AnonJ

I don't really think modern dictionaries are that bad. In fact I don't find them bad at all. When I prepared for SAT and had to go through all the SAT words, I did it with joy because I could form endless hilarious and crazy imaginations in my head just using the solid definitions provided by normal dictionaries. This article seems too much.

> "Doctors claim that patients aren’t ready for the bad news earlier, when they are still digesting their shocking predicament: that their lives have changed irretrievably; that their priorities, their future aspirations, their promises to their loved ones—both the explicit and, more important, the implicit ones—would go unfulfilled. They cite their own hesitations too. Doctors want to be purveyors of hope rather than despair, a motive sometimes attributed to compassion, sometimes to a starker concern that patients will find a new, more optimistic second opinion. "

This is absolute nonsense. Any person with basic maturity/intelligence would long have understood that any of us could die in any split second, and that the essence of the world is randomness and senselessness. Just accept this fact, relax and "don't care". I don't care on what day I die. What I care is if I have lived every day of my life to the fullest possible, and when I come to die I will not find that I haven’t lived. If I fulfill this, then even if I somehow suddenly face death tomorrow, I would be serene and happy to embrace it. On the contrary, if I could live for 1000 years but with every day wasted, I would be mad and I'd better take an Euthanasia. Here Ruth and her husband had the right attitude for life and they're totally worthy of applauds. There’s no point in doing a prolonged, painful, senseless and sure-to-be-defeated battle for just a few years of life. We all will die. What’s important is live every day to the best possible with determination, and accept with serenity what our current limitations can’t reach.

Indeed the unauthorized access to office sucks. But what strikes me the most is the totally nonsensical(to me) sensational emotional reactions of each person. How can trivial, pointless things be blown out of proportion as to incite "crying"/"shaking" reactions, passive-aggressive behaviors, and even code-deleting? Are they really grown-ups, 30s & 40s, or just 3-year-olds? This is insane.

I just don't understand. From this report, all persons involved look like kindergarten kids, herself inclusive. What's wrong with this world.

>binary distinctions that don't exist

>you'll make better stuff if you're part of the world

>companies whose passions match your own

>that your project is useful to someone else

Exactly. OP shouldn't treat his own dull internship experiences as the whole picture about companies. His way of thinking is not productive/conducive at all IMO.

Though I don't totally agree with the "political" part.

I always find such logic incomprehensible. Is a job that suits your interest, contributes to others in a meaningful way, and makes your life rewarding while at the same time keeps you a decent living ever so hard to find? I don't really think so. Why do people have to think like "it's I against the world, the job I do is the enemy of my personal enjoyment"? It's weird and potentially harmful.

In fact quite some people who I see getting into finance jobs with the "getting-enough-money" mentality often end up miserably. Without any love for their jobs, then no wonder.

I have to say that looks a weird and potentially very harmful way of thinking. Why by default pit yourself against your job? Why you have to work on some "personal project" which seems to be completely isolated from, even contrary to your job? I guess it has to do with some "unsuccessful intern experiences" by the author, but I don't believe it's the correct perceptions of things. The ideal scenario, obviously, is to blend personal interest/fun together with the job you are doing. And I believe a lot of, even the majority, of top people in their field do things by such principle, and are living a happy + productive life, not only satisfying their own intellectual appetite, but also benefiting the company, and more broadly the world as a whole.

That article seems far-stretched and circuitous, making things out of its own rather than really explaining what Nolan is trying to say(It's actually not that complicated. Just a hugely commercial movie which is attached too many connotations. For example they had to fight their way through, probably just mainly because the need of cinematic effects). Also it has the very danger of fashioning out massive escapism. "What matters isn't whether the top stopped spinning; what matters is that Cobb didn't bother to find out." What total nonsense. If we live our real life with such an attitude then it's one of the utmost dangers I can imagine. (For example you may play a game all day long and claim that is the "reality" you are fond of being in. While in fact doing so only totally destroys your life as well as lives of people you should be together with, as I have already experienced). We have to have the will and courage to face the real life, to face all the things it throws at us no matter good or bad. True joys only derive from the reality. Any attempts of escapism will in the end only enlarge the problems you're facing and bring more disasters.

