xyzelement

A few days ago I recall you taking the position that Israel should not exist and that anyone who disagree is a Zionist (correct definition) that you would not associate with.

The implication of your idea is what? The desire for a destruction of a state of 10 million people and another exhile of the Jews? That's the stance you deem moral - or am inferring unfairly (I hope I am actually)

If I am following correctly - you left Microsoft because it doesn't share this genocidal desire? I guess that's consistent and I admire that part, but the underlying perspective is horrifying when you just casually drop it in like that

Either the vote doesn't matter and don't have it, or it matters and you vote for your people.

Having great parents who overcame a lot and taught you how is the privilege

If it doesn't matter why did Africa make such a push for this projection?

As the article says, all protections have some distortions and it's just a matter of which ones you chose.

It's totally reasonable and rational for the African association of cartographer to push for this change - it makes their continent look bigger. At the margin, their children can look at the map and feel more significant.

On the flip side, this particular map makes Europe look smaller. So it means that at the margin, European children will look at the map and feel less significant.

It doesn't shock me that the US voted against it. I am surprised that others voted for it, and diminished themselves.

Not the person you are replying to, but I was greatly influenced by my grandparents who were themselves greatly influenced by how they were raised and their life experience.

That seems very common and normal. Of you weren't influenced by your grandparents that is a reflection of something too.

It's also New York legal which is rare for a semiauto that comes in 5.56. Ruger nailed it with guns that don't look scary. Don't have the mini-14 but do have the 10/22 and their PCC - both of which have all the functionality but none of the scary features.

// Honestly - and I don't mean that as an insult - I hope for you to experience (just once) the loss of dignity that not being able to visit the restroom on your own decision will give you. Might make you realize the hell this kind of thinking leads to.

I am not insulated and I think my post was received stronger than I intended, with my point being simply that there are jobs where physical presence at a given moment is more significant than in knowledge work for example (say whatever you want, bus drivers and others defacto hold it in if possible to avoid disruptions at least here in NYC)

And to be frank even at my job which is very removed from bus driving or warehouse work there are moments where I would feel self-pressure to hold it in short of a dire emergency.

(Eg, I am on stage at a speaker panel or something like that where my absence would be visible and disruptive)

Thank you for this informative comment.

Correct. In however long I've taken transit in NYC, I have never experienced a bus driver stepping out to pee, nor had a subway train held up for that reason. I am sure it happens, and I just read up on the rules around that - but the defacto is that this causes disruptions to passengers and the system and the employees do their best to hold it in and pee at the terminus.

I am glad that the rules allow bathroom breaks when emergent but the fact that people try to minimize it tells you something as well.

Sounds right. On the flip side there are jobs where random bathroom breaks don't really work.

EG: bus driver.

So I am actually not sure how that works for a pregnat bus driver. Letting her randomly stop the bus at rush hour to pee doesn't seem fair to the commuters. Probably in practice pregnant bus drivers get assigned to a short route or something like that.

I don't know the nature of Amazon warehouse work. It's possible that unscheduled bathroom breaks affect multiple people (eg, I am peeing and you are idle because you depend on me to do your task) - that's the only condition where this feels at all conscionable.

Yes but is it healthy.

If a kid graduated with comp sci degree in 2000, joined decent companies as a w2 employee, does he become "repugnant" and "deserves to be shunned if not punished" the moment his net worth crosses 1m, which may happen within a few years of graduation?

Or does he need to "marinade" a few years as a millionaire before we roll out the guillotine?

If he joined a worse company (or slacked and didn't get promoted) and hadn't become a millionaire, does he avoid the repugnancy and punishment?

What if he did make the money but blew on stupidity, does that also avoid that classification?

That's why I wrote "depending on where you are"

Do you think there's any good decision making and hard work involved too, or just pure dumb luck?

Depending on where you live most cars you see on the road are in the ballpark. It costs about 40k to change the roof on a house around here.

