Koum: No-nonsense immigrant from group persecuted in home country, family emphasis on education, using computers since a teen, drops out of college when career responsibilities grow.
Acton: Early employee at one of the most-successful companies of an era, lots of deep systems experience, takes time to consider "next adventure", cofounds with prior coworker and leans on other colleagues for seed funding.
That's about as stereotypical as real Valley founders get.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/In-Silicon...
Over 30's programmers raise our glasses to Acton and Koum.
While it is true that GREAT developers can also be young, they are not magically getting dumber when they age. Also it may be easier to be disruptive if you're young (meaning you are naïve enough to think you can change stuff, most of the times you'll be wrong, though) but smarter? Really?
I find this a quite stupid statement, to be honest...
Someday it will be a elderly woman, a kid, etc.. The Ocidental culture has a severe problem dealing with the impermanence and the unpredictable.. we need to get over it.. more zen-budhism, please?! :)
It then states that "despite this, various forms of the caste system are practised in several Buddhist countries".
"Buddhist" countries having castes is not the same as Buddhism being a caste religion. Buddhism is not a caste religion.
The practical effect is largely the same though surely. Like a majority Christian country having racism.
How does a caste system survive in a country where the majority of adults oppose it?
I suspect the answer is "it doesn't". People who label themselves proponents of a particular religion often don't follow it's precepts, traditions or philosophies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_society#Four_class_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegare
...and don't forget Hinduism.
It's very frustrating when people try to portray Hinduism as a single, monolithic religion - it's like talking about Catholicism, Baptism, and Mormonism (in the US) as if they were the same entity.
Despite what /r/worldnews might have one believe, the caste system is by no means universally followed. It varies greatly by region and other demographic factors.
In some parts, the caste system is virtually nonexistant, or is (at most) a more formal codification of the same socioeconomic-racial social discrimination that exists everywhere.
The Ocidental culture has a collective neurosis toward objectivism (eg. Kant, Descartes ...) and trying to measure and antecipate everything, and put everything under control, because of its constant fear in dealing with the uncertainty in life.. which is unavoidable..
I have cited buddhism, because its a great philosophical umbrella for subjectivism and uncertainty.. a medicine we need badly over here.. given(over-objectivism) its a common root for a lot of stupid reasoning.. so that was really what i was talking about
Note: I have a ocidental tradition
Note II: Objectivism can be great when used in the right way (lead invention of Calculus, Computers..) but can be a poison if used everywhere
This brings up a question: Is it even possible to make a prenup that covers future windfills? E.g., a prenup that protects your wealth in a company that hasn't yet been founded.
Editorializing: Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards generated by the other spouse's start-up? A relationship, especially a marriage, is inherently two people acting as a unit, so just because one spouse didn't sling PHP and research lambdas all night doesn't mean that either spouse's contribution is more or less valuable. If my spouse accomplished something like this, I'd be thrilled at the success and genuinely looking forward to our life together with much less time and stress investment from both of us, since that means that I was also picking up a lot more of the "home life."
OK, I'll bite. What if one of these situations:
1) What if the spouse was dead set against the start-up, and did everything possible to dissuade you, but you succeeded anyway.
2) What if you used your own money and assets from before the marriage to finance it? And what if those monies and assets were covered by the prenup; the company financed by those investments would or wouldn't be covered?
3) What if you founded the company when the marriage was in obvious decline and you both knew you'd eventually get divorced? What if you founded it when you were already separated?
4) Many companies with 2 founders don't have a 50:50 split. Why does the split with the spouse need to be 50:50 in the case of a company? Why shouldn't it be 60:40 or 90:10 assuming we accept the notion that the spouse must have been contributing something and is entitled.
Because just sitting around giving emotional support to someone doesn't entitle you to half of everything they get. It doesn't work that way with any other relationship (parent, friend, etc), so why should a marriage? This is especially true if both partners are working.
To answer your point more directly, one difference is that a marriage tends to produce children in a way that platonic friendships tend not do. My sense is that equal division of significant income and equity post-marriage will help, not hurt, children.
To answer your point a different way, the default marital property settings tend to work well for most people. Of course you can change those defaults to some extent with prenups, postnups, trusts, and so on. If you're still dissatisfied with your ability to alter those defaults, well, nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to marry someone you like to live with, have sex with, and even raise kids with.
>If the concept of sharing your life with another person sounds weird - just don't do it.
Sharing your life with another person doesn't imply sharing property.
Yes. It's a contract; you can do what you like within the normal legal boundaries (although certain provisions, e.g. child custody are likely to be thrown out if ever challenged).
"I’m 42, essentially married with a kid. I don’t give a shit about this. I’m not sexting with random strangers."