This explanation is not totally convincing. The main issue is the OP actually just referred to very few scenes, while there is no proof that throughout all scenes this difference remained consistent. A more plausible explanation would be Nolan initially intended to use such a mechanism, but later decided to leave it out. However, since some of the scenes of the movie were already filmed, the ring could not be changed. It's obvious that Nolan put the spinning scene because he deliberately wanted to leave an equivocate ending. It's possible that in the beginning that wasn't his idea, and he changed it halfway through the movie. But what's clear is the ending was intended to be equivocate. He would not let such a vague "ring" mechanism co-exist with the spinning scene. That's far too strenuous.

> I have trouble getting excited about getting more people to pay more for a product that's already available.

This so-called "Stanford model" looks more likely something about old companies. I think for most older generation of people, for whom "marketing" is really what's it's all about(most of the executives in old companies back in the 70s 80s were promoted from marketing I believe), that is their view of "starting a new business". However, they didn't innovate, not exactly because they didn't want to, but because they didn't know how to, in an already stagnant field. This is why I don't really believe this is the case for today's tech-oriented companies. In Peter Thiel's terms(I don't really like him, just using a reference here) this would not even be a "startup" at all(0 to 1). I mean, I don't believe there exist more tech startups which make themselves big by just extensively marketing existing technologies, than those which lead the innovation of new ones. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know a lot about these things anyways.

To be honest I hardly find HONY anywhere near "inspiring" or "warm". IMO 80% of the stories are sad or filled with confusion and pessimism. The people he meets is one thing, but the tone of the story is set by the writer himself. I feel he is somehow intentionally making them melodramatic and sad. This I really dislike.

And there exist so many "love of the life" stories which on the first sight might seem sad but upon further inspection feel totally dubious. I always think the so-called "love of your life" stuff is just an invented escapism. When some people meet difficulties in their lives they immediately imagine something "perfect but out of reach" as a consolation of sorts. If they really got together with their so-called "love of life" then probably their lives will turn out to be as problematic. Not to mention how much both would have changed and out of sync when they meet each other again. This is totally irrational thinking. Better dispose of it.

To be honest I hardly find HONY anywhere near "inspiring" or "warm". IMO 80% of the stories are sad or filled with confusion and pessimism. The people he meets is one thing, but the tone of the story is set by the writer himself. I feel he is somehow intentionally making them melodramatic and sad. This I really dislike.

To "guess" is one thing but to get it correctly is another. Of course popcorn literature won't help you anything on understanding humanity, but I doubt whether literary classics tend to create some misunderstanding and confusion. Still the most effective way to improve your understanding of others is to read direct books which talk about understanding others.

Of course… Literary fiction is way better than popcorn culture escapism popular fiction, on a serious perspective. However, I believe, on understanding others, the best books are still those nonfiction books which try to directly analyze and cut the clutter. Literary fictions are subtle and lengthy, tending to be misunderstood, but nonfiction books/articles are the most effective in conveying the knowledge. Also I can't help but feeling this study very loose.

Second that. We engineers have our own perspectives but the management has theirs and it would be unfair to say ours are unconditionally better. If the management thinks in that way there must be a reason for it, and then constructive communication + concessions on both sides would be the real way to achieving a better end.

I don't really believe there is such a great divide. In a greater probability most of those who are "genius" in childhood will continuously perform better when they become adults, in all fields including "doing" things. Sure there are some prodigies who turn out to be quite useless in real-world scenarios, but those are really few, IMO.

That's probably too far-stretched. In fact I believe conventional wisdom states the opposite, that those who get high scores in tests will likely be technical geniuses who understand how things work and do the hands-on stuffs, while those who manage are likely those who know how to talk but don't know how to study. MBA is more of a place to socialize, not to "study" things, right?