Lightor

Yes, so let me introduce this concept called “swing states” where it is not like NY. There, votes matter. So them voting does matter and have an impact. Either way, even if you know your state will go one way, the outcome of the election is still very impactful to citizens.

You said the presidential election should be the least concerning election for everyone. That’s just wrong. Swing states have power and the president can impact everyone. It is very consequential to multiple people.

If you’re upset that NY is always blue blame republicans who are against getting rid of the electoral college and having rank choice voting.

Or you can just keep insulting me because I disagree with you, that’s a very Republican move.

But sure, over turning Row v Wade hasn’t impacted you directly so it doesn’t matter. No one should be concerned about the president because big changes to law haven’t impacted you so they shouldn’t matter to anyone. Jfc… Some people were impacted you know, you are aware of that right? And that was a direct result of the president that was elected selecting a conservative justice. But hey, it didn’t effect you so it shouldn’t matter to anyone right?

“Presidential elections in NY are the least concerning elections as they should be for every fuckin American.”

You can say I have a comprehension issues all you want, but you seem to think all voters shouldn’t care about the presidental election because it won’t impact you in NY, big lol.

You called Charlie smart, which worries me lol

Wait, I thought we were all kidding. Please tell me your not serious…

Yah, the garden gnomes aren’t filled with water either.

On a Chrysler 300, his grandma know he did this to her car?

My stomach hurts real bad

Revenue is one of the metrics that since stock prices. There are many, but the point is it’s not just all random speculation, it is metric driven.

Maybe I “miread” what they’re saying because they’re not expressing it correctly. You said quality doesn’t matter in products, the stock market is all just guess work, and that you can’t run a 4:1 QA to dev ratio. All that is just clearly wrong. You’re saying these things so matter of fact like but they make no sense to anyone who’s worked with those things.

No… People’s perceived value did not make the stocks go up. You said I misread, you clearly didn’t read what I said. COVID impacted revenue in an unpredictable way, that impact to revenue effected the market. Lots of crazy stuff happened during COVID, not all of it effected revenue. You act like the stock market is a bunch of people guessing, like there isn’t a massive skill to it. Knowing what to look for and what to track, that’s how a lot of investment firms work. Hiring people who watch market behavior and metrics.

When you buy stock you’re investing in a commodity, just like gold. The value of that commodity is then impacted by many factors that can effect the value of that commodity. It’s not just guess work and make believe lol.

Ahhh, Qanon had just ruined that one for me I guess, fair call out

No no no. They do not set the ratio like it is knowing they will purposefully do a bad job. Anyone with half a brain can explain to a board why that’s a bad idea and the risk around it. Do you have any proof at all that companies knowingly build up a dept that will cost them a bunch of money and only prevent issues sometimes? No, that’s absurd. I have seen first hand as a developer, a QA resource cover up to 5 people without issues. I have managed teams, still do, that have a 1:4 ratio and keep up. It can be done and has been, just because you’ve not experienced it doesn’t make it impossible.

Yes, this company taking some risk like in a movie, beeting them to market. And what if their solution causes massive issues due to QA not catching some critical bugs due to cutting corners. They forever lose that entire market. They company could be out of business instead of being able to still compete in that space. No investor would risk money like that. Where are you getting these ideas from?

You’re doubting my credentials, this is hilarious. Here’s a news flash, most of the employees using software at scale, like say Salesforce, are call center hourly employees. If you actually sold SaaS for as long as you said you have you’d know this, because it’s part of a savings analysis you do in pitch decks. So ya, I’m starting to doubt your credentials.

Yes yes, not every single person will hang out in their job, but look at the market. It is flooded with talent with no place to go due to everyone having layoffs. You do not have a lot of power as a prospect right now, so people stay put for the most part. Anyone who is in management would realize these things as people start leaving less and you’re flooded with applications when you open a position.

Yes, people who refuse the free overtime will go, so you have more people you need to rehire, which is very expensive. Have you ever managed a P&L before?

Amazon does this because they have an infinite supply of applications wating due to them being in the Big 3. Not every company has that pull.

