Programmer for Citigroup here, Computer Science and Financial Engineering major-
At citigroup, entry level programmers are paid just as much as entry level business analysts. In a large company, no one needs "great" programmers. They really jsut need capable programmers to get everything executed correctly in such thick beurocracy. The reality is that good MANAGERS are much harder to come by, so whenever anyone, business side or technical side, proves to be a good manager, they move up and get paid more. So it's not that the programmers are paid less, it's that they don't really look like programmers once the company wants then to manage programmers, which is much much more valuable.
Bottom line, being a "good programmer" won't get you paid more. Anywhere. Not even at google. Showing that you can make a company productive and be a good manager will always get you paid more, because those are fewer and far between.
I disagree. After only a brief runthrough of Go, the different types of statements are very recognizable line by line. The sytax includes less obvious breaks and parens, but I think that makes the code a lot more readable because it eliminates the nastier paren nesting you often see in C. I think the first example in chapter 2 gives clear indication of the benefits of eliminating the features of C which are more compact but less readable.
I think many facebook users complain that facebook doesn't resemble a real social network enough, and in many ways, I'm glad it doesn't. This author doesn't like that he hears from a lot of people he doesn't talk to much, and to me, that kind of means that yes, I have my friends I interact with often, but I also have facebook to bring me closer to the people who may just not be in that inner circle yet. I wouldn't have the time or energy to pursue those relationships on my own and facebook makes it much easier. That may sound unnatural, but if we were using computers to accomplish only what we would be accomplishing without them, then why compute? Facebook is better at keeping up with my acquaintances and friends than I am, and that's why I use it. That doesn't make my real life social network any less important.
As for the privacy stuff, I don't know much about data mining, but I do know that there seems to be an interesting relationship between total data and what can be done on a person scale when it comes to privacy invasion by giant companies. As the information collected becomes more intricate, more data is required, i.e. every visited page with a like button on it ever, and the data becomes increasingly difficult to mine. I don't like the idea of a single person poking around my internet history, but then I remember that unless I were a felon, I just don't see facebook having the resources for that to happen (not that they absolutely couldn't, but that they couldn't target ME, one in 500 million, without targeting a large group that I am a part of, say, the state of new york, which would be a very difficult task. This is a question of probabilistic capability, not absolute capability.). Maybe I'm wrong, let me know if I am. This could be an important lesson in online privacy for me.
Something tells me you benefit a lot from copyright being abolished, and that in many ways lots of musicians would suffer. Do you think it's possible that you don't value copywrite law nearly as much as an artist would because their music would be effectively free and you wouldn't pay for music or movies anymore? And quite obviously, I mean for you to answer "I'm going to pay for everything because I want to!" so I can understand that there isn't something I'm missing in all this, just a lot of people who want an easier and cheeper way to get music and movies.
You need to take some time and think about whether you have the right to impose a system upon musicians. There was a time when people did not believe in free speech. Free speech is an ideology. A widespread ideology, but one nonetheless. You need to consider very seriously whether your right to "free speech" of posting another person's work and creation is more important than an artist's right to their own work. Is it? Can you seriously tell yourself in "net benefit to society" that your ability to distribute stolen content is more important than the security an artist might need to create that content in the first place? And yes, some may produce anyway, even without that right to their own work, but beyond the speculation as to the cultural benevolence of man, can you really say that your "right to distribute" is more important than their right to simply have real ownership over that which they may have work on for months before they created a music product? Is it important that you have that right? or is it maybe selfish?
I'm glad you're willing to risk the income of musicians everywhere on this theory of yours. And you know what, I really don't support SOPA, and I know that the system is broken, but it astounds me that so many people on HN will openly claim that it just doesn't make sense to pay for music because "copywrite law is crazy and everything is stolen." You can steal. I don't care if you steal. But know that you're stealing from a person who provided you with their work under the expectation that you would buy it. Frank Ocean released a great mixtape, go download it. But don't act like every artist should just know that their content is effectively free. Think about what you want the internet to be when you stomp all over sale of goods over the internet. This kind of assumption, that information cannot be sold, destroys the internet as much as any piece of legislation would, because it perpetuates the mentality that information is nothing. Don't destroy the internet, and acknowledge that the information is valuable, you just didn't want to pay for it. And if you can't acknowledge that, imagine you're staring you're favorite artist in the face and telling him/her why it doesn't make sense that they expect you to pay for their art.
