talmand

I'm not dismissing that talent, I'm pointing it out.

>> $250K since I bought it in 2012

That is really, really bad.

Or live in their parent's home with their spouse and children.

Woz had the ideal of giving everything away for free. Of course he had no business sense.

Pixar wanted to be a studio, Jobs wanted it to be a hardware/software company. The people of Pixar forced Jobs into letting it be what it is today.

Jobs recognized Ive for what he is and then Apple became what it is today.

Like I said, Jobs was good at latching on to people with vision and genius to make what him what he is.

I believe that I made that clear. He was a salesman, obviously a great one, for other people's ideas.

When the first keyboard type interface was invented for typewriters and such, did people instinctively know how to use them immediately? Besides, at that time the concept of a two button mouse was not new and had been in use with computers for years.

1. Wozniak 2. Lasseter (and others) 3. Ive

His success was being involved with people with genius and vision that were willing to put up with his shit.

I often have conversations with some of my juniors about imposter syndrome. It's interesting how each of them think of it differently and apply it to themselves differently as compared to their peers.

Some don't seem to have it at all and I've been unable to grasp why one is different than the other. Sometimes it seems connected to self-confidence and sometimes it is not.

Personally, these days I'm feeling it's connected to their seniors and how they interact with them. Or at least how that interaction goes. It's something that I've been pondering over but haven't gotten far enough along to have a theory worthy over a blog post or anything.

As for me, a senior with a dozen plus years experience; I don't feel I've really suffered from imposter syndrome. I've always felt comfortable in what I know and the role I play in each of the positions I've had over the years. I've always been honest with myself and others in what I know and don't know. I suppose that helps in that aspect.

The only times I can think of that I felt the pains of imposter syndrome over the years is during interviews. Mostly trying to equate what I know and my experience with the expectations of people I don't know in an environment I'm not familiar with.

This chain has made me curious; has there been any study of the negative health consequences of people's behavior with shoes within their living space? I'm not aware of any health concerns (major or minor) over such a thing.

For example, if such things were a worry then I'd be more concerned over my dog's bare paws while outside and his nonchalant attitude of not wiping them as he comes inside.

The fact I have to use an ad blocker to avoid having them pollute the search results proves my point I believe.

>> there's no logic in this setup.

That's why if I'm ever presented with such a setup I would protest by voting to veto everything, even the talks I would be interested in. If any one person is to be censored by such drivel, then none should be heard until the divisive and bigoted system is removed.

Of course, people who run such a system would immediately remove my ability to vote. Which, in a way, would prove a point.

I think I would disagree with the notion of teaching about intellectual property by stealing somebody's intellectual property. For a company to publicly express "we are about doing the right thing", I would hope that wouldn't include conducting "proper business" of taking advantage of people. I would think "doing the right thing" would more along the lines of "great idea you have there, let's help you get that patent and work together to get it market".

They may be labeled as ads, but they still appear at the top of the search results as if they were search results. The only difference is that there's a small word with the url line that says "ad"; otherwise looks exactly the same as the results. Having ads presented in such a way I choose to interpret that as breaking that promise. Especially considering with an ad blocker the Google experience feels much different.

Yes.

Whatever creates the revenue is the product that is being sold. Broadcast TV creates content for the purpose of attracting viewers that watch the ads that are sold as ad space/time for revenue. Product placement within the content plays a role as well.

I don't understand how this isn't clearly understood. That's been the business model for broadcast TV since pretty much the beginning. It hasn't been a secret, the networks have been rather clear about it.

Can't know which people to mistreat if you can't label them from the beginning.

Regardless, I believe the statement was more like certain groups are trying to get something in the HR for people to volunteer such information. Not that the company has it as mandatory.

Which, by the way, is an incredibly horrible idea. Not only does it open the door for certain people to mistreat other people, as I said; it also creates the situation where certain types of people will treat others that don't volunteer such information as suspicious. As in, "what do you have to hide?"

Indication of receiving mail "with a computer".

Yep, checks out. Patent granted to new invention never thought of before.

>> in hope of getting that lucky set of algorithm wankery questions that they can answer

If true, hiring based on luck seems broken to me. Like the joke of the hiring manager throwing away half the resumes and not hiring "unlucky" people.

>> non-negotiable

Sure.

Why do you assume he sucks working in a team and that the other team members were not the issue?

Now we're tacking on an additional aspect of the job that we didn't know about before. If the job requires a social interaction with people outside of the company then, of course, it becomes a factor. Let's not be silly in an effort to just be right and prove someone else wrong.

Well, I fall on the side of calling a situation involving a company promoting a service that is monetized and then suddenly (sometimes quietly) removing said monetization from people with little or no attempt at justification with strange/vague rules that no one understands nor will the company bother to explain as screwing your clients or customers or creators or whatever we wish to call them.

But I admit that could just be me.

Plus by screwing their current clients, they are in effect working towards not getting new ones. It's a win/win scenario I suppose.

So you are somehow claiming that YouTube offered these services purely out of the kindness of their hearts and didn't receive any form of revenue whatsoever?

If a company can't support the number of customers/clients it eagerly takes in, it's time to either scale up support or scale down customers/clients.

There's an interesting thought in there somewhere. Something about maybe that hick from the country wasn't as stupid as he was made out to be and people bought into the derogatory term to their own detriment. Seems some modern era people might consider that from time-to-time.

>> I'm not condoning willfully damaging something

Yes, you are. By using it as a point against the landlord in saying they thought there was no risk in renting out property. The willful destruction of the property is the risk. The work comes in having to deal with the outcome of that risk as well as building up the capital to purchase the property in the first place. The person wasn't just magically gifted a property to rent out to someone who would just destroy it. The story you are trying to refute actually quite handily disproves the point you think you are gloriously making.

But keep going with this drivel, you are quite amusing.

I imagine the point being made might be more along the lines of owning software versus renting it.

If you purchase software that your company relies on, it belongs to you. Regardless if that third-party disappears. You still have use of the software until you can determine if you need to replace it or if it'll still work out for your needs.

Now renting the software as a service is a different matter. If the third-party goes under, well then you have problems. Problems you may have to solve immediately.

As an individual who is trying to build something, a disappearing third-party may not be detrimental if you still have the software at hand. You would not be locked down by that third-party's SaaS.

I suggest reading the book as well.

I lived in Vegas at the time. I saw it for the obvious problem that it was. I told everyone in the area that the bust was going to happen, but everyone was blinded by the money they were making. The shock people had was both amusing and disturbing at the same time.

Funny somewhat related story; just as the downslide started in that market we made an offer on a house 50k below asking. The owner, an investor, laughed at us. After the bust, we had already moved away at that point, we saw the house finally sold for something like 100k to 150k less than our low-ball offer.

Another somewhat related funny story; went to an open house and told the realtor I was worried over falling house values before deciding to buy. We were told house values don't fall. Didn't bother to point out to her that the for sale sign out front had a "reduced" sticker on it.

I have more, but I don't won't to be a bore.

What happens when the source of the tax revenue decides they had enough and leave?