Could you provide more details? Although I've never had the opportunity to use Datadog at any of my previous positions, I am quite familiar with Grafana and I'm generally pretty happy with it.
I think you're missing the point.
The idea is more that avoiding a victim mentality typically leads to better outcomes. This isn't a surefire guarantee, but statistically, it tends to yield more favorable results.
E.g if we plot the range of outcomes for two groups of people, one group embracing a victim mentality and the other not, we'd likely see two power-law curves. However, the curve representing those without a victim mentality would generally trend higher, indicating more positive outcomes.
Applying this to your specific case, if your parents had embraced a victim mentality, there's a likelihood that they would have experienced less success, happiness, etc.
An article that included statistical data to that point would not have received this criticism.
Instead this article is just the assertions of Charlie Munger.
> E.g if we plot the range of outcomes for two groups of people, one group embracing a victim mentality and the other not, we'd likely see two power-law curves. However, the curve representing those without a victim mentality would generally trend higher, indicating more positive outcomes.
What exactly is this based on? Because it _feels_ right? Because it aligns with your own personal beliefs of what makes someone successful?
The article's framing is very clearly "Successful Man has this advice to be successful" but there's no reason given for why this advice is correct in any meaningful way. So, like I said, it might even be good advice, but it's just an appeal to authority. Successful Man said it, and it sounds like common sense, so it must be true.
For all we know, people that feel victimized by a system might be _more_ likely to want to take action to reform the system. There's no data presented, there's just an anecdote about a time when he faced a hardship and didn't adopt victimhood.
How long could Mr. Munger have kept up this belief system had he not met with success. How important was this mindset when compared to the other incredible benefits he received, here's a leg up he had taken from the very beginning of his Wikipedia article.
> Through the GI Bill Munger took a number of advanced courses through several universities.[6] When he applied to his father's alma mater, Harvard Law School, the dean of admissions rejected him because Munger had not completed an undergraduate degree. However, the dean relented after a call from Roscoe Pound, the former dean of Harvard Law and a Munger family friend.
It is quite easy not to adopt a victim mentality when your family friends can reverse a rejection to Harvard Law.
I was interpreting GP as talking about "who is supposed to go first" not "Can I run them over intentionally."
The latter is not allowed anywhere in the US. However, I have seen cops giving a pedestrian a ticket for crossing right next to a giant "No Crossing" sign as they were being loaded into an ambulance. At that particular section of the street the assumption was that the driver did not intentionally hit the pedestrian as there was a blind corner.
Also, I don't know if you saw the footage from a few years back of the self-driving-car hitting the pedestrian in Arizona while the safety driver was on their phone? Without the dash-cam, the driver likely would not have been found at fault, as the cops are likely to believe a driver that says they didn't see a pedestrian crossing in the dark at night until too late.
I really wanted to test this idea last weekend at a crowded festival in a town center. I had been waiting for a spot since parking was basically impossible to find. As I was halfway into the spot, a woman ran up and placed herself an inch from my front bumper while calling her friend four blocks away to tell them she had a spot. I was still blocking the travel lane partially and she refused to move even when I closed that inch down to mere millimeters. I may have even tapped her slightly.
If I hadn't been 1500 miles from home I would have gladly continued moving forward at idle speed or just left my car where it was and gone on my way but any legal hassles would have been extra painful having to travel back and fight it. As it was after about 5 minutes of this, a spot opened up two spaces over and I was able to slide over and grab it.
Crosswalks near High Schools tend to be rather bad as well; the other day I saw a teenager start crossing (walking, not running) when there were 3 seconds left on the countdown. Then one of her friends called out to her from behind while she was in the middle of a travel lane that, by this point, has a green light. She stops, turns, and has a good 15s of back-and-forth conversation before completing walking across the street.
Similar story here. Me and my partner befriended another couple through grad school in our early 20s and the next few years were just the best — we would go to bars, movies, horse races, parties, shows — everything together. And we had so much fun. When I look back on that time it almost feels like I'm remembering a movie.
Then covid happened, they had to move. Most of my other friends moved away as well. I switched jobs and the new job is 100% remote. My life is hell right now in terms of human interactions and I don't really know how to fix it. I feel like in order to establish new relationships I'd have to spend a lot of time with other people doing something together. But between my job and my family I feel like I just don't have time for that.