I meant stealing from an artist due to sheer I-don't-give-a-fuck-erry. And you have no right to decide for an artist that they simply need to provide their hard work to the "pay if I feel like it" system. Is that your right? Do you think that artists will continue to produce when you rid them of their right to sell their product in the way they choose?
That is not for you to choose. If the artist wants you to give as a token of your affection, they can, but for now, you have no right to decide that you need not pay for their work until they've earned your affection. This is in no way a solution. And I have every right to be angry at justifications for theft with claims that theft is the baseline, and benevolence is a product of further appreciation. Theft cannot be the baseline.
People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. And if say this magical benevolent system is implemented, are you to guarantee that good will can ensure that the money is actually paid? I can't, and based on the justifications for theft I've seen on this forum, I seriously doubt anyone here will actually pay for the all music they take, especially under the anonymity and "I'm special so it doesn't matter when I do this immoral thing" of the internet.
If you're comfortable not stealing the products that you don't "feel good paying for" then go right ahead, only pay for the products you feel good paying for. But if you're saying that it's cool to just steal the work and effort of a product that just didn't sit right with you, then you are far in the wrong. No one insists that we can all steal from athletic shoe companies with factory worker human rights issues overseas, and yet somehow every time we think a media company abuses our rights to their content with oh so high pricing, we're just entitled to take their content. The issue of online theft isn't one of personal ethical comfort, and that it is no way to convince lawmakers that the online community is onboard to accept FAIR legislation, or even be civil with a government-free solution.
So you're saying that we only REALLY want the products to which we would chritably throw cash? so when I buy coke at the grocery store, it's because I want to charitably contribute to the coca-cola company's artful soda recipe? And when I don't feel like appreciating it, I should just take them?
OBVIOUSLY NOT. If you don't appreciate the music, or even the artists work, then don't download it. If you don't want it, dont steal and insist that your "just getting it for the right price." I can't even begin to explain how entitled it sounds o hear people saying that they wil pay for the things that they "really should be paying for because they want to be." This is a justification for piracy and is in no way a solution to the curent issues. You buy a product, you donate to charities which you like. Charities ask you to contribute, firms tell you what you need to to pay for their product. Louis CK is in no way an indication that people will pay for things they 'really appreciate,' lots of people really wanted the experiment to work. But what of Kanye's album? I see hundreds saying "Oh this guy is a jerk, I'm just gonna take his album." Is that how natural markets work?
Don't like it? Good, that's your NATURAL INCLINATION to go for lowest price possible which will in no way just 'go away' when you really appreciate your products, nor should it.
And this is not zero cost replication. There are people that put a ton of time and effort into piracy to make it work. We'll know when we've reached a solution that works when the enormous online filesharing infrastructure necessary for the current levels of piracy dissolves, and people simply start to pay for the products like they would any other.
To put no blame on either side, as the only attempts I've seen on this ground involve louis CK and some small-time dubsteppers, what of the music industry's effective monopoly and set-without-alternative pricing? Not many artists have the resources to bypass this system when they really have the opportunity to opt out of the label system, so the argument of "pay for it or find another way to get music" isn't exactly reasonable. And as a better indication, there's been a clear decrease in consumer valuation of individual songs, as evidence of the total effort exerted to bypass current prices, and yet the prices for music have remained steady.
I believe that there is a market equilibrium, and that as songs are made cheeper to reflect their new value to consumers, more will buy rather than steal, but it seems like labels are insisting that they should dictate market price without alternative rather than adjust price to demand. I don't mean that they should just lower prices until we get what we want, but I think the direction the music industry is headed is more enforcement of monopoly than prevention of theft.
If there were a way for artists to effectively bypass the system, or for value to consumers to have sway in the market price, this may not be an issue, but it is. In reality, the system means more theft, so artists see less revenue, and I'd imagine that artists would go for an alternative as readily as many consumers. And further, if there were some way to do away with it, there'd likely be far less of a culture of theft, or say, less communally supported resources for it, so artists might conceivably be able make money if they attempted to go sans-label.
