getting the car towed is also a ticket.
Moving illegally parked cars for the myriad reasons it is necessary is completely understandable. The fuckery, though, is beyond the pale. It should be a fine of the cost of doing business of moving your piece and not a penny more. Instead it's a racket
A salient issue has been that Hyundai/KIA didn't implement any anti-theft mechanisms on certain models, and recently the details about how to steal these cars has become popular knowledge, and now people who own the affected models can't even get insurance on them.
There's been some other exploits to infotainment systems, but AFAIK, they are all limited to proof of concepts. And the radio-repeater that almost works occasionally on some cars with wireless key access (better implementations have proximity detection which prevents this attack vector).
As it turns out, immobilizers are pretty damn effective.
If I owned an effected Hyundai/KIA, I'd do like we all did with 90s cars and put a killswitch in. It's not professional car thieves hitting the bulk of these cars, but mostly bored people showing of. So if YT can't show them what to do if the car won't start, they will go away.
I would say because of how it must be installed, and that it is probably not common knowledge. In my country, it is not unheard of, but I hadn't heard of it until my electrician mentioned seeing one on a car he worked on recently. I asked if he can install one for me, and he said he doesn't know how, nor did he know the name of the person that installed the one on the other car.
> On my friends car you had to put the key to ACC, then turn the cruise control on and off, and then engage and disengage the parking brake before the car would start.
That’s a cute trick, but if a current day equivalent is integrated into modern day cars (i.e. CANBUS-based), then the security is already defeated.
No one challenged the security of the “cruise control cheat code” of the 1990s simply because there were no devices small enough.
The other bit is that criminals weren’t sophisticated enough.
And that's all well and good, but maybe introspect here for a second? You're upset that your accomplishments aren't being respected, immediately after discounting the accomplishments of others.
The point is that your car's modifications and the university's are similar, but different, particularly in scale and broad robustness, which adds difficulty in ways you may not be appreciating.
$1.2 million may sound like a lot to you, but to pay a team of people to work on, and provide materials for them to work with (especially cars, which generally aren't cheap, especially used cars right now!)... Well, it likely doesn't go as far as you think it does.
The professor did gloss over briefly the difficulty in making the system work for a large number of vehicles, before arriving at a viable "signature" idea, as the article describes. Sounds like an area with a lot of false starts (heh) and time consumption, and dead ends.
The professor should have seen that he could send a signature over the airwaves to his relay since that is even more universally compatible… plus, you can buy that exact device for about $20 at the online retailer of your choice.
Cover the two PhD students at the NIH payscales for PhD students on a standard training grant[1] ($43,894 not including benefits) and you've used up over a quarter of your budget on less than half the salary needs, completely ignoring any research costs that need to be covered on top of the much higher payscales of the professors. Plus a large number of PhD students in this kind of work make more than the states stipend above. Not extravagant.
Where are you seeing $44k? The link you gave shows payscales for postdocs, and points to another page [1] showing that predoctoral trainees get $27k.
Also, in my field and in my region, $27k is massive funding. I don't know anybody who makes that much, let alone $44k, and we also don't get tuition or benefits covered. Our TA/RA union is currently striking because it's essentially impossible to live off of funding alone.
I'll give you that I misread bullet 2, so the total is a little over 31k. But grants that fund salaries for predoctoral scholars don't just fund the salary itself, they also cover the additional funds listed on that page. You can't partially fund a trainee on a grant. In any case, this wildly misses the forest for the trees - 1.2 mil in grants does not cover 6 years of salary plus research costs for 2 trainees and 2 professors full stop.
Absolutely, 6 years with a 1.2mil grant is ridiculous. I was just hopeful that somewhere there were PhD students making enough money to live from research
I’m not disparaging their work. It is probably really cool, and they probably published some great information that will be useful to many. I don’t doubt it was challenging for them, but I do doubt that the problem was fundamentally challenging from en engineering perspective.
