No, it really doesn't. This is akin to saying because people take out second mortgages they really want their money back that they bought their house with.
Being able to leverage a committed sum of money via collateralization is as old as financial systems themselves.
If you can find any specific reasons for your take I'm very open to hearing about them?
In the world of hard money (bitcoin), leverage is extremely dangerous, you may never be able to repay the loan. You would not want to borrow a house worth of bitcoin in a 2nd mortgage -- you could never pay it back!
In the legacy financial world, 2nd mortgages just lead to private inflation of the fiat money supply (the money is being conjured out of nothing to pay for an asset that was already paid for). Nothing is produced, except some energy is burned updating centralized databases.
Having systems where both realities exist is great.
I'm a fan of hard money. It is honest.
Infrastructure / DevOps engineer with ~13 years experience. Design, implementation, and support of large scale enterprise SaaS platforms both on-premise and cloud native environments.
This, exactly. This is basically the entire pitch for my DevOps as a Service business. Let your developers focus on the core product, we'll handle the infrastructure. I don't think employers always realize the productivity and benefits of letting their developers truly focus.
This article was written in 2014 but I can personally attest from my experience it is still just as relevant and true. As the owner / operator of a DevOps As a Service company I see all too often people trying to replace dedicated infrastructure and cloud architecture experts with "Someone who has more of a 70% developer 30% devops background". It's unfair to the person being hired with unrealistic expectations and typically damaging to the company in terms of lost time and productivity.
i know of a company that has defined a position where a single person designs and sets up some technical equipment for two totally different departments led by two different, competing bosses.
this job-holder is routinely overworked and faces extreme demands on their time, requiring on-site presence both early in the morning and late at night. the job-holder must mediate interdepartmental conflict (two bosses). and there's no path to promotion.
the company keeps losing people in this position. it keeps casting a wider net, bringing in people from further and further away.
this is a solid, successful company with a reputation as one of the very best places to work in the county. but it has never bothered to redefine the position into two or more separate jobs. it's just churn and burn.
i'm not sure what the moral is. managers exploit the labor pool until they can't any more. then they look for another labor pool. if that doesn't work they whine and complain that they "can't find workers" to fill their jobs.
Very inspiring. Coming across a "geerlingguy" ansible repo in my searches for pre-existing ansible roles is always a treat as I know it will be solid quality.
Im not an insider so I could be wrong, but I read about underperformance through news articles. Here's one i just read
> Since the beginning of 2012, Bridgewater’s Pure Alpha II has posted an annualized return of 2.5 percent, according to a document reviewed by Bloomberg Markets, a far cry from its historic average of 12 percent. It’s down 2.8 percent this year through July. (A smaller Bridgewater hedge fund, Pure Alpha Major Markets, has fared better, as has the company’s long-only product.)
> Even a hardcore fan is concerned about performance. “Their returns have been unspectacular recently, and it makes you wonder if this is the beginning of the end,” says Michael Rosen, chief investment officer of Angeles Investment Advisors, who’s steered clients to Bridgewater since the early 2000s and prizes its research reports over others in the industry. “There’s only been one market cycle since the financial crisis, and so if this performance continues in the next cycle, then there may be cause for concern.”
Being able to leverage a committed sum of money via collateralization is as old as financial systems themselves.
If you can find any specific reasons for your take I'm very open to hearing about them?