"... then applied to software development in an effort to juice hiring."
How does it 'juice hiring' by removing the ability to deduct 100% of an employee's cost in one year? Who would be incentivized to hire more people when less is deductible?
You interpreted opposite of what he said. The original exception allowing for 100% of R&D expenses to be deducted in the 1st year was the juice. The issue at hand is this exception being reversed.
Apologies, I was speaking to the more general idea of allowing firms to depreciate/amortize assets faster to juice hiring. In this case, the government ended the accelerated amortization for R&D which had been juicing the hiring for many years. This happens on the “regular” capital expenditures side rather frequently with windows of accelerated depreciation to increase the purchase of machinery. It’s always for a window of time, then it expires.
i often use the 'me' channel in slack, but not every device has that. similarly, between myself on apple devices, I might use 'notes' - which is fine (and long lasting) but I like this approach.
i do share the other stated concern about security. offering '5 minute sessions' and/or a way to 'approve' another device connecting would alleviate some concerns about a random unknown connection happening.
Thank you! Device approval seems like a legit way to make it more secure. I also used messaging apps and notes and emails, but then my channels are full of temp messages and not all devices I use have those.
If there's two beds, maybe. If one bed, doesn't matter how many people sleep in it. Maybe twice the towels?
I'll say over the years most places do not respect the "if the towel is not on the floor don't replace it". I'm fine with reusing a towel to dry off twice, but some hotels change them every day, even when their signage is indicating a protocol to prevent that sort of waste.
It's odd, because I've known folks who 'wait', but most of the time, when I hear someone voice a blocker in a standup, it's notice that "this is already something I've tried unblocking by ABC, and have talked to persons XYZ, and it's still a blocker". Or sometimes, people saying "I was blocked yesterday on X for Y hours, which is putting things back a bit, but now moving forward again".
So yeah, waiting until a next meeting to get announce that you're going to start working on a blocking issue is nuts, but I don't actually see that specifically all that much.
"I ran into X, tried Y and Z, then asked Bob, Bob wasn't sure, anybody else have ideas?"
Or
"We discovered a dependency on Team Z to complete Q, Mr Bossman, can you talk to their manager, as the engineers weren't sure what to do?"
And yes, both of those could be handled in Slack. But, as a manager at a medium/large company, the amount of Slack messages I get daily is MASSIVE (both direct and in channels), so a face-to-face has some value in getting the issue front-and-center (and not lost in a pile of clutter).
Yes, in a perfect world, there isn't all the clutter in Slack. But, in 25 years in industry, that's rarely true.
Zulip has been extremely effective in eliminating the need to read every message for my team.
Clear public and private team channels and general “feature” channels too. Might be a few too many; but an interesting fact: in most companies there are as many channels as there are employees!
What's the value of saying you were blocked but now you aren't?
The other case is you're saying it's a reminder. But that should be obvious from any ticketing system - the issue for what you're working on should be set to Blocked and the manager should get a status update email or be able to check it next time they're free.
I think the answer is some managers prefer to have people tell them things in a call.
> What's the value of saying you were blocked but now you aren't?
Going in to huge detail about it, not much, really.
A quick "hey, hit an issue yesterday with ABC, Kris helped me out - thanks Kris!" does a few things.
It reminds everyone we all might need to ask for help now and then.
Gives a bit of public recognition to Kris who might not otherwise get it.
Also lets people know Kris (and now you) know a bit more about issue ABC in case they might have a similar issue.
When I hit weird snags, they're not always things I'd detail out in a ticket, especially if unrelated to the specifics of the ticket. "Add links to help documents" as a ticket doesn't benefit much from me documenting out that I hit some weird issue because the security team didn't add accounts to a new policy group, meaning my emails to the accounting team were bouncing. "Kris confirmed it was an issue for her as well, and reached out to Kevin's group to let him know, and we got things resolved yesterday". Yeah, you could add that to a ticket, but feels useful to mention that in a status meeting. Larger discussion about the process behind those changes or scheduling impact should be taken offline outside the meeting.
"...should be set to Blocked..." do you do that the moment you aren't making forward progress on something? It's something I wouldn't typically do until after some amount of time understanding why I wasn't making progress, and trying to 'unblock' things first within a short period. Days of unblocking attempts without raising a flag are generally not good, but 3 minutes of 'being stuck' before pinging others is also not great imo.
> What's the value of saying you were blocked but now you aren't?
Pattern detection. As a coder, your job is to get past blocks and deliver features at quality and on time. As a manager, your boss's job is to take information in from their directs, synthesize a picture of what's actually going on, and work to make your life easier (and thus, you more productive) in the future. "I was blocked for four hours yesterday because <x>" isn't a big deal, for you; but seeing the commonalities in <x> across the whole team, and over a longer period of time, motivates action to understand the /underlying/ problem and improve it in the future.
