mckee1

The article mentions that the seats flip up when the passenger stands. (Note: this means they should never actually be in the position shown in the render).

I think that's generally the rule. The more successful the startup, the larger the stake the founder maintains due to being in a better position in regards to VC rounds.

Well you don't necessarily have to be a great engineer to start a great startup. In fact, if you're running a startup, and you're the best engineer there, you've done something wrong. So if you're thinking of going down that route you don't have to be worried about the fact you can't write the best code in the world.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by "semi" technical. To me that would be someone who is a decently skilled programmer and could hack together an app without it being really well written code. You say you couldn't write more than a single-page application, and if that is really the cap of your abilities (and it's almost certainly not, you just need to spend time learning) then I wouldn't quite qualify that as semi-technical.

Yeah you were quite right, the info has now been removed from Mark's blog.

Jesus what did you lose to? That's a really neat app.

>Hackathons are a great co-founder dating process until the idea gets pregnant.

Haha this is actually a really great way of putting it. It made me laugh out loud.

God I really love that story at the end. It reminds me of Gates and the early days of MS where they were trying to sell their BASIC interpreter before even having written it.

Yeah I was just thinking that. It must have cost a crazy amount.

The title here is completely wrong. The article mentions that they are potentially in talks to buy a stake in DailyMotion, but nowhere does it state that MSFT will be buying them for certain.

Yeah, GSI Commerce (now Ebay Enterprise) I think.

So is giver.io a non-profit itself or a business? I'm just interested btw, I don't think there's anything wrong with it being a for-profit. In terms of feedback I like the idea, even if some potential revenue streams could be considered amoral by some. (ie taking a percentage of each donation)

Hey that's actually pretty cool, can you post it when you're finished? I'm a bit of politics geek.

>The company is worth around $135 billion and will probably become the fastest in history to reach $150 billion

Their market cap crossed 150B yesterday.

I'm actually pretty sure Iron Man (2008) shows some genuine code for a second, it's when Stark is in the cave.

You should post it to /r/architecture. They have 38k subscribers and I'm sure many of them would be interested

I'm going to have to say wearable tech, even if it is becoming a bit cliche. Not necessarily products like Google Glass, but there are plenty of applications that can massively improve the users life, or help save it. In hospitals and old people's homes for example, watches that monitor heart rates, necklaces to check vital signs etc. I'm no Doctor but I imagine a way to constantly monitor the condition of a potentially at risk person without them having to lie in bed hooked up to a huge machine will be pretty useful.

I got an SSL Connection Error from Chrome on Mac OS Mavericks

>The argument is essentially technological. Computers and robots are getting much better. Soon enough, your local McDonald’s will be entirely automated

If technology is ever increasing and replacing manual jobs

>These are abstract, constructed jobs. If we had to, we could make do with far fewer software programmers

Then how on earth is a software engineer a "constructed" job? This an awful example.

I think the overall premise is probably correct though, as human beings we need goals, we need structure and something to do, so we will always "make up" jobs for society to function correctly. And there are menial jobs that aren't going to be automated any time soon.It's pretty tough to automate a call centre for example, human's are not going to buy a product from an automated voice, and we're a long, long way away from AI being an effective sales person (ie perfect human voice, able to make a "connection" with someone.)

Edit:Grammar

Yeah this was the first channel I really stopped on and it was hilarious when I realised the bearded chap was mouthing along.

Yeah, that's true I suppose.

Seems okay to me

>The drawback, she says, is that communicating via text chat "takes a lot of time." Mr. Swaminathan says TutorVista can provide audio-chat sessions if scheduled in advance.

Really? I would not pay $45 an hour for text based tutoring. I had assumed up until I read this it would be skype-like video to video chats. Having to schedule audio chats as if this is some kind of special feature is a bit of a joke is it not?

Fair play to all of the tutors giving up their time to help students, that's great but the people behind tutors.com really ought to consider adding video features as standard. Even if it's just using Skype or a similar service

I used to be the very same but what really changed me, and it genuinely did, was thinking about the insignificance of the world, of everything in our lives and everyone in them. We are on a tiny little rock, orbiting one of billions of stars in the galaxy, which is itself one of millions and billions of galaxies. And we're all playing this silly little game. So next time you're worried about going to an interview say, or meeting someone you've never met before just think utterly meaningless it all is. It sounds overly simplistic, but really the attitude to have is: who gives a shit? (Note: This most certainly does not to apply to everyone and if you have chronic anxiety, it's often a lot more complex than this and you ought to see a Dr.)

That's a very good point. Doctors and Lawyers, to take your example, are obviously intelligent and by definition successful people. Yet their success is capped, there is a ceiling in these careers - a lawyer can never really change the world affecting literally millions of people. Sure he can work on an important case, and sometimes the law can change as a result of important cases (well not so much the law, but the interpretation of it) but he/she will never make a world-shattering breakthrough, a product used by hundreds of millions of people, in the way that a software engineer can.

I don't so much see myself as a programmer (and I'm not one professionally, still at university) but rather an engineer. An engineer who works with software, I love building software but the joy I get out of programming is no different to that which an EE would get when building an appliance. It's the actual building of something useful, solving a problem, that instils my love of coding. I'm an engineer who has a passion for software would perhaps be the best way of putting it.