Obviously these are just more reasons why the system is broken, but the difference is the availability of a market solution. And if there isn't in fact, a treatment for the disease rather than the symptom, I really only see SOPA as reasonable if it were immediately followed by anti-trust legislation against some big name labels.
Both of these posts are completely opposite to what the system of production should be. OBVIOUSLY we would see the apple design as intelligent, and obviously thats how we think intelligent tablets should look now that they have been established as functional and successful, but that is completely the result of apple engineers hard work, not some universal tablet design that just makes sense. I can understand why apple would be so pissed. They created a novel (and initially, quite criticized for several aspects of it's simplicity) piece of technology, and because everyone likes it, they're claiming that it was barely designed at all. Apple made tough and meticulous decisions that allowed them to nail this design, and now, seeing that they are successful, other companies are claiming that those decisions were obvious and effectively unmade. And even if the designs were in fact "obvious," and impossible to do any other way, then why hadn't tablets taken this form before now? And even further, why do we patent things at all, if whenever someone releases a design seen as intelligent and novel, it can be declared as the industry standard and infinitely copyable? We patent so that apple has an incentive to make such a well thought out product, not so they can "shut out other designs that are simply following the same completely objective universal blueprints for the tablet computer."
I like the new structuring. I find it interesting to note that these SVPs are people who may become VCs and the tech superpowers when they leave google. IF they leave google.
I think that this whole process is completely natural. At this point in the VC game, investors will really only trust the most experience VCs with their money. And it's possible that soon, small VCs with small initial capital and much more focused investment strategies could garner large returns and take the stage. Or conversely, big VC funds' exclusivity, emphasis on experience, and hesitation to hire could turn them into small, successful executors of their managers' vision, and investors will put their money in new funds at the managers retire. It could really go in many positive growth directions, but the point is that this is completely natural. Big companies dominate in cycles. If they decide to hire, new VCs are ushered in, and if they don't, new firms take their place. Point is, no company can last longer than the people who run it, and no trend in the markets can exist longer than the companies that fuel it.
I had expected for this to be the HTC in Taiwan, but this is also a good development. Now that many tech firms feel more loyal to industries due to the ease of connection on the internet, its nice to see companies showing real productive loyalty to their geographical nests. I'm glad not everyone's leaving the real world behind. But maybe this is just the direction of progress. Its anyone's call, and I'm just glad there are some people with the foresight to advocate a symbiotic internet-reality relationship, in which the reality must also be sustained, and not just a full online lIfestyle.
I think that the Walmart issue creates benefit more through drawing money out of cities and into developing countries, and detriment through carrying money out of small towns. The decreased price of goods is often counteracted by lower incomes to local stores, and ends up doing more harm than good. This is basically a type of arbitrage and is often very helpful to the world economy, but I'm not sure the analogy carries over on the internet. Large companies do not help new developing communities join the internet marketplace like Walmart does for developing countries. So while I often do opt for a natural self regulating approach, large dominant companies would not be like Walmart in the future of internet culture. And the problem may correct itself in time, as big companies may not find their natural niche like Walmart did, and just become latent, new company gobblers. If this were the case, we may find that the internet doesn't have any use for dominant companies, and big companies will be consistently replaced one after another for years to come.
I think this writer has an excellent point about the importance of locality on the internet, and I think that the idea of online cultures and communities needs to be explored more as method of creating organization within the internet. Really, aside from habit, mutual interest is the only bond holding most internet communities together, and I think that is a concept which can be explored and built upon.
I love when companies move back to their purer roots. I don't know where this puts Google's progress as a company over the next few years, but it definitely means we won't be seeing the innovation slowdown that Microsoft experienced after their years of explosion. As long as our tech superstars arn't just turning into company gobbling monsters, but rather are constantly iterating, innovating, and developing their product line like a company should.
