I can't think of a situation where the CEO could hit her targets well enough to get a bonus but no one else could. Everyone's targets should be implicitly linked to the CEO's targets.
Also, a good CEO who supported the company and the team would turn down their bonus in this situation. To lead you need to be seen to be in the same boat as everyone else, or no one will follow you.
I have the exact same experience with AP. I trust it on highways until a merge or lane split is ahead. I think it's so silly that the decision making isn't more robust..
If I can't trust AP with simple road rules, then why bother upgrading to FSD?
FSD handles road rules significantly better: the road up to my house has a complicated five-way intersection with a railroad crossing that EAP could never handle. FSD navigates it perfectly. For my 40 minute compute, there are about three spots where there’s predictable road issues that force me to disengage (no safety issue, just the car gets really hesitant) but otherwise it’s obviously an upgrade from non-FSD.
I feel the same. Most my friends just use Instagram (for memes mostly). I like using just Snapchat for sharing photos with my close friends, which is better than sharing with literally everyone.
Of course, you still have people who's primary motive is to farm for likes. I don't see their attitudes changing anytime soon..
I have a Valve Index as well, but I don't understand how it is a pain to setup. It's basically like putting two picture frames on the wall.
It's good to see that more consumers will come onboard with this insanely good price. I don't know if it is needed to propel VR forward, but at least more people can experience it.
You're probably the same type of person who also doesn't understand why it's such a pain for anyone else to build their own PC rather than just buying it outright.
I had that pain with base station 1.0 with the Vive Pro. Why?
1. As I've already mentioned, not everyone wants to drill into their walls. Some people who live in certain types of apartments can't even if they wanted to. Now you need to figure out how to best setup camera tripods
2. The base stations need line of site to each other. You can't just focus on getting the perfect view of the play area.
3. If you can't get line of site depending on your room configuration and furniture, then you need to buy a 100 ft or longer cord to connect them, or you have to deal with your headset or controllers not being tracked. ie. not working
Base Station 2.0?
1. If two base stations isn't enough for your play area due to room configuration or furniture layout, then you may need to buy more base stations which cost $200 (each?).
Sure, set up could be as easy as you remember it, but it could easily get complicated, and it's a hassle. I don't enjoy hanging picture frames.
I screwed the base stations into a piece of wooden 2x4, and stuck the latter to the wall with two bits of Command hanging tape. Super easy. The kit ought to come with these pieces imo.
That's a lot of work for many people, and let's be honest many wouldn't even know how to do that let alone have have random pieces of wood in their house. Not to mention you've ignored all of the points I've brought up. I also really love external base stations. Nothing compares in terms of accuracy. Still I feel it's useful to not be so enamored with something that you're no longer able to look at them objectively. You've also forgotten the part about base stations being expensive and it's a hassle to go to the hardware store just for setting up VR.
Not everyone has empty high bookshelves in their play area. Difficulty depends on your current room configuration. Not everyone lives in the same house nor do they have the same exact furniture.
I think this is pretty spot on. I'd like to think many of us are similar to home builders. We have all the standard supplies/tools at our disposal. The blueprints are quite similar to other homes because that's what our users expect, something familiar.
> Of the populations analyzed, 82 per cent were found to be below levels that can produce maximum sustainable yields, due to being caught at rates exceeding what can be regrown. Of these, 87 populations were found to be in the “very bad” category, with biomass levels at less than 20 per cent of what is needed to maximize sustainable fishery catches.
It seems to me that we don't have a clear concept of sustainable commercial fishing looks like (with regards to wild capture). Thankfully, it seems Aquaculture is on the rise to offset increasing demand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_industry
If you're craving some philosophy I would recommend "The Problems of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell. It's about 160 pages and you can easily skip around to chapters that interest you. Quite thought-provoking.
I have a Fred on my team. He recently took a few weeks to refactor a large part of the codebase which consisted of about 200 file changes. The problem with this approach is that he never discussed his changes with the team, leaving the discussion until code review time. Some refactoring doesn't quite need a discussion, but large changes should.
It should go without saying that I think refactoring is super valuable. The way to go about it is to:
1. Recognize what in the codebase you see an opportunity to refactor
2. Discuss with the team (more experienced developers can have some useful suggestions)
3. Write a separate ticket for the changes (you can prioritize this after your required work)
Obviously, #3 won't work if your group doesn't value refactoring. In that case, you should bring up the conversation. You'll probably find many/most of your coworkers will be in agreement.
