Proof of stake will give pervert the incentives of the network. It'll allow large stake holders to control the network, we don't want that. Proof of Work will ensure that nobody has control over the network and everyone is incentivized to participate honestly.
Unfortunately it requires one Argentina of power to do the work of a single raspberry pi, and I suggest environmentalists and the government won't look the other way indefinitely. Carbon pricing for instance makes the whole thing topple over.
bitcoin works just fine with any power source, not just conveniently located grid energy. you can mine bitcoin in a remote place and transmit the network data much more easily than you can transport/transmit energy. you could raise the price of fossil fuels by a factor of 1 million and crypto mining would be the least affected of any industry. so go right ahead and try it.
Is proof of waste not a suitable name? It's proof a huge quantity of resources were wasted on deriving some random garbage you can append to a piece of data to obtain a certain number of leading zeroes on a SHA lol. 600kWh per transaction. Horrifying.
I'm sorry, but how is you being "horrified" an objective measure of goodness? You described the process and just said it's horrifying, what do you expect me to respond with?
This is my observation across several companies/teams. The options seem to be either sacrifice "real work" time to make a good presentation or make a half-ass presentation and have people criticize the low quality.
Do people here think "no prep" presentations could work? Where it's agreed that nobody will do any prep but simply talk about something they're knowledgeable about? Or share their screen and walk through their current project? Everyone in the audience knows that the presenter wasn't "allowed" to prepare so the expectations are lower, but people still get exposed to other engineers' work.
In medium-large companies, work and promotion are about showing off. Even if you do real work it's more important to be noticed than to do it.
In that light, I don't understand how you and the OP could consider that it's preventing to do real work. Powerpoint is the real work. And it shouldn't be difficult to justify spending 1-2 days on it, with 100 people assisting to the presentation as witnesses, unless your manager really doesn't want you to give presentations (it's showing off your team so it's good for your manager too).
I get it that it's not part of the engineer mindset of course. If I have to give some advice to strong engineers who do good work, that would be to take credit for your work.
That captures a lot of what I was trying to capture. However, the intent was for people to cover work that they are doing (lowering prep time, immediate understanding), tech they are researching (again lower prep time, immediate understanding).
A lot of technical presentations we did are no different than what you would do explaining tech within your team. A few diagrams, and understanding of the core of the tech. Scaling to more than the safety of the team is really where I think people would rather have 3 meetings with 3 different teams to do a knowledge transfer than take the risk of being in front of collecting 5-10 teams worth of engineers.
Looking over the comments, the real gap I expect is the lack of peer management support and encouragement. And expectation that mentoring and teaching peers should be part of the leadership expectations. My view are is the the strongest engineers are the ones that accelerate and multiple the work of themselves and their peers, but there are a lot people who subscribe to the "army of one" 10x engineer philosophy.
Demo, deep dive/narrative on your work. Demonstrating something cool. It was clear the prep was not expected or needed, and it would be scrappy - just like lightning talks at conferences.
The exposure and sharing of ideas was critical.
We even had times where someone would suggest a topic during the meeting and someone would step up and do a deeper dive into it.
Understanding is all relative. You don't need to be an expert to know more than your peers. You just need to accept that your extra knowledge adds value. And be honest where your limits of understanding are.
* Some teams do this already with git data...but if it's free as part of a team's development platform then maybe the less sophisticated managers who don't know how to interpret the data will misuse it?
* If the editor is heavily instrumented then even more granular "productivity" metrics could be extracted, like time spent with the tab active, etc. which aren't available with a vanilla install of other editors. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sounds like a form of (job?) security-through-obscurity, no? The data was always there, but not all managers were savvy enough to process it and weaponize it.
In the end, obscurity is just not a durable defense. Better to earn trust with good managers, and avoid companies that let bad managers flourish. If you don't have the ability to quit a bad manager or bad working environment, then no amount of tooling choices by GitHub/Microsoft was going to save you anyways.
Oh boy. Had chills from my time as a Jr. Engineer at Accenture. Still remember the day a manager looked at me like I offended his entire family for saying that lines written didn't mean productivity achieved.
I've used YouCompleteMe extensively for a couple of years. The only language I thought it was nearly as good as these "full" web editors was TypeScript.
The Facebook login flow requests permission to access your "photos". Does anybody know what that entails? Can they freely query your photos edge on the FB API?
