I'm wondering always about the name "dark matter". It makes a good topic for all kinds of pseudo-science and scifi. The name implies something mystical and invites everyone to discuss a topic that no-one understands.
If the name was something else like "Rubin's matter" or "Unknown matter", maybe it wouldn't invite so much unscientific discussion and speculation.
I don't feel that everyone has an opinion about higgs boson, but you can start a discussion about dark matter with anyone. I'm not any kind of expert about the topic either, but could certainly start speculating about it with other laymen.
I wonder what is the chance if you are following the "worst" practices?
User is stupid -mentality, being a dictator and not explaining why things are done the way they are, etc... Id expect it to be lower, but not that much lower. Luck is a major component because new product development is basically forecasting the future. There are so many things which are out of your control. If you get lucky 4/10 times with worst practices and 5/10 times with best practices, it does not really matter.
Besides, it makes a much better story that you only knew how others are stupid and because of this only you could do the right solution. Whole western society loves the myth of intelligent jerks... Like Steve Jobs. "it's ok to be an asshole if you are smart".
Nice write up of the problem, but the solution is not that simple. Not saying that you shouldn't try, but the problem of doing something that customers want is extremely difficult and has a lot to do with luck. We have implemented many features no one wants, and many features that the users wanted and use. It's impossible to know the outcome beforehand. We have always discussed with the customers before hand, but that does not mean the feature is going to be used. Even when customers are paying for something it does not mean they really use it. So "Don't just build Something™, build an industry leading product that customers want and love" is nice and catchy, but the reality is never going to be that easy. And how do you even know if you just did it the wrong way? If a small change would have changed everything? You can't really trust people either because they don't know what they want. You can't trust analytics because you don't know if you are measuring right things? When do you know that no one wants a particular feature?
Putting yourself to a pedestal because you've figured out a problem won't help for sure. Be humble and accept that figuring out the right thing is hard work. Most often people are doing their best, working in silos or else where. Most product managers are not there to make your life terrible, even though you might think that way from the article.
The software is not really doing what the customer wants if it does not work reliably. The company dies because their the product they sell does not do what their customer wants. If you buy a car, you care about the quality if the parts indirectly. No one wants a car that works 50% of time. Same goes for software. So yes, poor code can kill the company, because the product does not work.
"However, startups don't fail because the codebase is ugly, or convoluted, or not following best practices."
Yes and no are both right I suppose, depending on the viewpoint.
Not sure what you mean. I didn't mean to undermine dolphins; they are highly intelligent species and definitely altruistic. The point is simply that they don't save a drowning human because they care about a random drowning mammal, but because they mistake it to a drowning dolphin because we both have lungs. Not sure that has anything to do with what you said.
Domestic cats natural habitat is not a 40sqm flat without the possibility to go outdoors. Also, domestic cats were not bred by humans for domestic characteristics but to keep places clean of animals such as mice. Anyways, that's beside the point: cats reality is complete different to ours and trying to describe cats behaviour using human characteristics is a poor way to describe their behaviour. Even as mammals, they still have very different senses and perspective to everything. We have very limited understanding about their "feelings".
Cats are also very aware of changes on their habitat and are kept in way too small space to express natural behaviour. Most house cats are extremely stressed. You can see this if you even move one bigger object in the house and watch how the cat gets anxious. The behaviour is much more complex than the human emotions we project to cats. They are different, we don't know how they feel. But most cats are not "happy", we just fail to see it and laugh when they run around and do stupid things out of boredom and stress.
Edit: Also Stockholm syndrome... And would cats hang around humans if living in their natural habitat and not receiving food from humans? I don't know.. But the spectrum of "do they care about humans or not" is much wider than just that question.
Dolphins don't save humans because of altruistic reasons towards our species. Their own offspring behaves similarly when drowning, and they mistake a drowning human to potentially drowning dolphin.
The worldview described in the comment and by people who upvote is something that I'm not jealous of. But as this is not a moral lecture about gender equality, how important decent childhood is or whether the society would be better without reproducing, I'd just like to point out one immediate bias/flaw you express:
The parents who can abuse parental leave are quite privileged.
-Have a reliable partner who wants to have children with you
-Have required fertiliry to "time" pregnancy
-Work for a stable company (rules out small business owners, self employment...)
-Be employed in the first place
How many % you think this would represent of the women aged 20-35 in your country? Do you believe that these women will contribute less taxes to the society than society uses on them? Are these tax payers net-negative part of society?
Another source for me is things that I want my "ideal self" to do, but I don't enjoy in reality. Like finishing a project. Once you have enough those on list you feel constantly bad and start using procrastination as an easy escape. It has been good to just terminate projects that don't really excite me anymore. When the "I'm feeling bad about not doing x" disappears, the amount of procrastination seems to shrink also.
"Looking for alternatives" was maybe a bit too much. As far I understood these are built pretty much on the same core? So using the same rule sets should work on Kogito too. We recently moved to micro services and I'd like to have the editor as part of another service instead of kie workbench so I've been looking around for ways to accomplish that.
I came across Kogito some days ago as I was looking into some alternatives for our drools based engine. I'd like to build some kind of online editor for business people to manage drm rules easily. How would one go about doing something like that with Kogito?
Is there some particular reason why this would not pass peer review in some low level journal? Are the statistics off? Or is the data fabricated? Because it will be published and it will pass the peer review if it satisfies those basic conditions. Peer review just means that someone else read the paper and judged whether the content seems reasonable. I don't think it is productive to call an article bogus because it is not peer reviewed. The judgement should be based on content.
