> Businesses don’t do promotions at senior levels because you “deserve” it. They promote those who have the highest potential to deliver outsized impact and value.
What I've seen more of is: people get promoted because they already do the job at the higher level, or close to it
> What I've seen more of is: people get promoted because they already do the job at the higher level, or close to it
That's exactly how it works in my company (small org). They clearly state that the person needs to be doing "the needful" for around a year before being officially promoted to the position.
Genuinely curious - is that not thow it usually works?
Sean Goedecke articulated a different theory of promotion (at large tech companies; it probably does generalize to large non-tech companies and almost certainly won't generalize to small companies):
He said that you get a promotion for one of two reasons:
(a) the company is afraid that, without the promotion, you'll leave; or
(b) the company wants you to accomplish some task, and believes that you will be better able to do it if granted additional political power.
This post seems to agree well with that option (b). It advises that you make the case for your own promotion based on two prongs:
(1) the success of my project is important to the business;
(2) my project is more likely to succeed if I am promoted.
(The post also throws full support to option (a).)
This seems, to me, to be a fairly dysfunctional way of operating, at least as a general rule.
It's far, far too easy for an organization that operates this way to abuse it: oh, you want to be promoted to Assistant Director? Here are all the tasks of Assistant Director; better get doing them for a while and prove to us you can do the job!
...Oh, it's been a year and you want the promotion? Sorry! We just hired a new Assistant Director. Time to train your new boss, because we already know you're great at the job! (What? Oh, yes; that is the Director's nephew, how good of you to spot that! That's why we knew he'd be a great fit.)
> Genuinely curious - is that not thow it usually works?
IME, it's far more common for one of two setups to be in place:
a) If you want a promotion, you have to prove that you've been doing the job you're in very well over a longer period of time—and, in many cases, if you fail to achieve a promotion after a certain length of time, you're fired. (The "Up or Out" philosophy.) In some cases, you don't even explicitly apply for a promotion; if you do well enough in your performance reviews over time, you're just given the promotion, whether you want it or not.
b) If you want a promotion—too bad. We don't promote from within. Well, we don't outright say that. Some people can get promoted from within—they just have to kiss the right asses the right way at the right times. But we'll absolutely expect you to take on the work of your colleagues who leave because the work environment sucks. And your boss, when they leave. But without extra pay.
Doing the job "at a higher level" isn't enough. There must also be a 'bus factor' at play.
Otherwise you're the shmuck who does expensive work cheaper. If you start making trouble and ask for more money you're better off being replaced with another ambitious shmuck who's willing to work cheap without causing trouble.
I fixed my high cholesterol problem with oats...
Months ago I replaced my daily dinner with a mix of oats + banana + protein powder + 1 tbsp olive oil + peanut butter + flaxseeds + oat milk - all mixed in a blender.
My bad cholesterol (LDL levels) tanked from 160 mg/dL to 91 mg/dL. My daily dinners before that were not even that unhealthy. Dropping sat fat intake had nowhere near that much effect for me.
For me and I assume for many others, lack soluble fibers are the root cause of high LDL levels.
So it appears oat fibers are just quite effective natural bile acid sequestrants[1]. That makes me wonder why don't we use this class of locally-acting compounds as first line cholesterol lowering treatment, instead going straight for the "bazooka" of systemic acting statins that have lots of side-effects, even affecting personality[2].
Synthetic, stronger versions are available, as cholestyramine, colestipol or colesevalam, that can be taken as medicines, instead of demanding large changes to diet.
Because medication is more effective. Side effects from statins are relatively uncommon and generally mild, so it wouldn’t be ethical to use lifestyle as a first-line treatment in place of, say, a combination of low dose statin and pcsk9 inhibitors.
However many clinicians do take a “let’s sort out the problem as quickly as possible with medication, and if you want to try lifestyle and back off (or even stop entirely) the meds and see how your cholesterol is afterwards, we can do that.”
In reality lifestyle modifications are more conservative than using a medication so lifestyle modification would be first line from an ethical perspective.