As for my “work” it is literally insignificant tinkering by a bored old fucker with nothing better to do than chat on hacker news.. I don’t even respect my work, and anyone who thinks more of it than digging a ditch is just wrong and has obviously never dug a ditch.
But, just calling it like it is, the “signature “ thing they are working on is something that is already solved for decades and if it took anyone more than a week they may not have a clue what they are doing. I have implemented a version of it myself in a technically adjacent application.
In case anyone cares enough - and you probably shouldn’t- feel free to read my incoherent ranting that follows:
In my case I use load vector analysis it to detect and characterise loads on our microgrid. We have several buildings and houses, and we run 100 percent solar on an off grid system.
Using an esp32 and a current transformer coil on each of the three phases, with some good 16 bit ADCs, we monitor and characterise loads. Each of the refrigeration compressors has a somewhat unique starting and load profile. Each water pump in our utility system similarly has a unique startup and load profile. Same with air compressors, fans, and other equipment.
The profiles are programmed into the esp32 by putting it in calibration mode and switching the load off and on 10 times. It’s a pain in the ass because you have make sure no big changes happen in the power system in the meantime, but it works.
The MCU saves the signature as a vector and assigns it a number if it doesn’t sit too close to any existing vector signature.
It is really good actually, even being able to discriminate between identical pumps on the system because of their supply impedance and loading.
I’m not a data scientist or an actual engineer so I adapted some vector code from a DSP project, and the whole thing took me about 2 days using the Arduino IDE (please kill me)
I’m basically an idiot. Anyone who does this for a living should be able to do it in less than half the time.
There are still some rare false negatives because a grid can be quite chaotic, but in general it’s very accurate. In a simple D.C. system like a car in the off condition with predictable loads I would fully expect 4 nines discrimination.
What they did was cool, but it wasn’t hard. Not saying it wasn’t hard for them, and maybe they learned a lot, but I’m pretty sure that 1.2 million to solve the problems described in the article is two orders of magnitude off of reasonable.
From the provided description, If a single engineer with decent tools could not have this from zero to a production ready GERBER file with masks, stencils, and the works to send off for automatic assembly inside of a month they should probably look for another line of work.
Of course, if they work like I do which is to say they don’t, very much, and they mostly drink coffee and fuck off all day, then I’d give them a month and a half knowing full well they did all of the actual work in a week of panicked thrashing, creating months of technical debt in every line of code to build the glass house that somehow works without passing any of the tests but that’s fine you just rewrite the tests.
Of course certification and things like that are a whole different beast, but this was a CORE research grant.
1 line barely acknowledging the criticism, 4 lines defending the car whose feelings I can assume have been mortally wounded. The defensiveness around the car is ironic given how casually you threw out your needlessly negative hot-take.
Nah, you can’t hurt pure evil. It just sits there, awaiting its next victim.
I hate that beast, but it’s my beast to hate.
You can’t just talk shit about it from your comfy chair, or sitting on the toilet with no circulation to your feet, or whatever — that’s something you earn.
You earn it with mild first degree burns on your right leg and tinnitus like the rest of us.
If I seem abrasive and unnecessarily combative, it’s probably just the incessant itching of my leg and the trauma from driving that thing.
There are dozens of similar mechanisms for sale on Amazon/aliexpress. A car alarm with an immobilizer is more advanced than this “innovation”.
They are claiming that the novel part is using voltage fluctuations to unarm the immobilizer and claiming that it requires less installation since the signaler device can plug directly into the cigarette outlet. A wireless relay requires the same cuttoff relay installation as their “new” idea, but is even more convenient because you don’t have to install a bodged together keypad on the cigarette lighter, and short your electrical system to cause voltage fluctuations.
They have blown through 1.2mm in grant money and their product is a bunch of prototype parts from a $50 arduino starter kit. It isn’t polished, it isn’t ready for consumers, it is a single prototype.