I think we actually agree the fundamentals, like most people participating in this thread. I'd say luck is necessary, but is not enough alone. And by maximising the odds you have better chance of winning. By hero ingredient I meant that a steak dish in restaurant needs a good steak, but that does not make the dish alone. There also needs to be other ingredients. Accepting that luck plays a very important role in building something new can help you overcome defeats and surrender yourself to opportunities that appear while working on the initial idea. For me it has not been counterproductive. I guess it matters how we understand "luck" as a concept.
There is an interesting bias going on here. I'm wondering how many people upvoting this text has actually built a business, or just want to believe that what was written here is true?
Building a business is messy. Most ideas suck initially. Companies who got the problem right the first time are extremely rare. Just as rare as companies who succeeded with a crappy idea having great execution.
The hero ingredient is luck. Using all the tricks of the non scientific entrepreneurship self-help literature may grant you better odds at getting lucky, or may not.
You know if the problem/idea/execution was good/real after you have customers paying you. And even after that you don't really know was it execution or idea that won the game, only that they were enough good to succeed.
I believe that people tend to forget always one thing: the business owners don't know their problems _worth solving_. This fact is most of the time overlooked.
In my experience business owners tend to talk about problems that are impossible to solve, or problems that are trivial.
Typically, when you actually find problem worth solving, it is not merely a software. You are looking at whole processes that need to be changed. You will change how people work. And when you actually try to present the new solution to the organisation, you will face resistance. People don't like change.
Some could say that it is the business owners responsibility to push the change. But when they give up, they stop paying you.
Anyways, the advice "just find a problem" feels to come from people who either read too many books and never tried, or from people who got lucky the first try.
It has been roughly 2 years for us to get first dollar with corporations, and will probably take 3 more to recoup the costs. The good thing is that once you get in, it is pretty hard for competitors to get you out. They really need to have a superior value prop.
Had to check again, visa and Mastercard actually don't carry the risk in this scenario. It's either the acquirer or issuer. Scheme acts as a judge and decides who's fault it is. However, now that 3d secure is in place, if both issuer and acquirer support it, there are really few frauds. If they don't, the risk is on the one who did not enforce 3d secure.
Not sure about US, but this definitely does not apply in the EU. The banks are responsible. Also, the PSD2, which just came into effect here sets standards on person identification, which every financial institution needs to comply.
Of course, this does not mean that being a victim of identity theft does not suck.
The stolen information has some other severe side effects, which are not directly personal. The stolen credit card information and the drivers licenses are typically used for things like human trafficing. You buy some airline tickets with fake passport and stolen credit card, and travel as someone else.
Visa and Mastercard are card schemes. They are just moving the money between financial institutions. The issuer (which is the financial institution from where the credit card was applied from) is providing the credit line=they own the money. The scheme ensures that the other parties always gets their money, which is why their business is really dependent on good fraud detection algorithms. The payment schema will just freeze the settlements during the dispute, but if evidence is found that it was fraud, they will lose the money. This of course happens all the time, but it is just a pricing issue. Visa charges license fees from issuer and acquirer, and every transaction costs for the merchant around 0.5-5% depending on the card.
Hmmm... they also use pretty much the same logo as the company I currently work for (https://www.enterpay.fi/in-english/, the english website is not very pretty, but you can see the logo there). We have a trademark in EU and I once sent an email notifying them about this potential conflict, but never got any reply. Not that it really matters, but this company really fails to make a good impression.
Nothing new here really. Propaganda is as old as human communication. Finding new ways to distribute misinformation is the human norm. Afaik Facebook has also been praised for things like Egypt spring (not sure if good actually), Barack Obamas election, etc. It's not as if only bad things came out of new media outlets. Sure, they could do a lot better, but the scape goating of fb is a bit simple minded.
This makes sense. I'm all in for having fewer people, but if we could reach the same welfare with 1% of resources we use now, we could easily 100x the human population. Even if the planet is finite, there is loads of room for more people without destroying the rest of the planet. The problem right now is that we don't have the technology and the resources are finite. It also looks like we may be paying for the over consumption soon in the form of climate change... Without a major scientific breakthroughs there is no room for more people really.
What we can do to reduce population? Education. Worrying about poor people in poor countries having more babies? Educate them and help them to get a proper job - problem solved.
It is very interesting to find discussion on this. We have actually a group of friends who are all kinda connected with this same issue more or less. We have only recently started to discuss it; framing it "lazy smart" people. Part of our group never got back on track in life despite "high iq". The reality kinda came after people got to good universities and realised that you have to work to progress. Finding motivation to gradute seems impossible when you are used to get everything without effort.
Finland. You can get a cheap flat from the municipality(at least in the city of Espoo), then rent assistance from the state, and then you visit the welfare office (Kela) sometimes and tell that you are out of money, and they'll give you some. Id guess you have like 300e to spend per month for food, and you live in the outskirts of the city in a 20square meter flat, but hey, at least you can play your games as much as you want. Not the life id want, but some of my old friends with whom I still occasionally play games online have chosen that path. I've read that the number of young adults (mainly males) who are living outside the normal society is already as high as 30,000 in Finland, but I don't know for fact if they are all as extreme as some of the people I know.
This. This whole article made me realize many things about why some of my friends made the choice to sit home, play games, and live on welfare benefits, instead of pursuing education and career. I guess this "strategy" allows them to reach all the human needs with minimal effort. Why would they do anything else, if that makes them happy? Even if it only makes them just enough happy to keep on going, its still an easier choice for them than a traditiotal career. The effort one needs to put on satisfying the needs through working are on a totally different scale. Very interesting.
"heating is usually gas or heavy fuel ois" is actually false. In fact, over 60% of heating in Finland was produced with renewable energy. Majority of the industrial and district heating is produced with wood and other industrial wood-based excess materials.