Do your due diligence and research companies that behave in this manner via platforms like Glassdoor. AI makes this process much easier. And always publicly call out companies that do this instead of sucking up.

These very much tend to strongly correlate. You're definitely more confident in negotiating and counter-offering if you have 10x skill as your leverage.

That’s not at all the case. Five of us recently moved internally via a remapping and they gave us pay rises. I negotiated 15% more than the initial offer, everyone else took the initial offer. Roughly same ability.

Indeed the only reason I could do this was because the new salary ranges were shown thanks to pay transparency.

"Tend to correlate" is a strictly probabilistic statement, I'm not talking about guarantees here.

And you have studies to back your claims up?

It's just sound reasoning. You're confident if you have less reasons to be desperate.

So no evidence, just claims that fly in the face of real experience.

> You're definitely more confident in negotiating and counter-offering if you have 10x skill

Not if high performers underrate their skill, and under-performers overestimate their skill, both of which studies suggest is true.

I would speculate that 10x devs' underestimation primarily concerns their percentile ranking relative to peers, not necessarily their absolute skill. Comparing yourself to the likes of Carmack and Wozniak is what pushes you to become cracked in the first place.

What matters is how they rate their skills relative to their colleagues, and how well they rate their value to the company.

people who claim to be 10x devs tend to be 0.5x devs with fancier keyboards

Just because you may have leverage does not mean that you're wise enough in negotiation skills to use that leverage effectively.

Companies have bureaucracies and bureaucracies are very much budget-constrained.

Companies can decide to do it however they want. They don't have to conform to a platonic ideal of a bureaucracy. A company expecting to grow its market share will give it's managers more leeway than one that's under financial difficulties.

What can happen, which is why you may have seen budget constraints prevent profit-maximising hiring, is that the finance dept is operating off older information than the managers in business units (or just is crosswise with them for any reason at all). You can definitely get a situation in which managers can't get approval to do profit maximising hires, but this isn't inevitable.

I can imagine that this is the dynamic which for actual x10 developers makes flexible YC-style startups more appealing than rigid FAANG-level companies.

As a person who almost certainly has ADHD, AI has done wonders to my social skills. You can either analyze what went wrong when you accidentally blurted out something somewhat inappropriate or pre-plan your presence in a social setting to avoid a costly faux pas, e.g. in job interviews or formal gatherings. Most pre-AI advice on the Internet for these situations is either very heavily NT-coded (blogs, self-help) or has very strong social desirability bias (forums with an upvote system).

The biggest winner from AI indeed appears to be Rust.

Projects that use ty for its type checking but something else than uv for managing dependencies are probably in a very tiny minority of users.

but there's probably lots of projects that use uv, but not ty.

I'd imagine that, for a substantial percentage of these, part of it is to avoid negotiating and bargaining over an additional tool in your CI arsenal, especially in bigger corporate environments where these sort of conversations are dragged through layers of non-technical middle management.

Ty isn't a compelling option. If you want support for dynamic libraries, mypy is king. If you want speed and strict conformance, Pyrefly and Zuban are better.

Ty's original pitch was that it would have strong inference and be useful for gradually typing existing, untyped codebases, but AI made that moot. Adding types to existing code is now trivial.

I think part of ty's pitch is also that it's very simple to set up. I think only Pyright compares in this regard. I tried Pyrefly once and recall it being a bit more involved to start using.

They're all CLI tools and they all support LSP. The only setup advantage here is Pylance's, by virtue of shipping with VS Code. Other tools take two clicks to enable, plus or minus typing the tool's name into a search bar.

>If you want speed and strict conformance, Pyrefly and Zuban are better

Not sure if that's true.

Pyrefly and Zuban are faster. Pyrefly and Zuban use less memory. Pyrefly and Zuban score higher on the type system conformance test.

Use whatever tools you want, but don't kid yourself. There's a reason Google adopted Pyrefly.