I guess the idea of causing voltage fluctuations is novel, but they sort of reinvented a $30 wheel for 1.2 million.
I work for a major OEM in automotive. Getting ANYTHING “simple” into real cars, especially anything related to physical access and starting the vehicle, is a huge undertaking. $1.2 mm is cheap for this sort of feature, assuming that money goes to the actual implementation, standardization, homologation, and integration on the assembly line.
> $1.2 mm is cheap for this sort of feature, assuming that money goes to the actual implementation, standardization, homologation, and integration on the assembly line.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounded like the $1.2mm went to some prototypes and a research paper.
They already spent $1.2mm. They have a prototype hand wired together. This isn’t even close to production ready, and it never will go into production because almost every new vehicle has an immobilizer built in that is authenticated via an nfc chip in the key that does exactly what this does, but transparently without driver input.
The car is a complicated product. It’s not a website. It’s not an app. My employer has 120k+ employees and factories in every continent except Antarctica. Regulatory bodies interject with anything related to access and security, and those bodies are different in every country/region. The product itself is massive physical good that many countries consider domestic production of which to be a matter of national security. Every single physical change to the product is analyzed by bean counters. Shipping the product requires at least some level of expertise in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, hardware, software, and manufacturing. You need factories, regulatory approval, supplier networks, programmers, drivetrain engineers, management, people to lobby the government, accountants, and much more. You need it all.
You’d be shocked at how difficult adding a single physical button to any given car can be. Scoffing at $1.2mm for a new ECU that relates to security is naive. “I could do this in one day in my garage” is not how shipping a change to automotive products works.
There is zero novel research here, and the entire purpose of the 1.2 million dollar grant was research. All the value you are mentioning is related to bringing a product to market, which is something that the grant did not require and universities don't usually follow through. Most of the time transition to industry happens is when there are motivated companies who do all the work to bring the device to market, but need university patent licenses and expertise to do so. This would be a great senior project, but it is a complete waste of money for a cyber security grant.
I disagree: the device monitors battery fluctuations to 'authenticate' the driver. the fluctuations need to be a specific pattern - delivered either by a device plugged into the 12v accessory port, or by some specific pattern of driver behavior, such as quickly flashing lights, activating wipers, etc. This is indeed a novel approach.
And it is a fair sight more involved than a simple kill switch, by the look of things. The research aspect comes from exploring the practicality of such an approach. This exploration requires prototypes, test beds and investigators.
Who's really to say what the results of the research will be, at this point? In my opinion, I think smart phones and NFC are probably the way to go... but I'm not going to hop on the internet and make scornful remarks until I know more. I'm not sure why you have done so?
That's the problem with the whole concept. Anybody can build a shockingly simple kill switch for $5 and a 5 video on YouTube. What are they trying to bring to market exactly? Cars have been around for 100 years and there have been hundreds if not thousands of these things brought to production during that time. They're all junk, they all fail and flop.
And great if you thing that those voltage fluctuations are gonna be consistent. Eventually some switch will corrode and then the person's wiper switch won't fluctuate the voltage properly. Nobody will want to reset their clocks using this every time they get in the car. Your break-in alarm won't work with the battery disconnectred. Car manufacturers will be pissed that you're disconnecting the battery because they can't get your telemetry and the car can't update while you're not int it. And then when you have problems, this will be the first thing ripped out of the car by your mechanic. This whole concept is flawed, and anybody with basic car or electronics knowledge will stay away from this thing because they can do it themselves.
And here's the kicker... anybody who doesn't have basic knowledge won't be hooking this thing up to their battery. They are terrified of even touching the battery. Congratulations on your marketing BS, but it's clearly not thought out from a common sense perspective at all.
If you read TFA then you'd realize they've solved almost every issue you throw down. They allow enough current through to power electronics (like your break-in alarm) but not enough to turn the engine over.
The target market for this is not "anyone with basic car or electronics knowledge who can do it themselves"... it's, "people who want an extra level of defense against car thieves".