In reality though it does seem like statins are used first line by many clinicians. But ethically speaking conservative interventions like lifestyle modification in terms of changing diet and exercise should be used prior to medicating a young otherwise healthy person.
In other groups such as when someone has had a recent heart attack of course the thought process is different. Such people should be immediately placed on a statin.
No, because we have a huge body of evidence pointing to both the safety and efficacy of lipid lowering medications. We know that as far as LDL-c goes, the lower the better, so since we have safe drugs that lower more effectively than lifestyle interventions, these are the first line option in most cases.
For one, there could be some financial incentives mixed in in that health insurance companies would want their people to be healthier so they don't pay out as much, but it's not that simple for them either - the health industry as a whole profits more if there is more treatment ergo more health problems. If health care was cheap or less needed the insurers themselves would make less.
More importantly, there can be other than financial incentives mixed in for doctors and public health organizations to encourage health. Doctors for example take an oath and I think often genuinely want their people to be healthy. Public health organizations may be more murky but there's definitely a financial and otherwise incentive for the government itself minus those corrupted by the health industry, to want people to have less health problems.
The problem is entirely about patients refusing to do what they know is good for them if it takes any self-discipline, so doctors resort to medication.
I've been doing something similar for breakfast, one cup of oatmeal + one cup of water and about two tablespoons of chia seeds, microwave for 2 minutes. Add a banana and some honey, top it with whole roasted almonds and some raspberries. It has been doing wonders for my digestion. I'll have to try to add olive oil as well.
My LDL was 150 last time I checked. I wonder what it is now since I've been doing this meal several times a week.
One of my most used appliances is a Tiger rice cooker with Porridge and timer function.
It's been used pretty much every day for 7+ years since I purchased it.
Every night I put 130g steel cut oats in, 400-420g of water, set it to cook for 45 mins and be ready for when I wake up in the morning. I'll then add 25g protein powder, sometimes a few berries or sprinkle with seeds/nuts. A nutritional power house.
I find steel cut oats more filling, a lot more substantial with ground oats more goopey. Steel cut oats are normally a hassle to cook but it's set and forget with the rice cooker. From what i've read I also believe the fact they sit soaking over night in water also is breaks down the starches which helps nutrient absorption.
Does wonders for digestion and satiety. Everything runs like clockwork with them. If I don't have them for a few days, things get irregular and a noticeable difference in satiety for the rest of the day where i end up snacking as feel hungry after meals.
I've been doing this for a very long time but I use rolled oats and plain water (I drain the water completely before eating).
I eat soaked oats every day and always have a fresh bowl or two soaking in the fridge. They are still fine to eat even if they've been soaking for more than 24h.
I like the fact that they are more concentrated in terms of calories/nutrients per 100g than cooked oats and also provide steadier energy. I often pair them with a protein drink (pea protein + rice protein), a drizzle of avocado/olive oil, and berries. Takes just a few minutes to prepare.
Regarding berries, those can be deep-frozen, and turn the oatmush into icy slush. Giving it an unexpected but nice texture. At the same time the aromas from the berries went into everything, but the milk didn't get thick like buttermilk. Like it can happen with too much citrus/orange/mandarine/clementine in milk. Of course one can vary and combine that with different yoghurts, kefir, kombucha, and so on.
Come thank me, once you've tried it. If cold stuff is your thing at all, which could be compensated with some nice green tea, or coffee, ofc.
Is there an added health or digestive benefit of fully soaking the oats, overnight or microwaved? Or is it just a matter of taste?
I just add some hot water and milk (indeed I'm not sure if what I have are plain or instant oats)
Plain oats is a pain in the ass to cook. It takes real long and requires constant vigilance. Instant oats just needs some boiling water and 30 seconds in the microwave.
I might be wrong, but I do think non-instant oats is more nutritious.
But to answer your question, it's a combo of laziness and taking care of future me. Nothing beats opening the fridge in the morning, groggy AF, and finding delish breakfast ready to go, and it's dirt easy to prepare with no pots to clean afterwards.