So 75k is both objectively massive, and not.

I won't argue "privilege" but it seems like both people in the couple have been working for a long time and took equity bets that paid off.

Another way to look at it, in many tech jobs 75k could be a bonus (additional to salary an equity)

How tall are you? For reference, my 6 year old is starting to use the regular size urinals without "resting his frank & beans" on it.

That's often true in software as well. Perhaps it's actually the etymology of the term.

This is correct. We worry about getting someone's piss on us, not whether someone steals an admiring glance at our weiners.

Just flip it over.

Engineer with an MBA here.

I don't think anyone finds this flavor of activity beneficial. What's beneficial is the underlying system that is sufficiently free and flexible that great things (like VMware to begin with) are possible. As much as we don't like "this" we don't want to put any bureaucrats in power to squash creativity and enterprise.

Much like freedom of speech means someone can speak abhorrently, freedom of enterprise means someone can do bad or dumb business things. But we enjoy the thing in totality.

At this level none of it is about moviemaker. It's a mix of coaching and testing.

Coaching as in: reminding people that this matters and encouraging them to care outside the strict lines of their task/scope.

Testing as in: who's capable of hearing it, taking it to heart, and driving the necessary change. And who's not.

Not evident in this thread but interesting how it impacted BillG's overall perspective on the people on the field and the impact of it on their careers with him.

// Yet this entire thread is all about "oh but she was a woman and woman have it easy" despite no other women to point at all.

You are confused about what the thread is about which confirms the point being made that you are looking for offense.

This thread is about my memory of a bschool professor being more excited about holmes gender and age than in what she's actually done (which would also be weird even if holmes turned out to be a non fraud)

The broader point is that my professor was representative of a group of people which wanted Holmes to succeed because of who she was. Did they cause some degree of blindness? Probably!

That's not saying "women have it easy" to any degree. That part is in your head so you are literally offended by something you made up.

I think it's a little different.

To use a micro-example - I've been to various Trump buildings around the world. I've skated at a trump operated rink, I've seen the trump golf courses. So whatever opinion we have about trump and his practices, there's clearly a tangible output, a product that people use and enjoy.

I do agree that trump certainly cultivates an image of success but there is also clearly tangible success there. SBF and Holmes are in a different category in that there was nothing behind it.

Umm yes? Example: when crypto was at the height of hype, I assumed that most businesses in that space were scams(to different degrees) - and that those who invested in the scam ones without due diligence were taken in by wanting to ride that wave.

You are missing the point. The praise of her was devoid of even a nod to the actual element of achievement.

I know this because this was the first time I heard of Holmes and obviously well before the downfall and the fact that the story jumps out from my memory is because of how weird that phrasing was.

Is there an example of this that you could reference?

If you think about it a little harder, the pattern isn't just gender but "thing you are standing out for".

In the Holmes case, she was visibly celebrated for being a young female (as a positive) so it's not shocking that it flipped to a negative on people's mind when she was proven to be a fraud.

In the case of SBF, he wasn't celebrated for being male. But he was notable for his association with "effective altruism". Has the reputation of the EA community been adversely affected by his downfall? Absolutely. So that's the more part analogy here.

I find this a week comparison. I've driven a Tesla, I've used PayPal. My government has used spaceX to do space things.

Whatever you think of Musk there's a significant amount of "actually exists and works" that's on a different planet vs Theranos

The point is that anything subject to hype is also at a greater risk of being a scam.

If we were desperate for red-headed founders then the risk of any given red-head riding the wave of hype rather than substance is higher than at baseline.

That's the point being made. Your comment about male led misses it because there's currently no hype about male led. Though I can see it coming back.

// Mossad would love to know who to de-bank for criticising Israel

"Criticizing Israel" has moved from edgy subversive to lamely pedestrian in the last few years.

There's no great secret that Mossad needs to unearth by spying on you watching tv.