I have loathed Adobe for this for years. Even worse, Adobe was supposed to make all of their products available under this single subscription, but now they want to charge users a separate additional subscription to access Substance Painter/Designer which they recently acquired.
Figure out what medium you'd like to work in (3D, painting, generative art, film, photography, etc.) and then take some classes on that subject. That will put you in touch with an instructor who is an artist and students pursuing art in addition to teaching you about working in that particular medium.
When you start, services like Heroku, Firebase etc.. gives you a lot of power. Imho it's never a good idea. For example I have server rendered websites in go sdk (with the template engine) and other website in full node js stack (in my case react but the concept stays).
I don't really see a use case for mixed use since having two different languages slow you down.
Except we don't just print money and give it away. The money is borrowed (backed by some asset), and this distinction matters. IOW, the money that gets printed is (generally) non-inflationary.
Stop using what you learned in your Econ 1XX level courses to try and reason about government spending and money operations, especially, US government spending and money operations. What you learned is not applicable.
Seems like inflation is skyrocketing to me. Specifically asset inflation. Housing prices, stocks, bitcoin, etc. Basically dollar becoming worth less against these assets thanks to QE.
House prices are a real issue, although I don't think that's only because of increased money supply.
Otherwise, does it matter? What's the impact on ordinary people if bitcoin is worth 100 or 1 mio dollars? Notwithstanding the fact that the number of people actively buying financial assets has gone up a lot in recent years, which is bound to increase prices.
There is no such thing as asset inflation. If the price of assets is going up, then they are going up. It sucks that housing is considered an asset (it shouldn't, it should be a consumable) but that is the long and short of it. And you can't have an average 2% inflation target and underperform that target for a decade+, then complain when there is inflation above 2%(which is transitory and caused by simultaneous demand and supply shocks due to covid).
Government debt isn't guaranteed by anything, expect by the promise that it'll be paid back (although it won't be). Commercial banks can also borrow money that is guaranteed by government instead of being backed by any asset. Expanding the money supply always causes money to lose value.
Seems like you should be able to work remotely with your skill set even if you have to change jobs. If you can convince your partner to also go remote, then you could both become digital nomads and get your travel in. Or, you don't have to go full digital nomad, you could both just leave London.
There's not much point to staying in a job you hate if you have other options. Money isn't everything and not everyone survives to retirement (even early retirement).
My opinion is that we need to move to four day work weeks and each day should have six working hours. Knowledge workers are wasting their lives at work when they could get the same amount done in fewer hours.
> Knowledge workers are wasting their lives at work when they could get the same amount done in fewer hours.
I'm curious what job you have. I'm a SWE who is in the process of moving into a manager role. As an IC, I am 100% certain that I could get the same amount of work done in a 24 hour work week. In fact, I was probably working less than that already and still meeting my deadlines and getting great reviews. As a manager for the same team, at the same company, I am now working a full 40 and there's no way I could cut 40% of my hours without a massive drop in output.
I'm not against a 4 day work week (in fact, my manager is talking about trying it out in Q4 for our department), but not everyone is an IC knowledge worker. There are plenty of roles where time does directly correlate with productivity, which is why this discussion is so complicated.
> I am now working a full 40 and there's no way I could cut 40% of my hours without a massive drop in output.
I expect the following has at least in part occurred:
1. Your participation in "meetings" has increased significantly. Management tends to conveniently forget that interruptions have follow-on disruptions on focus. This is compounded by the Doorway Effect [0].
2. You don't trust your direct reports to handle the level of autonomy you had as an IC. You're being pushed by your management to provide status updates so you have to scurry around poking ICs.
3. You're still expected to have at least a portion of your IC output in addition to your management duties.
4. You've discovered the productivity of your team is a bell curve. Some can get work done quickly while others are much slower. This may be related to their skill/experience or their particular tasks.
5. You're pressured by management to split up work to deliver a baby in a month. This causes you to take on even more IC work to try to accede to such stupid expectations.
Based off my interactions with my current management and my previous role where I straddled the line of IC and manager, the biggest identifiable time suck has always been meetings. Too long, too many, not well-enough defined agendas (or no agenda at all!), no action items, etc. Does that sound accurate? I'm curious as to where else the time could go.
I also do believe that this is somewhat intentional; to keep people too busy to think freely and effectively, so that a status quo is maintained.
Learning to manage is a lot like learning how to write a novel - at first you think you need all those words but then you can learn to cut fifty percent of what you wrote and still get the same point across. It’s kind of the same deal with the hours spent at work - identify and eliminate time sinks and suddenly you’re doing the same work in half the time.
I think this is a trigger for looking at the work you're doing, if it's actually necessary, or just busy work created by bureaucracy. If it is needed, should it be spread out among more people.
> If it is needed, should it be spread out among more people.
I agree, but that's kind of my point. There are plenty of people doing 40 hours worth of needed work right now. If we switch to a shorter work week, that work will need to be distributed to more people.