This works well for rolled oats but not for steel cut. Both types are much nicer cooked in a pot with stirring to bring out the creaminess (like risotto).
The overnight oats (rolled or steel cut) will cook much faster after they've soaked up liquid. If you're adding ingredients such as egg (two per 1/3 cup s.c. oats) this takes care of the raw elements as well.
I came up with a microwave steel cut oat method that worked well. Going from memory, I put the oats and hot water in a bowl in the microwave and set it for 45 seconds 100%, then 9 minutes at power level 2. One of those microwaves with "Cook 1" and "Cook 2" on it. The hot water I put in initially was basically boiling hot, you might need to do more time on cook 1 if you put in less hot water (at work we had one of those instant boiling water things).
Steel cut whole groats have really good nutrition. That tough brown skin is full of good stuff. I do mine in the pressure cooker for 20 mins with 1:1:3 oats:milk:water.
I also use a pressure cooker (instant pot) but it doesn't take nearly that long. 3 minutes on high, rest for 10 minutes, vent. I also use 1:3 oats:water and add a splash of half and half when I serve it. I'll usually do a batch of 1 cup oats, 3 cups water, two cut up apples, and a lot of cinnamon. That's four servings and I reheat the leftovers in a microwave with some additional water. I also like to add walnuts when I serve.
For steel-cut whole groats, the tough whole seeds cut in half width-ways? Mine would be crunchy and whole after just 3 mins. Even after 15 mins pressure they were a bit firm. Rolled I cook in 5 mins.
I'm using an instant pot. Maybe it develops more pressure? But 3 minutes high, rest for 10 minutes, vent, is just a bit on the al dente side. Cooked through, but slightly chewy.
Sometimes I sauté the dry oats in a pat of butter for a few minutes before adding the water and cooking. It gives them a nice nutty flavor.
Oat fiber. I've been taking 30g of oat fiber everyday for the past 3 years. Slugging it down in 8oz of warm water and 10g of nooch. Not only are my cholesterol levels fantastic after starting that regime, but very regular as well.
Not the poster, but I grew up eating oatmeal that you would slice. Toss a pot on the wood stove, done when you remembered to grab it. Milk and honey on soft slices of oatmeal. Honestly don’t eat oatmeal much today, but was confused the first time I had oatmeal away from him and it wasn’t at least like lumpy. I’m sure that pot had to be soaked for a half an hour every morning.
While peanut butter does contain some useful nutrients, there are much better choices out there in case someone would like to further improve/optimize their nutrition. Many topics in nutrition can be quite debatable but IMHO most other nuts outperform peanuts (which aren't even nuts) in many ways. Furthermore I'd say peanuts aren't that useful as a protein source in this situation given that protein powder is already being added.
I recently discovered the world of nut butters, and usually choose them over whole nuts due to easier digestibility and nutrient availability. Unless I'm eating macadamia nuts which already feel quite easy on the gut.
Peanut butter is cheap and delicious. A lot of people hyper-optimising nutrition (I was one of them) tend to forget much more obvious stuff like fiber, amino-acid profiles, absorption of specific vitamins like D, etc.
But also high in fat and thus calories. Lower-grade brands also add in garbage like palm fat or sugar. But like with all things, it depends a lot on the quantities you consume and also what else you eat and drink.
Of course, but personally I find it hard to eat too much of a ‘nut’ butter. I did keto for some months and was, in fact, almost always nauseatingly full from all the fat.
Well, that J over there might be the trick. In keto I wouldn’t use jelly. I ate whatever fats and bits of protein I wanted, but it turns out that you’re full all the time and end up eating less (~2.2k calories vs my median of 2.6k).
Depends on your views of the lymphatic system and the role of fiber and protein. My fiber intake during keto was <15g, and I think my colon wasn’t happy.
It's definitely cheap and delicious, but I found that it actually started giving me breakouts on my forehead, especially around my brow line, when I started putting it in smoothies after training 4-5x per week. Switching over to using almond butter (or really just cheaper raw almonds since I'm blending anyways) made it go away.