Well first, you can lie, it’s the Internet, it’s known to happen from time to time. You could be older but I find that idea worrying and a little depressing.

Secondly, me pointing out that saying “presedetail elections should be the least concerning to everyone” is just straight ignorance. I mean you don’t even seem to understand the impact of the Supreme Court on every day citizens alone (abortion rights much) and how they are appointed, why would I bother sift through your nonsense comments lol.

Either way, hope you get some good information/education from all the responses people are giving ya! 🍻

The stock price is perceived value. Many things go into that perceived value, such as number of clients and revenue. I mean it’s not just a random roll of the dice like you seem to be implying.

Sure, revenue can go up and stock price go down, but that would be a very small dip that would recover ASAP, that’s how the stock market works, off of numbers. And showing YoY or even MoM growth bumps the stock price, almost every single time. If you disagree I would love to see examples showing the counter.

“How do layoffs make revenue go up? Yet they often make the stock price go up.”

See this is kinda what I’m getting at, again no offense, but you’re speaking on topics you don’t fully understand. Layoffs does not make revenue go up, but it makes EBITDA go up, which is the actual number most companies care about. Topline rev doesn’t mean much on it’s own. If you make $1 mil in a year, that’s great topline revenue, but if it cost you $980k to make that, you’re not doing well. You can make that $980k go lower through layoffs. Your revenue will be the same, but your EBITDA will jump because you reduced expenses. That’s how value can go up with rev changing. It costs you less money to make the same amount of money.

“If the stock prices was super dependent on metrics, algorithms would be making soo much money we wouldn’t have anything else picking stocks.”

No… I mean, it’s just frustrating I have to explain all this to someone acting so confident. The stock market runs off metrics, yes, it does. But the things that effect those metrics are not just some alrogithm. You can’t anticipate how the tech sector will react to new technology, but if you see a company’s revenue going up because of new tech, that’s a good enough reason to invest. It’s not that the stock market is all guesses, it’s that it’s driven by metrics that are not always clear to everyone engaging in the stock market. For example, the stock markets can run off real estate revenue, and invest based on that, what it could not magically compute with an algorithm is how COVID would impact that revenue. Hence it is “perceived” value, not actual value.

The goal post being moved is what does “not working well” mean. If it’s not working well I would consider it not working as designed. Otherwise I would just call it poorly designed. If something doesn’t work as designed, then things like outages and data issues are a problem.

"You probably drank the kool-aid to get that position, so you feel the need to claim carry water for the illusion that upper management always try to project. "

Sure. Or I worked my ass off to get there and learned things along the way that you are not aware of. Things I have pointed out through our conversations.

"And yes I wrote regression tests. And I worked hard to maintain them while writing tests on features. But with a 5 to 1 ratio of devs to QA, it wasn’t possible to not cut corners. "

It is very possible. The standard is 3-5 QA per eng, that has been the standard for a while. Look up what the ratio should be. I don’t know what you’re expecting in order to keep up, a ratio of 1:2? But this is very common. We have a ratio of 1:4 with about 40 devs and my QA team keeps up without issue. If you are seeing issues it’s usually due to a poor process or lack of skill by the team.

“And of course the age old quote… “why is QA slowing down our release process”.”

You must work for a backward company. I’ve worked for about a dozen tech companies and not once, after explaining the need for QA did they ever say that. You explain what a Sev1 incident is or how a hack can impact the company and smart people listen. You may have worked for bad companies that put this taste in your mouth, but I have worked in some of the largest tech hubs (bay area, NY, SLC) and this is a huge exception not the rule.

"The moment industry trends started touting the Swiss army knife developer who could do it all including testing, they dropped qa teams like a bad habit. "

What, when was this? AGILE development is pretty much the standard, with SCRUm waterfall a second. In both cases you have dedicated QA with possibly devs writing unit tests. But is a massive antipattern to have a dev be the only one QAing their work, it always has been, always will be.

"Presentations were given on how too much testing was bad, and less tests were better… that pendulum swings back and forth every decade or so. "

Yah, except that pendulum swinging can cause events that tank entire companies. Any company worth it’s salt would never fall into that trap because they know it could burn their investment to the ground in a heartbeat.