This is why I love living in the city. I hang out with my current roommate, my old roommate from college, and my sister's current and previous roommates, mostly at or around a local coffee shop.
I don't understand why so many people have such a hard time justifying this.
* If the bank collapses then many startups shut down. This is bad, but okay, maybe you think startups are net negative. In addition to that thousands of people will lose jobs — please explain how this is a good thing. Plus there's a potential for ripple effects from people not trusting banks anymore.
* You say it's a bunch of rich people profiting. Who are these rich people you're talking about? Bank management? They went to zero overnight. Shareholders? zero. Who's left? Garry Tan? He has the same incentives as millions of Americans whose retirement savings are parked in VC funds.
I want to say I'm one of those people who's not personally profiting from this, but I acknowledge that's not true — the economy is connected and stable economy is good for everyone and we should celebrate people who push for it.
I actually personally profit from this as a software engineer working at a startup, but I don't agree with it because I recognize it's unfair.
Let's say my house gets burglarized. Everyone agrees this is a bad thing and unfair to me. However, my insurance only covers $2k, and I lost $20k of stuff. Can I expect the government to "backstop" me?
It's bad that the bank got shut down and depositors might have lost some of their money, but it's not fair to expect the government (and the average person indirectly) to reimburse for this, particularly when that's not how the FDIC policy is written.
Garry Tan and all the people I listed have a lot of their value in YC and startups which have direct losses and direct benefit from getting reimbursed for losses. If it weren't for reimbursement, the effective valuation of the startups would go down, and they'd have to invest more money to keep them afloat. So he has much stronger incentives than ordinary Americans.
The stable economy might be good for everyone, but I certainly will not celebrate rich people that push for their own wealth.
The US economy depends on you trusting that your bank account is less likely to disappear than a pile of cash under your bed is.
That's why the US government steps in for one case and not the other.
There is also precident for the government to pay damages above insurance limits after natural disasters, which from the depositor's point of view this basically is.
From what I understand: SVB offered below-market rates on loans and even personal financing for the founders of companies if you, in return, use them exclusively as your bank and put all your raised capital into an account with them.
You buy favorable rates on loans with the increased risk of putting more than the insured amount into the account.
When your house gets damaged in a flood and you've selected to insure it for $250k because that's cheaper, and you've knowingly built it in a floodplain, is the government still going to cover 100% of the cost of building it?
"If the bank collapses then many startups shut down."
No, the equity gets wiped out, and if it's a good idea/good business it persists and gets funding elsewhere.
"You say it's a bunch of rich people profiting. Who are these rich people you're talking about? Bank management? They went to zero overnight. Shareholders? zero. Who's left? Garry Tan? He has the same incentives as millions of Americans whose retirement savings are parked in VC funds."
The VCs and other equity holders of the SVB depositors. Financial markets work: they could have sold their uninsured deposits at a discount, made payroll, with equity eating the loss.
This was back when A rounds were much more modest in size. We put it in one of the largest and therefore most highly regulated banks, the ones that now have to meet Basel III standards. If we'd had more money, we would have put it in 2 banks. A solution that would have been enough for almost everybody here, as the main thing causing a risk of not making payroll is the way the FDIC is locking up a good chunk of the uninsured funds while they sell off SVB's assets.
What activity would the majority of the population perform now that does not require one to be in the top few percentiles of human intellect (nature or nurture argument aside)?
We moved people from fields to factories to offices with most of them still relegated to doing relatively simple repeatable tasks.
Now if you have a tool which can take over those tasks, get better at doing them and other tasks at almost an exponential rate you might have a problem on your hands.
And no UBI isn’t a solution and one of the possible danger of AI is that the change can be far more rapid than before. Mechanization and industrialization took generations, software can be iterated on and pushed at much greater pace so you also have a major risk that even if societal adaptations would be possible they might not be at the pace of change you’ll likely to see.
Now it doesn’t mean that we should be smashing GPUs and FPGAs en mass however one should not dismiss the danger of what happens when several generations both incumbent and upcoming that were educated and trained for a very specific world all of a sudden find themselves in a very different one.
What's the TL;DR for why Datadog is better?