Peanuts are an order of magnitude cheaper. Sometimes, if you buy a packet of "mixed nuts", you find the first three ingredients are three different types of peanut.
Peanut butter is much cheaper as nut butters are usually very expensive (at least here), but I agree, substituting peanut butter with tahini drastically improved my stomach/digestive issues.
Soluble fiber in general helps lower LDL, beans and lentils work well too. One caution for diabetics, this meal could be pretty high in carbs for a single sitting depending on portions.
Interesting. I have almost the same smoothie every morning minus the banana and oats. Instead I use psyllium husks for fibre.
My cholesterol has been in range for years despite eating almost exclusively saturated fat since I'm in the keto camp. Just watched an interesting episode by Peter Attia and Layne Norton on seed oils which might shift my view on PUFAs a bit.
30 % of the population have genetic makeup such that they can smoke all their life and not increase their risk of lung cancer by much, yet it's deadly for the other 70% of the population.
Many many studies over many decades, reviewed and controlled for other factors have showed that consumption of saturated fat increases heart health issues leading to death in the majority of the population. Finland and Norway have reduced the number of CVD at the population level by educating and pushing for a reduction in sat fat. You are probably one of the few exception.
This, and the infamous seed oils are subject on which Attia has controversial opinions - he is not an expert on nutrition, nor an epidemiologist, but neither am I, so my advice would be to broaden your sources of information.
Having said this, is the thing about PUFA the results of the studies from Walter Willet? I've just watch Chris MacAskill (Viva Longevity on YouTube) talking about it, it seems that PUFA (fatty fish, walnuts, sunflower seed oil) has the most positive effect on triglycerides across the whole population, and beyond reducing saturated fat and increasing fiber intake.
People are just different. I always wonder how we should think about eating and health on a personal level.
I can eat McDonalds and still get perfect blood results. (I dont do that anymore). I have a friend who does not like any vegetables and fruits, he is fine. But also friends who just look at a bag of sweets and grow fat. Allergies and stomach health can be very specific.
Of course you do control a lot. But at the same time, it seems very individual. Maybe a chance for personal AI nutrition practice?
Likewise i switched my breakfast to oats around 3 years ago when my cholesterol was above the recommended high threshold and its been constantly in the higher end of the accetable range ever since. I would like it to be lower, but its much better than it used to be.
Blending reduces some of the effects of including soluble fibres - your stomach empties faster, blood sugar can spike more quickly (especially with fruit smoothies), and you lose some of the "scrubbing" action in the intestines.
Breakfast I don’t eat. Lunch I typically eat outside, dinner after work I’m lazy to cook so replacing by a shake was perfect! 15 min all in for preparation, consumption, cleaning.
Oats are a heavily sprayed crop as well (at least in the US). Glyphosate is also further sprayed on oats as a drying agent. Fortunately Costco sells a brand of glyphosate free oats in bulk.
China would like to have a word with you. Soy milk in particular is hugely popular for breakfast, and there's about a zillion other ways to eat it too.
• half of 1 cup rolled oats
• 1 banana
• 1 scoop soy or pea protein powder
• 2 tablespoon flax seeds (make sure to buy whole and grind them, in my case I don't need to grind them separately the blender chops them while doing the shake)
• 2 tablespoon peanut butter (100% peanut no added oil)
• 1 tablespoon extra virgin olive oil
• unsweetened oat or soy milk
• I add some water if it's too thick
I blend the oats and the flax seeds first, then add the rest, blend again for 10 secs, boom - easy. You may want to adjust peanut butter quantity depending on whether you’re trying to lose, maintain or gain weight. 2 tbsp is me trying to maintain weight as I easily lose weight.
Not op but for breakfast I do 1/4 cup steel cut oats, 1 cup water, 1 tbsp olive oil, 1 tbsp maple syrup, 1/4 tsp cinnamon, pinch of salt. Add a spoon of flax meal at the end. I sometimes add walnuts.
I wish I didn't need the maple syrup. Adjust to taste I guess. Doc says my cholesterol levels are immaculate.
