The logical end outcome of the remote work-compensation debate is: compensation based on a global marketplace and location no longer playing a part in what you get paid.
If someone can do your job as well elsewhere in the world with a lower CoL, remote work will find them.
This is going to be fantastic for people in Eastern Europe/India/etc who have dense talent pools in tech but often constrained by location and access.
We might be in for a rocky time as marketplace/price discovery happens for every combination of location*role.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨 NEW FULL EP: Nathan Mhyrvold is someone @aarthir and I have idolized for decades. Microsoft's first CTO, renowned chef with multiple books, paleontologist, worked with Stephen Hawking, the list is endless.
Key takeaways (the ep goes into it in detail). Also everyone's life situation is different so may not apply to all - we tried to focus on folks in their 30s mostly who have been around in tech for a few years.
One outcome of @elonmusk + Twitter Files should be social media companies telling users when their content distribution is manually/ algorithmically throttled.
A better outcome would be having alternative clients w/o throttling.
We may or may not agree why someone is throttled or with the people doing it but there's very little arguments against being transparent to all parties about it.
The need for transparency -> assume your favorite social media company is run by a team of people who don’t like you and then make demands of them to be transparent with what happens to your account accordingly.
In short: we have a trust deficit in how social media companies moderate content. I propose building on @VitalikButerin's "credible neutrality" to specifically make the below transparent.
1/ Publish account actions: All account takedowns are published with details on rules violated, agent performing the action (human, algorithm) and the source of the report ( automated scan, report from the platform, etc).
Several of the critiques of the $8 / verification are logically inconsistent.
“verification solves for impersonation, this will cause more”
1. using a CC/mobile checkout dramatically increases friction. And everyone caught impersonating will lose their money.
2. there are lots of people who should be verified ( and often impersonated) and aren’t. And vice versa.
The current path on any social network is opaque and easily gamed.
$8 gives a consistent path for anyone regardless of their level of notability ( which is subjective).
3. the current model also has severe spam issues ( check out any reply to @VitalikButerin or @elonmusk and you’ll see lots of hacked blue check accounts ).
$8 and giving everyone ✅ makes those attacks less valuable.