no_wave

It's a huge mistake to frame this in terms of safety rather than belonging. Any criticism of someone who feels out of place will cut them to the quick, no matter how much you pad your language.

If your standing within a group is assured, you can call each other dumb assholes all day and it won't matter. This is the classic phenomenon of male friendship. What works in a group isn't an absence of criticism, it's a sensation of security of your belonging in that group.

How do you make people feel secure? The only real way it occurs is if everyone actually has respect for one another's contributions and work. This can't be faked, unfortunately, and respect has to be earned, and everyone's respect is earned slightly differently. Some peoples' respect algorithms are more compatible than others.

An interesting study might be to try organizing people by what they value most in their co-workers.

Was he at all correct in thinking that this applied to Torvalds? Time seems to have proven that ESR was completely off-base.

LinkedIn lucked out and rode the network effect to its current size. Note that the only thing you like about it is its network effect, which is more a question of timing than open competition at this point.

If other websites like Facebook, Yelp, Google, etc. dumped so much crap on the user while offering so little the internet would be almost unusable. LinkedIn should rot, I'd love to see it, because then everyone would migrate to a better alternative.

Terrible article... no mention of plumbing, toilets, heating, ductwork, or electricity, which are the main factors that dictate how normal houses are designed (which is why materials like cob aren't the game-changers that their devoted proponents claim).

I think you're underselling the technology. The hologram appeared to be a small attachment to a multi-purpose droid that was recorded off of a single camera. Being able to record and project holograms on your phone would be extremely impressive even today, regardless of the fidelity. And the Palpatine hologram was likely monochromatic because it was being received in outer space.

The hologram standard for a dedicated device without transmission issues was much higher, seen in the holographic game board that C3P0 plays with Chewbacca on the Falcon. But in general Star Wars was smart enough to keep the technology basically gimmicky - the real targeting computers and useful stuff was 2-dimensional.

PayScale is basing its median income data for Colgate grads with 10+ years of experience off of 16 observations. There are likely only one or two observations going into the Colgate Social Science salary in the article.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/School=Colgate_Universit...

In addition, only 25% of Colgate grads go into business-related fields after graduation and the number of those going into high-profile management consulting or investment banking is likely under 100 people a year. The number of people making huge piles of money in general is very small and isn't as correlated with education as people tend to think. Hacker News has a wildly skewed view of this and dishonest "statistics" like these generally go unexamined.

These salaries on the image on the right seem extremely high. Half of Colgate Social Science majors are in the top 5% of income earners? Half of Tufts humanities majors? These are great colleges, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

And, looking at the actual data collected, the image on the right doesn't hold up. The study must have collected data from hundreds of colleges, yet there were only 7,300 observations. Sounds like a lot, but assuming that there were 200 universities (probably a low estimate) and 8 categories of majors, you're only looking at 4 to 5 observations per college per category. And these observations were probably unevenly distributed. So it's inevitable that a few colleges will have extreme "median" reported incomes, as the table on the right shows the highest incomes observed in each field.

So while the percentile distinctions cited in the article between selective and less-selective schools are likely accurate, the numbers on the image of the right-hand side - the really striking part of the article - have almost no statistical validity.

The WSJ is leading people to a shocking conclusion even though the real finding - that there's a 12%-18% difference in earnings between selective and less-selective colleges - is much less extreme. (It's also likely making a lot of people feel poor... one of the strange selling points of the WSJ that in this case simultaneously gets eyeballs on PayScale.com)

The hype machine around this is strange - tons of superficially positive reviews but without a whole lot of passion behind them.

Does anyone else smell something off about the response to the game so far? Have people convinced themselves that this is a great game before they started enjoying it?

When did supply-side economics become a core tenet of feminism?

Do you think any of those things are difficult to learn? You certainly don't seem to think so. It's like you're looking for reasons to throw up your hands and not hire anyone.

You could easily live in a 3-bedroom and pay $1700 a month in rent. You'll only have $3000 a month to pay for food and transportation - oh my god, the privation, how is anyone supposed to make it?

You're insane

Not in the magic world of VC funding! There will always be at least one dominant firm and a few others setting tens of millions of dollars on fire by offering five dollar Lyft Lines in Manhattan hoping to get traction.