Yes, you have to cut certain corners sometimes, that’s reality. That does not equate to “quality doesn’t matter.” That’s a major false equivalency.

“As for time is money… take a person working 40 hours a week, and replace thier tool with a cheaper lower quality tool, then tell them to make it work. They start working 44 hours a week. You saved money and got the same result. Awards for you.”

Yes, except people’s hours are much more expensive than licenses. To scale this model as your business grows you would have to hire more and more people, with fully loaded benefits most times, instead of paying for licences to better software that has discounts at larger volumes. If I showed a %25 decrease in a single software spend but a %10 increase in staffing cost I would be crucified. Employees become more expensive the more you have, and software is the exact opposite. Not to mention if you are working 44 hours you now have to pay overtime, and added cost.

“As a bonus, the people who won’t work extra leave. Now you have a self selecting group of people who will work longer for the same price.”

This is just not true. Especially in the economy people will hold onto jobs as long as they can, no matter how rough, they just have less output. Which you could track and manage, but that’s yet another expense to manage.

"So now you can even not backfill some of the ones who left, and tell the ones who stayed to cover the slack. "

This would put extra pressure on existing employees, possibly causing them to quit or need overtime which would cost more. Then backfilling an employee if very expensive on the HR and benefits side, that’s yet another expense.

“Wow, even more money saved.”

I’m not trying to be mean, but a lot of your takes to consider some very basic concepts when it comes to staffing. Like the fact that someone leaving and being replaced the very next day, for the same pay, is actually a large financial drain, it is not break even. Or that fact that software licenses get cheaper as you buy in bulk, where ramping employees to meet scale does not. it becomes more expensive.

Lol, nope, I’ve spent about 30 min expressing why your stance is wrong; a nice little story anyone who interacts with you can read and see how you REALLY feel about differing opinions.

You’ve done nothing but reinforce everything I’ve said by plugging your ears and refusing to have an actual conversation. Maybe it only took you 5 minutes, but you painted a very clear picture of yourself. I mean ya, if you only talk at people and never listen, you don’t really have to invest a lot in a conversation.

And you’re wasting yours, but only one of us is outting themselves haha.

I always found it kinda pathetic when people have to say “I didn’t read that” like it’s a slam, when it’s actually embarrassing. You’re addimitting you’d rather yell nonsense and plug your ears than walk away or have a convo. It’s really sad.

Oh no, you think a 1-minute read is a novel… I timed myself bud, less than a minute… Guess you don’t read a lot of books, or anything, which actually explains a lot.

Every word you read is wrong? Every word? I said, “Ignorance is a lack of knowledge,” which is the dictionary definition. But I’m sure you know better than the dictionary too lol.

“but trust me I am not reading most of this shit” Wow, this you: “Because, unlike your ignorant take, I actually do want other perspectives. Even when they are from people who want to be my enemy.” Looks like someone is losing track of their BS.

My ignorance keeps expanding. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, am I somehow forgetting things in real time or are you ignorant to what the term ignorance means? How tf would ignorance expand lol.

I’m literally just telling you what I see, and you don’t like it. This really gives me a lot of insight as to why you don’t want a shred of self-reflection, you wouldn’t like what you see.

“I’d appreciate it if you’d stop flooding my inbox. Because, unlike your ignorant take, I actually do want other perspectives. Even when they are from people who want to be my enemy. Otherwise I’d just block you.”

Omg, what a pathetic victim complex again. You’re a big boy, if you don’t want my responses in your inbox just bock me or stop responding yourself.

Wait, wait, wait. You want me to stop talking to you, but you also want other perspectives, even from me. But why do you want me to stop if you want my perspective? And if you did actually want me to stop, you could just block me, but you don’t want to do that. So you want me to stop but are taking no actions that would make me stop but also you don’t want me to stop because you want my perspective. You’re getting tangled in your own mental gymnastics bud.

Yeah, blue and red are often used to describe the Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

I wonder how that would work if the act was against them. I mean he could assassinate the entire Supreme Court because of the war or drugs or whatever, and then who stops him?