And the article says it won’t be automatically installed, so it’s only there for people that want it.

That is a confidently incorrect assertion.

They said race conditions and specifically exempted data races. You can absolutely write race conditions in rust, they're a logic bug.

As an example, let's say you have two functions A and B. A only works properly if B has never ran for some reason. Let's say they both accept a reference to a value C, and B changes C's value somehow. Because this is rust, we can't have data races, so we wrap it in an ArcMutex or what have you. That doesn't impact the ordering of A and B at all.

If we spawn threads that execute A and B at the same time, it's up to the scheduler if A functions properly.

Thanks, I think that most people read "data races" and jump to "race conditions in general"

And that is my core complaint - data races are well-understood and preventable now, whether statically via Rust's borrow checker (or pure immutability in functional languages) or dynamically with tools like Go's -race detector.

Logic races remain an application-level problem regardless of language design.

You are being downvoted but you are absolutely correct. I have never seen someone assert Rust is a 100% safe. Its touted purely as a _memory_ safe language. To claim otherwise is absurd and very telling of the writer's biases

> I have never seen someone assert Rust is a 100% safe

Please copy and paste from my post where that's being asserted

> Its touted purely as a _memory_ safe language

Which is different from what was said... how?

> To claim otherwise is absurd and very telling of the writer's biases

To pretend that those claims were made is what's actually telling of biases.

> How can Codex write fast-to-compile Rust code, do tell?? Do tell!

Because memory safety isn't just about data races. In fact data races are far from Rust's most innovative or important feature. They are a side-effect, the designers had a nice system and saw it can also prevent data-races, so they said "sure, why not".

> I have never seen someone assert Rust is a 100% safe

Maybe I spend too much time on tech internet...

Article without the e-mail wall: https://vovavili.github.io/afd-leak-article/

>Imagine waking up one morning to find that an alien technology has solved the problem you had dedicated your life to

I would be ecstatic.

You'd be ecstatic until you realise "oh damn, how will I get enough money to eat?"

Sure, there are probably some mathematicians that are sad that robots can do all the proofs and such for them, but it seems to me that most of them probably would be happy with the robots helping to solve problems if not for the little issues that mathematics is their profession and in the current state of things, they need to eat and have a place to live.

And that is the actual problem. Let's just remember, the Luddites were not anti-technology, they were against the technology being owned by a small elite that could use it to take away their livelihoods. They were against the capitalists essentially throwing them into the ditch to starve, and we're seeing echoes of that in the current AI discussion and the reactions of mathematicians, programmers, artists, etc. Back in the 1800s it was physical and artisan manufacturing labour in danger, and now it's mental labour.

I hope you understand that you're essentially conveying an image of a mathematician as a rent-seeker.

Maybe I am, but I'd argue that in that case I'm depicting literally all professions as rent-seeking, as people really want to protect their income and livelihoods from infringement that would endanger them. And at that point it's probably not useful to talk about it as rent-seeking.

If AI can do literally any job more efficiently than a human, then there's no need for human labour anymore and at least to me that seems that unless we get a radical transformation of our political economy, that will not be allowed to happen. You can't just put literally everyone out of a job, capitalism just wouldn't be able to cope with it and it'd implode, most probably because of the inevitable backlash that would occur for to no one being able to afford the basic necessities of life. It would be orders of magnitude bigger than either the French or Russian revolutions.

I'm no mathematician, but if being concerned about being able to keep my employment to be able to feed myself makes me a rent-seeker, then I will wear that on my sleeve proudly, crossing my heart, hoping to die. The misery of the alternative is too great to fathom.

"Rent-Seeking" is trying to capture eternally recurring payment for something you did or acquired one time.

Mathematicians acquired their skills over long hours of study, but weren't asking to be paid just to sit around passively being smart, but to keep working on new results. It is the lost opportunity to do work they are lamenting, not the lost opportunity to sit on their laurels. So no, it doesn't sound like rent-seeking.