The communication is only necessary/important if people haven't set this as a convention in the first place. I'll say that prior to ever looking at my clues: "I will give you higher numbers than what I said if you miss by more than 1. THe number I pick will always be high enough as to allow you to, with the +1 guess you get for free, make guesses on all the words I was hinting at.
There's also all kinds of not necessarily intended communicaton from the guessers in the fact that you can listen to which words they were considering and didn't pick. Nothing in the game attempt to say that you should not consider, say, whether they were going in the right or wrong direction in their guessing, but it sure can make a difference in how to approach later clues. If they were being very wrong, there might be a need to double up on words that you intended, and that your guessers missed.
In the same fashion, nothing in the game saying that I cannot listen to those guesses as a member of the other team, whether guesser or spymaster, and then change behaviors to make sure we don't hit words they considered as candidate words without very good reasons. Let them double dip on mistakes, or not make their difficult decisions easier. It's not as if the game demands that everyone that isn't currenly guessing should wear headphones to be sure they disregard what the other team says or does.
You can of course play however you want (and I certainly think this is clever), but imo this is likely against the spirit, and perhaps letter, of the rules.
The rule on giving clues is:
"If you are the spymaster, you are trying to think of a one-word clue that relates to some of the words
your team is trying to guess. When you think you have a good clue, you say it. You also say one
number, which tells your teammates how many codenames are related to your clue." (emphasis mine).
The rule states that the number should be the number of words related to the clue. There is later provisions allowing you to use zero and infinity, but outside of these carve-outs (and imo the "allowed" language is telling here, since it implies any other number not equal to the number of words is not allowed) I don't think this is legal.
We always allow any number when we play, because part of the thinking is we cannot be sure what the spy master has in mind. Of course, the number is related to the clue but possibly also to the game history up to that point. The teammates and opponents might interpret it wrong, and that’s OK. Infinity is typically used when there is enough info in principle to finish the game and a high risk if you dont; zero is super rare. We do tend to have very aggressive bids with tenuous connections, and 4 or 5 for a clue word are used in most games. Often, they don’t all work out in a single round, but on some lucky boards or in spousal teams, they occasionally work well.
You have a valid point, to which I'll concede. The rule book gives an example (spanning pages 4-5) where a guesser uses prior clues to select a card while the count is still within the number stated by the spymaster, but I suppose an allowance for guessers to deviate in this way does not also imply that spymasters may deviate in this way. Mea culpa!
Taking this a step further, given that it's well-known that a clue is deemed invalid when it pertains to cards in certain non-definitional ways (sounds-like, number of letters, etc.), it seems extremely reasonable to call a clue followed by N invalid if it doesn't pertain to N cards in a definitional way.
That might be true, for a while. But I bet many of us have parents that are old enough that are, in uncontroversial, non-political ways, losing their ability to view the world accurately. It's not all that easy to convince them that yes, they are in cognitive decline, and we are doing their best to consider how the version of themselves 20 years before would like us to tackle the decline.
Even in less obvious cases that don't involve old age, we often call something growth, when we should just say change. Sometimes we are all just more set our ways. Others, our "learning" is just abandoning principles so that we can follow random emotional fancies. Knowing when we are actually seeing the world more accurately, instead of being wrong in a different way, is quite challenging. We all want to think we are getting better, which is precisely whi we are blind to the ways in which we aren't. The convenient story often defeats what is actually true, but inconvenient.
The miracle of US healthcare is how at every step, work is done to minimize every party's ability to either use market power to lower costs, or to make people cost-conscious about their own expenses.
Insurance, in a vacuum, detached from an industry is a perfectly sensible way to try to spread risk. And as you say, this fair, reasonable insurance isn't about getting extremely rich, but about being the best at identifying where the risks are, and using market power to lower costs. But with healthcare, and especially with the US peculiarities, we manage to get minimal value out of it.
People getting care don't know their options, and how different the pricing can be. Insurers are capped by a percentage of services paid, so they really are happy if everything is very expensive. Providers band together into conglomerates that make sure it's hard for insurers to lower reimbursement rates. Pharmacy benefit managers build complicated schemes that let them take a bigger piece of the pie. They even purchase pharmacies, and restrict the expensive purchases for themselves, while the local pharmacy is squeezed. All in all, it gets very expensive, with minimal control of spiraling prices, and nobody that can lower costs is incentivized to do so.
We blame insurers because that's the people that get paid first, but yes, it's not really a matter of just insurers. It's a kafkaesque system that is basically impervious to significant reform. And for good reason: Every dollar we overpay is someone else's salary. A decrease in costs per person for the same care to match, say, Spain would involve a whole lot of people making a lot less money, including many losing their jobs. Not exactly a political winner, even though the country would be better off with more efficiency
The shortest, simplest equivalent I know that has most of the same 'spice' is Chicago Express/Wabash Cannonball. At first you think it's a game about building a company that tries to get to Chicago first to claim the prize money, but then you realize that this is really about making money, and that maybe the best thing for you is to completely wreck any and all attempts to have anyone, ever, get to Chicago. Plays in an hour, instead of 3+ in your typical train game with this kind of mechanics.
There was a Railroad Tycoon 3, made mostly by the same team in the same office in Fenton. The changes to a more free-flowing tracks didn't necessarily make the game better, and were a headache for most of the production.
I was also told that there were attempts to make the economic simulation far more dynamic, simulating that the cargo could leave by other transport methods, as you'd find in a more serious economic simulation. That just made the game worse: The more efficient the market gets, the harder it is to find the profit, and the more likely that an old 'good' route suddenly stops making money, which is just annoying in a single player game.
It's a common problem with market-centric games: Good simulations make everything unfun, as most of the enjoyment comes from easily finding opportunities or getting away with misbehavior that would make real-life barons very difficult. This is IMO why you don't find many spiritual successors: Most steps forward would be steps back when it comes to making the game fun. So you'll find games focusing just on the tracks, but as puzzles (like the Train Valley Series). Optimizing routes trading items (spaceways), or outright market manipulation (Offworld Trading Company). Doing it all at once basically demands copying the game with newer graphics.
There's no need for a government to get into this kind of situation: in fact, we get very similar problems all over the place in companies that have limited government contacts.
What you describe is ultimately just a principal-agent problem. In a world where the banks have no government protection, it can still be positive for people working at the bank to do things that are very risky for the bank. We see companies do crazy things that hurt them, but help people that work for them all the time.
Saying it's the government's fault is like blaming greed, or capitalism, or the banks. It's just principal-agent problems all the way down.
What gives people burnout changes per person. For me, Covid was the best thing that ever happened. My stress levels dropped like a rock. My self control went way up, and with it my ability to improve my life. I was doing the same work, but remote, and a whole lot of the things that made my life worse just instantly disappeared.
If you know you were getting all your social needs met at work, and now you don't, the companies that have moved back to the office should be a godsend for you. So why don't you just change jobs?
Making creation cheap just means that the control goes to whoever can bring in eyeballs. So it might not be a studio not making you be able to create your vision, but an algorithm deciding that they want to boost someone else and not you.
See the situation in modern indie videogames: Today a small team does what used to take a huge team a couple of decades ago, but you still have projects that have so much budget you cannot touch them with a small team, and difficulties getting good, small games to find audiences, as they need to deal with a different set of gatekeepers. You'll need some influencer, a blogger, or some social network algo, which can be gamed, to give you exposure. Success without paying is not impossible, but the easy route is through paying. And how much will people pay? More than you want.
Even in a world without physical scarcity, if you want eyeballs and clout, scarcity will still exist because real fame and success is limited. And based on who are the most popular organic-ish influencers, you might not like the kind of person who wins.
That's why the riskiest moment in an engineer's career is the jump up from senior: The things that get you a strong senior review and the things that get you promoted to architect/principal/staff are completely different. You can end up in a situation where you've done a little too much glue, but not good enough to claim you were doing architect work, while that time meant you did less than expected of a senior doing heads down work. Try to do this with a bad manager, and you are heading for a Pip.
Which gets us back to the most important rule of a software engineer's career: make sure that the person writing your reviews really likes you.
Why is Senior to staff such a step change for a software engineer in a product company/department?
To be honest, before 2020 aa a software engineer, I spent my entire career working in unknown companies with no real leveling guidelines.
I fell into my only role in BigTech as an L5 (mid level) cloud application architect at AWS Professional Services in 2020 and now a Staff Software Architect (5th and highest IC) at a smaller consulting company.
