We got along better before all these managers arrived, could ship huge projects with 100 people and one ceo. And the ceo wrote code and didn't do any of the nonsense most managers fill their days with.
Then when you need to buy a house you have to leave.
Net migration to London from the rest of England and Wales is only positive for those aged 20 to 27
There's plenty of great experienced people outside London, but all the rich (business owners) are openly prejudice to everywhere else. https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cwy57v07gn2o
The issue is actually that there aren't, let's say I go to derby, how many ML engineers will I find, or infrastructure coders, Biomed researchers or industrial chemists.
This sounds far more real to me than the original post. All the technical issues in the world don't bother me unduly, it really is the managers who make you hate work.
Money wise these corps are a system of their own, they pay enough to make you not quit. The more they pay, generally the more they suck.
Just need to wait till my 401k doubles one more time, my kids finish college, and the house is paid off.... just 10 more years
I believe the conclusion is correct in 2025, but the article in a way just perpetuates the 'misinformation', making it seem like finding if your code will compile to a dynamic branch or not is easier than it is.
The unfortunate truth with shaders is that they are compiled by the users machine at the point of use. So compiling it on just your machine isn't nearly good enough. NVIDIA pricing means large numbers of customers are running 10 year old hardware. Depending on target market you might even want the code to run on 10 year old integrated graphics.
Does 10 year old integrated graphics across the range of drivers people actually have running prefer conditional moves over more arithmetic ops.. probably, but I would want to keep both versions around and test on real user hardware if this shader was used a lot.
"it will almost certainly double in value in 7 years" implies 10% is an almost certain long term return. It is not.
10 years is a common rule of thumb to double your investment, this is a good guess since after adjusting for inflation, the real return of S&P 500 is about 6.8%. Which is about 10.5 years to double your investment.
(give or take S&P 500 being one of the best returns you will find historically)
I see an over-reliance on automated tests recently. Often suggesting just passing the CI tests is enough to approve a change. In ancient code it's just as important to limit the blast radius of your changes, and have a good reason for making them. Not changing something is the ultimate way to prevent a regression.
It's also important to realize claim denial isn't the same for all customers. When I was classed as an executive at a large blue chip company, my claims were approved quickly and easily at the company specific hotline. With the same provider, making the same claims, they are now partially denied initially and it requires long phone calls to get them to admit they should be covered and often it just isn't worth the hassle.
That game already exists. Intel and Amd had an odd relationship for years when Intel needed Amd so they could claim that competition existed. Cross licensing instruction sets and the like.
What happened wasn't primarily due to her budget. It was due to a meltdown in the pension sector triggered by over-leverage, arguably caused by the BoE not doing its regulatory duties correctly.
Don't get me wrong, a budget that cuts taxes without cutting spending is no good. But the idea that what happened was a direct consequence of that doesn't make much sense as it had been telegraphed a long way in advance, giving the markets plenty of time to adjust. The central bank changed monetary policy a day before the mini-budget, and changes in that are kept secret until the moment of announcement. Additionally, UK spending has since blown through what the mini-budget would have created without any sudden market turmoil.
Regulators failed to anticipate the dangers that borrowing by pension schemes posed to the stability of the UK’s financial system, according to a parliamentary report into the turmoil that hit the gilt markets following Liz Truss’s disastrous “mini” Budget in September last year.
Pension schemes suffered multibillion-pound losses after they were forced to sell assets to ensure that complex derivative-linked strategies — known as liability driven investments (LDI) — did not implode when gilt yields jumped as investors rejected the then prime minister’s economic strategy.
Also, Truss is basically correct that the UK needs more growth. Disagreeing on her tactics is reasonable, disagreeing on her goals isn't. She was unfortunately attempting to create growth from a position of weakness: in a party that didn't want to do anything hard like cutting spending, and with a fragile/over-leveraged financial sector.
Pull the other one. Only some of the tax cuts had been telegraphed in advance. Abolishing the top rate of income tax and cutting the basic rate early hadn’t been. They ignored all the warnings they were given and sidelined the OBR. The Truss/Kwarteng budget directly crashed the economy and trying to pretend otherwise is some serious revisionism.
The committee report only looked at the regulator. To be sure, the regulator and the pensions industry should have done more. But the idea that Truss and Kwarteng are blameless innocents in the whole fiasco is ridiculous.
That's my point. Crazy economists are not responsible for the damage, it's the elected people who listened to them and followed through. To create an intentionally extreme parallel, imagine they have chosen a group of idk, satanists. Would you blame the group of satanists for being satanists, or the people in charge of a country who contacted a group of satanists for advice?
We got along better before all these managers arrived, could ship huge projects with 100 people and one ceo. And the ceo wrote code and didn't do any of the nonsense most managers fill their days with.