I suspect the same number of people were upset in 2006 as would be upset in 2017. But there wasn't a social media platform for those upset views to be expressed and easily measured.
This idea of "oh everyone is offended these days" is a bit weird to me; the 'these days' part I mean. There was a lot of comedy from the past that was... awkward to me as a kid, or just... felt unnecessarily cruel. But I was in a minority, or at least felt like it, with some of those. And... I don't think I changed, but I now can hear/read about others who share the same sensibilities on comedic topics.
The notion that it's somehow "more" people getting "offended" today just strikes me as odd. It may be that as more folks have a platform to share their views, that influences some folks, but I'm not sure that works on all topics. Certainly... on comedy, I've heard many of complaints about some comics/topics. Rarely has anyone's view of a comedy bit made me change my position. If I found it cringe/bad, I found it cringe/bad.
back in days you'd just be "allowed" to make fun out of minorities with them not being able to fight back. now you aren't, and thus the majorities are "oppressed" and everything is "politically correct".
i'm bi. sometimes I watch old Polish comedies or standups. The amount of "jokes" that are just good old bigotry is stupendous.
so when people say they're tired of "political correctness", I do wonder if they mean - I am no longer allowed to be bigot openly, why can't I kick those who I consider to be below me.
People made fun of others and themselves. Now it's only okay to "punch up" which makes things unfunny. It's great you can make fun of religion well only one religion but the rules constrain novel ideas that push outside of those rules to make actual humor. Tell me something I haven't heard before with some truth.
The repeated going back to the well makes everything unfunny. The first time a Polish joke was said was in Poland many Polish watching laughed because their was kernel of truth that made it funny but years later hearing it repeated like it's gospel makes it awful because people have changed but the joke doesn't so it doesn't land as true anymore. Once we start looking why the joke is untrue instead of why it's true the joke is dead.
Saturday night live always tries to go back to a joke that was never really that funny.
Can you not just install an android app from a website? I always thought that was part of the attraction of Android - you could install without an app store requirement like ios. Actually.... I seem to remember building a couple android apps and just linking from a website but... that was... 8(!) years ago. Is that still a thing? Was it ever, or did I just misremember that?
1. It's disabled by default. You have to dig around in your phone's settings to enable APK installations, and APK installations through the specific app you prompted the installer from. And if the developer hasn't updated the app for recent versions of Android, Google will throw up a antivirus-esque "warning this app is unsafe blah blah" prompt.
2. You can't automatically update an app if you manually installed it through an APK. There are apps that can kind of do this (automatically download APK from source website on new release, notify user). But that's clunky and not suitable unless your audience is FOSS-land. Oh, and the user still has to manually click the install button for each app they update this way. No silent updates unless you're rooted.
This makes the distribution of apks through your own processes wholly unviable unless your app is mandatory for your users (I. E for work/school), or your user base is Android FOSS enthusiasts - who probably prefer that you use F-Droid (3rd party FOSS appstore) anyways
> It's disabled by default. You have to dig around in your phone's settings to enable APK installations
At least since the time that the "install apps from unknown sources" permission was migrated from a global toggle to an app-specific permission (maybe even before that?), the dialogue that pops up to tell you that installation has been blocked has a button for directly taking you to the correct settings screen for toggling the permission, so it's just two extra taps.
Sure, at scale even that will confuse/scare off some users, but it's not insurmountable and nowhere near as obscure as having "to dig around in your phone's settings" – just two extra taps and you're good to go (unless your phone manufacturer has made things more complicated there, which does remain a possibility).
Thanks. I've asked people to do testing like this, and with limited people it was manageable. And the last android app I did was internal to a company with maybe 15 users. Getting people to do install/update was ... manageable, just.
Meh... That website might not be available in offline mode. I may want 5 PDFs in an app because it's still easier to find the app than it is to search through 'files' on a device that wasn't designed for managing files.
In 2016 that might have been a reasonable position without digging too much in to his background/history.
But we've had years of him in and out of office now, repeatedly lying. Lying about big things, small things, changing the lies, doubling down on the lies. Threatening people who question any of his lies in even the most polite/positive way possible.
Why anyone today would "trust" him on anything is just... insane.
But a lot of people voted for him. I think a couple of the main issues people voted for him on were cutting illegal immigration and cutting down on wokery and in fairness he's been effective there. If he just stopped with that and changed nothing else I think he'd be pretty popular. Sadly not though.
How does it 'juice hiring' by removing the ability to deduct 100% of an employee's cost in one year? Who would be incentivized to hire more people when less is deductible?