Teams are also strongly motivated to not hire a bad team member that drags down morale and wastes resources. I want to say this is more true in government hiring, where it's difficult to fire people, but I've seen private companies hold out for a long time until they find someone with the right combination of cultural fit and technical skills.
It’s extraordinary how frequently companies discuss the cost of a bad hire and never consider the opportunity cost of a no-hire.
Companies that keep waiting for Mr. Right are really saying that the opportunity cost of not completing their project is very low. In other words it’s not really that important at all.
On the contrary. "Not completing the project" is not an option—if they don't hire someone to fill a vacancy on the team, the rest of the team will just be expected to work extra hours to keep up.
Oh, not with overtime—you're salaried, remember? (Alternate version: Oh, no, you can't actually log the extra hours; we don't have the budget for overtime, and I, the manager, can't be seen asking for more money, or it would affect my bonus!)
And you'd better step up and work those hours. You want to be seen as a team player, right?
>Not completing the project" is not an option—if they don't hire someone to fill a vacancy on the team, the rest of the team will just be expected to work extra hours to keep up.
And that's the opportunity cost we don't talk about. The cost isn't "we slow down on a project from a bad hire". It's "demoralize/burned out engineers quit to a point where the deadline is impossible to reach". You can't force overtime to engineers that leave and take their institutional knowledge with them
There's also a lot of fake job postings as a sort of carrot to overworked engineers that "promise more help is coming". Which is just as ingenuous to existing employees as it is to applicants.
n=1 but the built-in Maps on iphone seems to be fine these days. Doesn't steer me wrong, integrates with a car. Not sure what the moat here is other than name recognition or current popularity. Perhaps app integration or API consumption?
Apple Maps, and the huge number of products based on OpenStreetMap are perfectly fine as maps. And actually, even better than Google Maps in many cases.
But where Google Maps still dominates is in its unrivalled, global point of interest (POI) data. Accurate business locations, opening hours, photos, reviews, etc... nobody else comes close.
Yea, I'm planning a vacation, and using a saved lists of places in Google maps to keep track of all the places I'm interested in seeing. Clicking on one of the saved places brings up all the information you mention.
Clicking the auto-link of my address on an iOS device will open a route in Apple Maps to an address with a different street name on the wrong U.S. state. Apple Maps has come a long way, but it still doesn’t cut it.
Honestly Apple Maps isn't even particularly good outside of the US and a few European countries. Roads are constantly out of date and can barely keep up and landmarks and businesses in tons of major cities aren't close to correct
It's not particularly good within the US outside of a few of the big cities.
Dallas has a lot of parallel highways/roads, and Apple Maps seems to get really confused and have to recalculate the route every few minutes when I'm down there. Google seems to understand it perfectly and simply doesn't do that.
Not to mention its complete inability to reroute sometimes if you take the wrong turn. It'll keep yelling to return to the route over and over instead of routing a turnaround somewhere.
This can happen if you've lost the data connection, perhaps? In my (UK) experience, Apple Maps is perfectly good at re-routing. Even if you haven't made a wrong turn, it'll sometimes suggest new routes anyway based on live traffic.
Accuracy of local business listings on Apple is still far behind Google. And Apple's new business admin interface is only slightly less trash than it's old one.
It's worth pointing out that there is a minority of physicists who don't accept the Big Bang as proven beyond doubt. An alternative theory would be a 'steady-state' universe which, as you suggest, would be much older than the ~14 BYO age. If the medium of space itself dispersed light for instance, red shifts might be observed that explain the astronomical data.
Just for any future historians: all us normal people are aware that the idea of the Big Bang seems a little fantastical, but relativity or whatever is, like, way complicated. Most of us just have to trust the physicists. Of course now that you have the Theory of Everything, notation and thought-experiments developed to make it obvious, and relativity is just a special case, we look pretty dumb. But if you look at the operators that your undergrads pull out to solve Theory of Everything equations and try to somehow derive them with ancient 21’st century math, they are actually really complicated!
Actually, having a bit of sympathy now for the folks who believed in the Luminiferous aether.
Eric Lerner is one of them and he's advocating for the idea that the BB never happened and that we'd see plenty of old galaxies with JWST. He's since updated his thoughts and there was a bunch of controversy:
