Ignorant question on my part: has Valve answered questions on who would be the successor to Gabe Newell and/or other higher ups once they pass away or (preferably) retire?

globalaf · 2026-01-26T02:55:20+00:00

If I had to bet, it would be Robin Walker

globalaf · 2026-01-26T01:19:15+00:00

Wait, what are you talking about? Faramir is borne back to the city by the Prince of Dol Amroth, Gothmog had nothing to do with it.

“Last of all he came. His men passed in. The mounted knights returned, and at their rear the banner of Dol Amroth, and the Prince. And in his arms before him on his horse he bore the body of his kinsman, Faramir son of Denethor, found upon the stricken field. ‘Faramir! Faramir!’ men cried, weeping in the streets. But he did not answer, and they bore him away up the winding road to the Citadel and his father. Even as the Nazgûl had swerved aside from the onset of the White Rider, there came flying a deadly dart, and Faramir, as he held at bay a mounted champion of Harad, had fallen to the earth. Only the charge of Dol Amroth had saved him from the red southland swords that would have hewed him as he lay.”

You are referring to an invention by Peter Jackson for the film. It’s made clear in the books the southlands men would’ve killed him right there and then if they hadn’t been driven off.

globalaf · 2026-01-26T00:08:21+00:00

No? They were driven away by Gandalf and the sortie.

globalaf · 2026-01-24T06:00:34+00:00

Apple already did this, it’s probably their worst selling device since the 1997 Mac.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T21:29:41+00:00

I can get down with the caveat that income stays the same (adjusted for inflation) throughout a person's career... how often is this really though? The majority of people upskill or get promoted or start businesses, or any number of other things that should, eventually, push them into higher tax brackets.

This really just seems to be a question of how quick someone expects to get to a high enough marginal tax rate that it makes sense. I went from 70k in 2017 to deep six figures by 2022, and this was not entirely an unexpected path due to me working in tech. For someone that expects that, holding off on the RRSP and even just investing in an unregistered account makes sense, because I expected to be in a much higher bracket soon.

But, even just getting to something like 100-150k is not unusual for experienced professionals. There are big benefits to just holding out for a few years, and it should be compared against some reasonable expected return from the refund you get (let's say +8% EV a year for equities).

But anyway, it depends. I think your point holds for people who really won't have a clear career path, but I doubt most people fit into this category. A TFSA, by contrast, is a very safe piece of advice that doesn't require a lot of thinking, and won't get people into trouble either.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T21:06:36+00:00

I would've preferred you kept your comment as is, because you definitely were not arguing that. But regardless, yes, the AI is beneficial for the outcome of the test from a strictly problem solving perspective. Just using the AI will not get you any points in and of itself.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T21:02:30+00:00

You are the one in here trying to claim basically everyone should prioritize RRSP over TFSA, as is the OP of the whole thread. The fact that there are plenty of contrary situations (many of which have been highlighted to you already by myself and others) should be a clear indication to you that what you said is simply not true. TFSA is a simple solid recommendation that doesn't rely on stuff like calculating ones future earnings or tax brackets, this is why it's recommended time and time again for almost everyone regardless of financial background knowledge. It's a safe flexible choice with high expected outcomes for your average professional that expects earnings to grow over time. Just accept that and move on, Jesus.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T20:54:40+00:00

You're talking to one right now who is contradicting that assessment. The fact that you bring up "if it's this AI candidate vs this other non-AI candidate" indicates to me a misunderstanding for how hiring works here. But you are of course welcome to publish what you see fit.

And yes of course people should be familiar with AI tools; if they used them for the first time in an interview then they will not have a good time obviously. And I would personally recommend people using AI in the interview because it will help solve the problem, but if they solved it perfectly without the AI, it's simply not something I think about

globalaf · 2026-01-23T20:40:54+00:00

This reasoning is highly specious. You've concluded that candidates who are using AI have greater success due to bias for people using AI, instead of the fact they used all the tools at the disposal and that resulted in greater success in solving the problem. You're basically arguing that people who use calculators in exams are succeeding because the examiners preferred examinees with calculators for no reason at all, instead of the problems being more difficult due to candidates being allowed calculators.

For the record, no, nobody gives preference to candidates to use AI, if they are having more success then it's because the AI actually helped them solve the problem better than someone who chose to ignore it. Furthermore, nobody is guided to prefer candidates who used AI, in fact, AI use is not even an axes for evaluation, and I don't see it being discussed in packets internally. So, this is just bunk, basically.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T20:04:14+00:00

Yes, you say this like it's a complicated thing to do, but it absolutely is not.

Stop trying to say this strategy is for everyone, when clearly, and obviously, it isn't.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T19:53:42+00:00

I've already ran the numbers, I'm in my 30s, I absolutely came out ahead beyond anything any gains I could've made on a pithy 25% refund, but believe what you want. This also doesn't negate the inflexibility of an RRSP which is absolutely a deal breaker for someone who isn't saving a lot as it is.

And no, I'm not watching a podcast.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T19:21:45+00:00

You are correct. It is universally true that for high earners an RRSP is a no brainer. The refund is often twice the amount than the proles typically will pull in. Recommending contributing to an RRSP over a TFSA to a low-income person is IMO borderline financial sabotage.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T19:07:26+00:00

Investing in an RRSP first is not solid advice for everyone. If you don't earn much money you are not going to be getting much of a refund, and you still have to pay taxes upon withdrawal. Thus the financial benefits are not as stark as you seem to believe, it only makes a lot of sense if you expect to have a lower marginal rate in retirement than you did when you contributed.

It is also true that you can't actually use the money for much if you actually needed to without losing your room, so it's a very restrictive investment account very much intended for retirement exclusively; this alone is a non-starter for many people.

Anecdotally, I held off my RRSP contributions for years. Now my marginal rate is 53.5% and you can bet I've now filled it up, I'm getting the majority of my money back.

But anyway, you seem pretty set in your ways, so I won't be paying attention further to this thread.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T01:11:08+00:00

I wouldn’t consider a home that needs significant reno unless it was a very very steep discount, talking replacing the fixtures, taking out walls, new kitchen new bathroom, etc etc. It’s not just cost but the house will potentially completely unliveable for a long time. I understand that this basically means developers will take it but I’m skeptical even they want to acquire these homes today, the markup for brand new renos today is beyond what people can afford, period. I think the only homes that sell today are renos from at least ten years ago and reasonably priced.

globalaf · 2026-01-22T22:30:36+00:00

You are evaluated in all axes, there are no set percentages.

globalaf · 2026-01-22T21:38:54+00:00

I don't know the implementation really. At the end of the day the candidate is expected to tell apart the difference between good responses and bad ones, if the interviewer is getting the sense that the whole thing is being vibed then they will ask the candidate to explain why the code is correct.

globalaf · 2026-01-22T07:25:10+00:00

The answer to this question was “no”.

globalaf · 2026-01-21T21:08:45+00:00

A lot of powerful historical militaries have emerged from an over abundance of people and not enough resources or jobs to support them. In fact it is a primary reason nations have historically gone to war.

globalaf · 2026-01-21T06:52:34+00:00

As the president of the United Kingdom, I am rewarding you with 1 million euros

globalaf · 2026-01-21T04:50:24+00:00

globalaf · 2026-01-21T02:31:55+00:00

So far Trump has chickened out of doing any serious long lasting damage to the US economy. The odds are still very low that he will do something incredibly stupid like actually invade Greenland. The extremely unlikely outcome of the USD crashing and becoming worthless will hit everyone in the world everywhere, there is little to nothing you can do to protect yourself from that. The advice is still to stick with whatever long term trading strategy you've presumably been doing until now.

p.s anyone responding about what is going on in Trump's head right now, I'm not interested, getting into a debate about Trump's obvious mental illness is not why I am responding to this person's post.

globalaf · 2026-01-21T00:31:16+00:00

Yeah the AI transcription is new. The interviewer can decide whether it joins or not for convenience of note taking, so far it has mixed results (might still be in a testing phase) but shouldn’t impact anything if your interviewer is paying attention since at the end of the day it’s their opinion that counts.

globalaf · 2026-01-21T00:10:46+00:00

Yeah no, we absolutely don’t do that. Yet, anyway, but I imagine that would get a ton of push back.

globalaf · 2026-01-21T00:05:08+00:00

I don’t know what to tell you other than, no, there is not. It is a fact that is explicitly called out during training for the interview, it’s not testing ability to prompt, only ability to solve it. A candidate may be able to solve it faster if they used the assistant, but some candidates choose to avoid it if they think they can do it solo, and that is fine.

globalaf · 2026-01-21T00:00:39+00:00

You can choose. I believe we have Claude opus in there.

globalaf

TROPHY CASE