The leveling guidelines for a “staff” where I am now are about the same as a “Senior” at AWS ProServe or a similar position at GCP
That being said, the leveling guidelines at AWS for my department were straightforward
- L4 junior - expected to be able to complete tasks/storues with little guidance
- L5 mid level - expected to be able to complete work streams and lead a work stream where the business requirements are well defined. But the technical requirements aren’t and you work with the customer to complete the requirements. You were expected to be a subject matter expert in one or more verticals.
- Senior - more ambiguous - neither the business or technical requirements are well defined and you have to work with the customer to discover the business problems/opportunities, define strategies and then plan an implementation and coordinate multiple work streams with the project manager, customer, etc. They could also be over multiple projects.
I’ve had one offer as a staff engineer for a product company (as oppose to a consulting company) at the company that acquired the startup I worked at before going to AWS. I would have been over strategy for all of the acquired companies.
I ended up turning it down. I understood the requirements of operating at that level in cloud consulting. But not product development. The technical requirements didn’t bother me as much as the organizational requirements.
I agree with this so much. Too less Glue work for staff+ will get you “Not performing at a Staff level PIP. Do too much Glue Work, you’re suddenly get compared to Senior productivity. You’re on a fast track to PIP unless your manager and your skip likes you. Because doing just the right amount of Glue Work is impossible because the standards are subjective.
I would rather get an anal probe with a cactus than ever go back to BigTech or any large company.
I’m 50 and I just don’t have the shit tolerance to put up with the politics.
I know what my responsibilities and expectations are as a “staff” and as long as my clients (cloud consulting) are happy and the projects I’m leading are done, on time, on budget and meets requirements, everyone is happy.
There is a clear dollar amount assigned to my work and downstream revenue.
The typical IT department in a large corporation is way too big to have reasonable visibility into what it manages. There's no way to build reasonable controls that work out when you have 50K programmers on staff. It's purely a matter of size.
Often the end result is having just enough red tape to turn a 2 week project into an 8 month project, and yet not enough as to make sure it's impossible for someone to, say, build a data lake into a new cloud for some reports that just happen to have names, addresses and emails. Too big to manage.
Which gets back to the original point, that the real answer is to minimize how much data is held in the first place. Controls will always be insufficient to prevent breaches. Companies and organizations should keep less data, keep it for less time, and try harder to avoid collecting PII in the first place.
I don't disagree with you but as someone who has thought a moderate amount about data security at a "bigco", I will point out something I haven't seen people really talk about...
Audit trails (of who did/saw what in a system) and PII-reduction (so you don't know who did what) are fundamentally at odds.
Assuming you are already handling "sensitive PII" SSNs/payroll/HIPPA/creditcard# data appropriately, which constitutes security best practice: PII-reduction or audit-reduction?
Let's say the CEO agrees with you and is horrified of any amount of unnecessary data being stored.
How would they then enforce this in a large company with 50k programmers? This was what the previous post was discussing.
Not to mention, a lot of this data is necessary. If you're invoicing, you need to store the names and many other kinds of sensitive data of your customers, you are legally required to do so.
Culture change. The CEO can push for top down culture change to get people to care about this stuff. Make it their job to care. Engage their passion to care.
It’s not easy, but it can move the needle over time.
That is easier said than done. In order to achieve that effectively every employee that has any relation to data needs to be constantly vigilant in keeping PII to a minimum, and properly secured.
It is often much easier to use an email address or a SSN when a randomly generated id, or even a hash of the original data would work fine.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't put more effort into reducing the amount of data kept, but it isn't as simple as just saying "collect less data".
There's also all kinds of not necessarily intended communicaton from the guessers in the fact that you can listen to which words they were considering and didn't pick. Nothing in the game attempt to say that you should not consider, say, whether they were going in the right or wrong direction in their guessing, but it sure can make a difference in how to approach later clues. If they were being very wrong, there might be a need to double up on words that you intended, and that your guessers missed.
In the same fashion, nothing in the game saying that I cannot listen to those guesses as a member of the other team, whether guesser or spymaster, and then change behaviors to make sure we don't hit words they considered as candidate words without very good reasons. Let them double dip on mistakes, or not make their difficult decisions easier. It's not as if the game demands that everyone that isn't currenly guessing should wear headphones to be sure they disregard what the other team says or does.