This is the same kind of take as going to a nice restaurant and loudly exclaiming "$50 for a steak?! I could pay $8 at the butcher and make the same thing at home!"
It's more like a researcher getting a $1M grant to study whether putting salt on a steak makes it taste better, and a chef saying "Wtf, we've been doing this forever"
To be fair, most universities are great at interesting research but are also terrible at even preliminary productization. I highly doubt this $1.2M will go towards DOT paperwork and UL listing. This will go to a research prototype, then either get dropped off at the tech transfer IP office (good luck there), or spin out a startup. In the latter case, I'd have much rather seen this grant go directly to the startup, than pay the high Uni overhead.
$1.2 million sounds like a lot but there is a team of people working on it for a whole year. There is some insurance OP doesn't have in case it's proven one of these devices did cause a crash. If this was some Kickstarter I feel like it would cost more and be 3 years behind already.
> There is value to developing the entire system... to ensuring the keypad mechanism is reasonably robust and tamper proof. There is value to understanding the vehicle as a system and reasoning out this defense strategy. There will be value in preliminary productization of something this for mass production,
Optional extra on Series 1 Citroën XMs, an immobiliser keypad programmed into the engine ECU. It cost about 100 quid in 1990 money, on a 40 grand luxury car. Most V6es and 2.5 diesels had them, few 4-cyl petrols or 2.1 diesels had them.
There's no need to spend $1.2M developing something that's already existed for a long time. This was actually a development of a similar keypad fitted to most Citroën CX Turbos, from the mid-1980s. The idea is nearly 40 years old.
It's inexpensive proven technology, and it works well.
|For example, what combination of shell commands can I use to output the number of files in a directory? Hint: it probably isn't what you think it is, if it's even possible.
the inode is the important thing when all is said and done. It is flexible in that it can contain all the metadata needed to present a file to a process. Sometimes that metadata is a list of blocks in the filesystem. sometimes it points to another inode.
I think of it like an old-timey 'card catalog'. You have a bunch of tiny drawers filled with cards. Some of the cards are big and blank spacers with a prominent tab sticking above the normal top edges (Directory). Sometimes you have a card that points to another card elsewhere in the catalog (link). Sometimes you find the details of a specific book on a specific shelf (block data).
Point is, they are all cards. The comment essentially asked for a command to say 'how many cards between these two spacers'. It's a "trick" question as old as usenet to spring the distinction between link inodes and list of blocks inodes and say "Ah-HAH!! gotcha", but in reality it's a silly game of jumping levels, misdirecting semantics and prey upon the distribution of understanding in a forum for personal glory.
The inode is the item, it is the card that is being counted, no matter what is printed on it. imho.
So... I visited Reddit before coming here and finding the HN thread...
Most of the site is rebelling, but I took the time to visit, intending to give them impressions, just to see how they are holding up. And of course they aren't really holding up as we can see.
But their handling is unbelievably tone deaf - I was greeted by the message that I broke Reddit. They gave me the grade of 'F'. I refreshed the page and they showed me a cartoon corpse.
I get that it's a tongue-in-cheek leftover from happier times, but considering the circumstances it sure came off as hostility aimed at the few people willing to give them a chance on this dark day.
I mean, I was really just rubbernecking... so maybe i deserved it for my schadenfreude, but still. It is casual hostility directed at the source of their user generated content. It's not in good taste. But I suspect it would never occur to the entitled mindset of their leadership.
Those error pages are actually infuriating. Maybe I'm just getting older but seeing "You broke reddit" and all the other shit annoys the hell out of me. It's their website, the error should be "we fucked sometning up, sorry" and be done with it.
I agree, I really long for the days of simple "there was an error" messages. This trend of "you bwoke us" or "OOPSIE WOOPSIE!! Uwu We made a fucky wucky!! A wittle fucko boingo! The code monkeys at our headquarters are working VEWY HAWD to fix this!" messages is infuriating to me even more than a simple error.
