In most cases, you are granted a notional dollar amount that is immediately turned into a concrete and fixed number of shares that then vest over the next 4 years.
Then, any share price appreciation on the shares is captured by you at vesting, rather than being paid in cash (the value of which has been inflated away) and then purchasing shares/index that has risen in the last 1-4 years.
If you are paid in cash, you will be buying fewer shares per dollar (and per year) rather than getting the same number.
Right, but cash compensation could be structured the same way, minus whatever would be settled on for the retention value to the employer of the vesting schedule.
I get your point. The value of stock isn’t that it’s stock per se, but rather that it’s inflation-resistant even when illiquid.
It's optionality that only has an upside financially, while the downside is just having to do more interviews.
Let's say you're worth 300k on the open market as a senior software engineer. If you get a job that pays 200k a year + 400k in stock over four years, you're making ~300k.
Except if after the first year, the stock goes up 30%, you're making 330k the second year + whatever cash raise you get. Then if it goes up another 10%, and so on... etc.
If, however the stock falls after the first year, presumably you can go out and find another 300k a year job at a different company.
When driving, I need to see things far away (mostly) but also on my dash/instrument cluster.
I am near-sighted overall and have needed distance glasses all my driving life. I got progressives last year and driving is safer now as I have a small area that I can use to clearly (and quickly!) read the instruments, the radio (read: map), defroster controls, etc.
In my case, not having multi-focal lenses was prioritizing convenience/laziness/cost over safety.
I got my first set of progressive lenses in safety glasses earlier this year as a way to try them out. Based on that experience, I switched my daily glasses to progressives in May and love them.
Once or twice a day, I notice a visual artifact that I perceive to be in my left peripheral vision, and of course I sometimes need to move my head slightly to see something, but being able to see clearly at all distances with relative ease is the exact opposite of “practically useless” IMO.
But a number from a ticket system you are using is helpful and vastly more log messages will be read during the time when it’s active than after it’s been retired/replaced.
They have the data but the numbers restarted at 1 and search in the new system isn't good. I think they all agree the old system was better - but the new license terms were unacceptable so we left anyway.
Restarting at 1 makes sense only if you think you’re going to run out of integers.
I can’t fathom why part of the deployment of the new system wasn’t to re-seed to the current ticket number or an easy-to-remember integer (hopefully via database, but also ok even if via a Selenium for loop to pull 19,999 tickets to burn the numbers in the new system).
Different systems have different ways of working. some have one number some start at 1 for different types of tickets. A bug and a new feature have a number of differences.
But what if your dad had a closely-related sheet company that you regularly transacted with but isn’t public because he was barred for life from giving public demonstrations but owned tons of shares in your demonstration and sold millions of dollars worth on a daily basis?
> it's totally possible to (by, say, 2036) train 100% of teachers to perform at a 90th percentile as compared to teachers from 2026. That's how improvement works, which is what people are describing here.
I doubt you can pull this off unless you’re willing (and able) to fire at least 25% of teachers who appear not willing (and under strong unions cannot be required) to outperform the current 90th percentile teacher.
There are great teachers; there are also entirely lazy/entitled teachers who will never willingly be at the performance of the current top 10%.
I’m not sure GP’s point landed. As I read it, it had nothing to do with who created the curriculum or even how much the student learned.
“Anyone who applies the smallest amount of effort gets a B and anyone who really tries gets an A” is a path to being seen as a great teacher in the eyes of the students, especially the students who got a B.
I am not disputing that being the case in general, but it'd be nicer if they gave me more benefit of the doubt: I tried to give an honest view of actually receiving good instruction, and not enjoying being handed good grades for nothing.
I've responded to them directly what that got me (like great uni entry exam scores with literally zero prep for a maths program, and a couple of semesters of exam passing with minimal prep for a maths/CS/physics majors).
On top of that, I am talking of this almost 30 years later — perhaps I have some perspective and I am not a fresh out of school guy who just loves getting off the hook easy?
My feelings about front-end code are that I have a stronger feeling of craftsmanship, in the sense that I can ship a much more polished product because all the small nagging annoyances are things that I can eliminate (second-hand), where I’d previously have just lived with a lot of them as fixing them took too long to be worthwhile. I hate shipping some of the resulting working slop.
For me, part of craftsmanship is the quality of the shipped product. (I’m also willing to use CNC tools while doing hobby woodworking; others think that takes away the craftsmanship; I think it changes how the craftsmanship is experienced and applied.)
Then, any share price appreciation on the shares is captured by you at vesting, rather than being paid in cash (the value of which has been inflated away) and then purchasing shares/index that has risen in the last 1-4 years.
If you are paid in cash, you will be buying fewer shares per dollar (and per year) rather than getting the same number.
reply