It's not an impossible problem to solve, but OPs comment seems to imply that there are no trade offs to be made if we switched to a 24 hour work week and I'm just trying to point out that that isn't the case.
Could you give me some productivity tips? I would love to become better at managing my time. I seem to always be able to fill my 40 hours and still feel like I didn't accomplish enough.
If you are working hard as a manager then you are doing it wrong. Your goal is to make sure the team is highly qualified and are moving in the right direction. And then shield the team from external BS. That’s it. It isn’t rocket science.
I don't think it's an issue of getting the same amount done in fewer hours, I think that those hours are likely the actual productive hours anyway so we might as well adopt that schedule as you advocate.
yes! For about 2 decades, I worked for normal companies with normal 40 hour weeks, but, I negotiated a 20% salary decrease, and I didn't work Mondays (so, 32 hour work weeks).
This worked out really well for me. I was satisfied with my work accomplishments, I had plenty of extra time to write books and spend more time with family and friends. I don't miss that 20% loss of income.
We (a smaller company) have had half day Fridays since early in the pandemic. This is great, but I wish I could convince the powers that be that those 4 hours on Friday are the least productive hours of the week, and that giving an entire day off would be vastly more beneficial than the half days. I'm on the verge of looking for a new job, but if we had every Friday off I would plan on sticking around a long, long time!
I'd love to see companies warm up to nontraditional employment arrangements. I've always wanted to be able to split my time between different jobs; e.g., half the year in an office environment, then half the year doing something outdoors. I feel like breaking up the monotony would help keep things fresh all around and generally improve my wellbeing.
This kind of thinking is what's always intrigued me about freelancing/consulting. If I get bored of coding, I can take 6 months off and work an outdoor summer job, or reduce my coding hours to 20 hours/week and get a part time job at a coffee shop or something like that.
I agree that this provision is a disaster and will force a lot of cryptocurrency startups to incorporate outside of the US and also not offer their services to US customers. It's a real shame. The government should be able to get enough data for tax compliance just by making fiat on-ramps and off-ramps (aka exchanges) implement KYC (know your customer) rules.
> making fiat on-ramps and off-ramps (aka exchanges) implement KYC (know your customer) rules.
That's already the case for most exchanges, and they also log trades and provide these logs to both individuals and taxation entities for EoY tax reporting purposes. The "problem" is that once you've converted fiat into crypto, you can use decentralized exchanges, and trade back and forth ad infinitum with no traceability. This is a problem because every single trade (crypto to crypto) is considered a taxable event, and on a decentralized exchange or centralized exchange that doesn't do KYC, there are no tax-specific records and therefore such transactions are unlikely to be recorded.
Many people bemoan that it would be fairer and easier to just apply tax at the time crypto is converted into, and then out of, fiat. But a lot of profit can be earnt by the individual in between those on- and off-ramps, including the potential for profits to go, pardon the pun, into the ether, never to be seen again (by the government at least).
The crypto die-hards are also moving towards the lack of necessity to cash out to fiat, which would render the off-ramp taxation less effective. This may be why there's a specific focus on stable coins, as they eschew the need for converting back to fiat.
I am the founder of CryptoTaxCalculator.io and I am not sure where the idea of non traceability on DEXs comes from. Aggregating the transaction history is absolutely possible, all we need is the public wallet address. The real black box is around certain international exchanges that don’t keep appropriate transaction records.
You're right, yes. I was attempting to point out that with a DEX there is no way to enforce record keeping or KYC, and so if someone is determined to avoid tax, then DEXs won't / can't report back to a tax authority.
Australian exchanges, as far as I've gathered, proactively send transaction details to the tax office, or are compelled to do so upon tax office request.
When it comes to public wallet addresses, it becomes up to the individual to voluntarily declare their ownership - such is my understanding.
I will defer to your knowledge and / or expertise if you disagree with my understanding, you need to know this stuff inside out - congrats on founding, and here's to a big future for crypto, you're well placed.
If you bought crypto on a regulated exchange like Coinbase, which does KYC, then it's pretty easy for the government to find out that it was you who funded the address. After that everything's an open book.
Theoretically you could claim that you were paying some other person, but then you'd have to explain what you paid for. And if you ever cash out your crypto to fiat, you'll have a lot more explaining to do.
Privacy technologies would obscure the on-chain transactions but still not help with the basic problem.
Yes, exactly this. As long as the fiat on-ramps and off-ramps are KYC'ed everything that happens in between is an open book. The individual can just use cryptocurrency tax reporting software to provide a trade history for their taxes, and if they don't do that then the IRS can easily track all of their transactions since the IRS will know what addresses they are sending to from exchanges. There's no need for every DEX (or other service) along the way to KYC their users.
You’re shutting down Russian dissidents services?
You are a defacto approving of the human rights policies of all the nations that you don’t apply this policy to