Following the trend, trend setting, been like that since for ever, or something else: name it what you will. Whatever it is, I'd certainly call out the presence of a (less than welcome, imo) trend.
If Reddit didn't follow this trend, they created it.
The tongue in cheek communication and cute illustrations on error pages started with web 2.0 and is now so prevalent that a regular system error message is a refreshing experience.
Imagine being a non-tech savvy user or someone who understands the world more literally than figuratively. That sort of message could be pretty confusing for them.
It depends on the type of user, even among the non-tech savvy.
A message as simple as "Sorry, reddit is receiving too much traffic right now and can't handle your request. Try loading this page later.", 99% of people will understand.
But there's that 1% of people that aren't just non-savvy, they're willfully non-savvy to the point where words stop having meaning to them just because they're referring to something related to a computer. The type where if you ask them something as simple as "Is the computer turned on?", they say they don't know. Meanwhile, the screen is showing their desktop.
So they actually made the intentional decision to change it back to the much more accusatory "you broke it", I'm not sure exactly when that occurred but I suspect it was roughly the time spez took over.
Similarly, the self-important prima donnas of Mozilla who think the fate of the universe depends on forcing their shitty “zarro boogs found” in-joke on the general population — or rather, the subset of users who are only there because they’re already frustrated by a bug … that they now can’t find an existing ticket for.
seeing "You broke reddit" and all the other shit annoys the hell out of me.
Could be getting older indeed, but his one, and "guru meditation error", almost make me act like younger me again feeling a sudden urge to smash my monitor into pieces
I was thinking that because today is the first day of the protests, which have garnered a lot of attention by media and individuals, that traffic might actually spike because everyone is checking in to see how it's going.
I had a look at this paper, and in the citations I see two papers from Jonathan Pruitt!
For those unfamiliar, Jonathan Pruitt is a _former_ Professor charged with falsifying massive amounts of data relating to spider behavior. I was under the impression that most of his papers had been retracted.
I was not expecting anyone to reference his work. I will have to check it out, to see if this is still commonplace in the field - based on the hubbub and furor and #Pruittgate hashtags during the pandemic years, I was under the impression that spider biology was set back 10 years and nobody would touch the guy with a 10-foot pole.
I don't know about the meme, but the spider webs done by drugged spiders dates back to 1948, by Swiss pharmacologist Peter N. Witt and later repeated elsewhere. If there's questions as to it's veracity, it's not mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
I don't think this is accurate - "navy pilots" are domain experts in operation of navy aircraft.
What you are maybe getting confused here is that the three examples in the article are actually part of several domains, each of which is very different from aviation expertise.
The domains we're talking about include topics such as optical physics, radar physics (transmitters & receivers), optical sensor technology (and attendant physics), and digital processing including chipset hardware and software stack (and implementation of specific physics). Each of these are their own 'domain', which is important here because faulty implementation in any one of them can lead to such anomalies.
In general, navy pilots do not have that expertise, though I would very much like to hear the opinions of a navy pilot that is indeed 'expert' with all of these 'domains'.
getting a degree in aeronautics is not like passing a driving exam or heavy machinery license.
though I reject analyses that lean towards LGM, i recognise that people flying these aircraft have necessarily demonstrated enough advanced math and physics competency to understand well the boundary between known vs inexplicable physical phenomena. they are either deliberately ignoring their own training or else have some undiagnosed amnesia, instigated by sudden exposure to celebrity status.
I take it being an L5 is a good thing? but just six months ago you were an L8, and competition to become an L6 was a coin toss? No idea what 'price discovery' could mean in this situation, other than a fairly weird way to say 'salary range'? And any of this having to do with 'the bond market' is just baffling!
The reason I bring it up is that I'm genuinely curious what life is like in other corners of the tech world. Any way you could translate the above into non-Meta terms?