A lot of the guidance I find in posts like this reminds me of the book "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. His analytical approach to identifying an excellent CEO is regularly confirmed by posts like this one. I highly recommend it for new CEOs and people looking to understand some of underlying nuances and necessities of running a business.
I think the ipad will only reach a point in which is has potential to push PCs out of the market once it no longer needs to be tethered to a pc for regular use.. Keyboards, size, and general interface are all this people acclimate to, but only being able to move things to the ipad from a PC? You can't get around the necessity for the PC there. When the ipad starts to feel more like its own device, I could feasiblly see Wozniak and Jobs' vision becomming reality. But till then, its a dependent device with a great UI.
I think I'd need a larger data set to know anything for sure. I'm not one to scold for humor and bits of play on the site, but I think what sets us apart from reddit and those God-forsaken 4chan users is that we do not have a culture of humor, but a culture of enjoyment in logical strength. Humor is fine, but only as long as it is left alone and doesn't affect the discussion board. But the way HN users compete for logical strength and correctness in observation seems to improve the general enjoyment and quality of HN far more than any humor could. No one needs a dry, lifeless site, but it seems HN accomplishes life by more sophisticated and fulfilling means than any other forum, and we won't resort to stupidity like others did.
Think long term adjustment to the mentality of the site. If that link was worth something, why would the buyer just give it away? It's possible that the buyer would try to sell it and compete with the original seller, and all subsequent buyer might follow, but that would be something the original seller could take into account in pricing their product.
I agree that the link shortening aspect of this site cannot be it's product. Emphasizing that at all can detract from the truly novel idea that exists in selling and buying micro-properties of internet knowledge. People need to see the incredible nature of a site which allows you to sell information which has high demand and low supply, but has no other method of paid distribution. For everything too small to put in a book, and not small enough to just give away. I think its brilliant.
If this becomes a high traffic site, it could really help fight internet piracy. If I have a high demand, hard to find video, I'm far more likely to try to sell it than just give it away. And even if I can't because the site is closely watched by the actual copywriter holders, the idea that money can be made off any online property can give internet knowledge and assets the feeling of physical worth, to the degree that people may grow hesitant to just give away their video and music files. It also has potential to detract from the information free-for-all of the internet, as people may also grow hesitant to share in general, but that would only be for sellable things, so blogs and general information are basically out. If successful, this site could make major change in the attitude of the internet. In essence, conflict exists between copyright holding companies, who believe their intellectual property should be paid for, and the general population of the internet, who freely share information constantly. This conflict could seriously benefit from a general shift toward the resounding feeling that information and online assets are worth something and should be bought and sold. That could be of serious detriment to the culture of the internet, but the communities could also gradually adjust. After all, the feeling that assets have monetary value is the way we live in the real world, its only a matter of time before the internet starts to follow.
Every time something like this comes out, I feel us taking a step away from "video camera mounted on a robot where the eyes should be" and a step toward real perception. I always wonder though, if a computer can one day recognize all different types of hands, could it draw a new one?
Also, I do not believe the knowledge of a specific need and the method of satisfying that need is what the startup sells. If that were the case, any big company could legally recreate what twitter or facebook does. Rather, I think the real value of startups is in the user affinity and traffic it experiences regularly. Google won't make twitter, because everyone already goes to twitter (this brings up an interesting point about making people feel like they have "things" on your site, which can help create a more secure user base, but that is a different point). Ad sales reflects traffic, sustainability reflects traffic, public influence reflects traffic. It all seems to break down to that, and that's what companies are betting on (or "mining") when they buy a start up. So, if a founder decides that he is interested in making a quick buck from the start, they won't work to establish a strong user affinity, or secure traffic levels, or significant public influence, and hence will be selling a low quality product. For an over rated opportunity-price, no less, because their pricing is based on the opportunity image created by older, successful, dedicated startups. This low quality atmosphere is what this writer warns against, for the benefit of buyers, sellers, and users. The markets have always secured demand for companies that create strong, stable foundations, and it was only a matter of time before the internet's companies started following the age old rules of capitalism too. So be warned, VCs and new founders alike. If you're not making a quality product, its only a matter of time before big companies figure out how to weed out the miners and it won't be as easy to make a quick buck with a low quality company.