The science around what fats are good or bad is so confusing I don't think we can say much about them with certainly, except that trans fats are probably bad. I lean towards "eat whole foods", but those can include anything from beef and coconut which are full of saturated fats, to fish and nuts which are full of polyunsaturated fats.
Limiting animal fats (which are mostly saturated fats) has a very noticeable and measurable effect on how I'm feeling and doing overall. Primarily using olive/avocado oil and nuts/seeds as my fat sources significantly improved my energy levels, mental clarity, sleep, and stress/HRV (as measured by my Garmin watch). I've noticed this so many times that I don't think this is a placebo. I haven't checked any specific blood markers that might be affected by dietary fats though.
Saturated fats _are_ essential for humans but you should be getting enough of them from non-animal sources.
I think that depends on the individual, or maybe on the dose. Years ago I read a bunch of books arguing for saturated fat, started eating a lot of it, and my cholesterol and triglycerides got horrifically bad. Even those books, which claimed high cholesterol is no big deal, were like "but if it goes over X then you need to fix that," and I was over X. I had high particle numbers too, which the books agreed was pretty bad. I went back to my normal diet and that took me back to my normal bloodwork.
My understanding is that the very few studies that showed positive impact of "adding" saturated fat turned out to be a replacement issue. They replaced junk (candy, refined carbs) with sat fat. Replacing with MUFA and PUFA showed a much greater effect.
you say "fixed" but have you asked "why" you think your cholesterol is broken and needs "fixed"?? why is your cholesterol broken? why is higher cholesterol numbers strictly associated with longer life? why is lower cholesterol numbers strictly associated with premature death? why do we think higher cholesterol numbers are bad when the worldwide data clearly shows higher numbers are healthier?
the medical professions you cite are the very people that are profiting off the propaganda you are spoon feeding yourself. and your very link does precisely zero to address the question being asked, why is high cholesterol bad? maybe journey away from the profit center and widen your view to answer the question instead of parroting propaganda from bigpharma...
I said meaningful measure of economic health, not growth. :-) But I'm not sure. The book "Mismeasuring our lives" gives five recommendations for developing improved measures:
1. Look at income and consumption rather than production
2. Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
3. Emphasize the household perspective (with this they seem to be focusing on more meaningful measurement of in-kind services and inter-sector payments, like government provision of healthcare and education, etc.)
4. Give more prominence to the distribution of income, consumption, and wealth
5. Broaden income measures to non-market activites (their examples here are things like childcare, where a shift from non-market childcare to market childcare over time can create the illusion of an increase in productivity)
Personally #4 is my biggest beef with GDP (and related measures like GDP per capita). Without some kind of adjustment for inequality, GDP can easily make bad things look good. What we need is not overall growth but equitably distributed gains; even a decrease in GDP could result in most people being better off if it occurred because of wealth redistribution.
and in every metric that encompasses logarithmic values (like income or wealth) normalize the use of the median ffs... Averages are gaslighting the "average" Joe.
Most meaningful alternative measures of growth very strongly correlate with GDP. Which is why we just go with GDP. It has issues but GDP has practical utility.
Sure, but once countries hit a moderate level of development the bulk of preventable infant deaths are handled. E.g. Frances' rate has been flat since the turn of the millennium.
In the end, with the current market prices, chips factories and data centers are being built all over with the assumption of exponential demand growth. When the excitement and demand for AI cools, we will enjoy the additional capacity and better prices. Also see: fiber bandwidth post 2000. Capital poured in, overbuilding happened, prices collapsed after the crash.
Has work begun on increasing RAM production capacity? My understanding is that these companies are specifically _not_ increasing capacity yet while they wait to see if the bubble bursts or not.
There aren't because nobody is betting on ai demand to last. Then they'd have a couple billion dollar fab sitting around doing nothing and employees that'd have to be fired.
There already was scaling back for dram and and production post COVID, where I believe nand was being sold close to cost because of oversupply
Meanwhile on the other side of the world - I noticed in SEA businesses are more like "just contact us" with a phone number directly available / facebook page. Like, they don't want you to do anything with the website, they expect you to chat with them directly.
reply