It's a bit like restaurants - you have to compete both with established, profitable competitors and upstarts willing to take a temporary operating loss.

It may be unsustainable, but I've gotten hundreds of dollars of discounted stuff from companies operating at a loss looking for traction... thanks, pension fund VC investors!

I don't think this is difficult, but I agree that it is rare. There is very little pressure encouraging people to become one of these programmers. I'm one of them, but it's difficult to actually leverage this into a higher salary unless you got involved with a larger company straight out of college. The interview process doesn't expose this, and unless you write a hit open-source application there isn't any way to prove it.

Instead, employers - even technical people who interview you - play buzzword bingo, indicating that you would have been better off spewing new frameworks into your codebase unnecessarily. The personal incentives for a programmer are completely misaligned with the actual interests of the business.

The approach that would incentivize this behavior would involve giving raises to people who write the sort of code you want to see, but instead raises often come from dazzling strangers who don't know the long-term consequences of your code (ie, getting a higher offer and asking for a raise).

Software is the fastest growing field, but when you factor in 1.5% and 1.6% inflation in 2013 and 2014 (and use the salary numbers discussed in this thread), you get a real decrease of 1% between 2013 and 2015. So you're getting a salary decrease for the fastest growing profession in the US - a terrible sign. Why shouldn't salary be allowed to increase, especially when rents rose 27% in San Francisco?

No surprise - he won't get to offset its losses to reduce Nash Holdings' tax bill unless he spends 500 hours a year working there.

It's obviously a net loss if the Post loses money, but I don't think he intends it to be a loser for long.

Why is everyone in the article's comments sucking up to the author so hard?

I think the opposite is true of engineers.

Main concern is that people fully expect issues to be found down the line. Would I bet $100,000 that we won't discover any currently-unknown harmful side effects from vaping in the next thirty years? I wouldn't. It's similar to how with each iteration of safer food-grade plastic we end up finding something harmful about it.

It's not a good reason to make it illegal, as I think harm should be proven before making something illegal, but I like that people are exercising some skepticism and concern over the unknown unknowns for a new technology, especially one that involves smoking.

As Nietzsche became more and more isolated, socially and intellectually, he had less to say about the Dionysian impulse.

What he's describing is more clearly observed and understood by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind, when Haidt discusses the hive switch.

You would play instead of blog if you have high inhibition... very common in this industry

It would be weird not to hold this belief. I don't understand what an alternative perspective would be.

This is a disgusting sentiment. Doing things well can carry an intrinsic reward, and cultivating that is one of the most important things in a rewarding life.

That's a little extreme - a fairer comparison would be Allen Edmonds vs. a budget dress shoe.

If you want to beat sneakers in terms of price, switch to work boots like Red Wings or Chippewa.

Doubt it, but these experiments are interesting because they let us discover the unknown unknowns in these chemical reactions.

If laboratory-aged whiskey is, to the best of our understanding, identical to normally-aged whiskey, what are the odds that it's actually identical? Pretty low, but it's how we expand our knowledge.

Also, it often trickles down and makes low-end products way better.

If this fund were using 2 and 20 that 2 billion number would be higher - in fact, it would be 15 times higher (160 billion * .02 points * 10 years), and that's not including the 20% fee on gains.

2 and 20 is a sucker's deal. Stay out of hedge funds if possible.

4) If you're investing any "small" amount, don't invest it in a hedge fund. Invest it in a passively managed (index) fund. I pay .3% a year on my assets and get market returns.

Just more of the tired "low-level programming is REAL programming" shit.

The $400,000 they spent is now, effectively, an investment into their future product line. It's not a surprise that VCs see that $400,000 of free R&D isn't valueless. The actual individuals who funded this investment will see 0% of the return on it, while the company that fucked up plans on profiting from the software, hardware, and niche-specific expertise they developed while not delivering anything.

It appears that this company is taking the "lessons they learned" and the intellectual property they developed from spending $400,000 of other peoples' money on R&D to get VC investments for their next thing. They've taken other peoples' money and turned it into personal gain while giving nothing back in return. This isn't behavior anyone should encourage.