Downvoted. Nevertheless, it's a an important issue to consider. Not less important than other aspects of the technical OS features or corporate issues of Apple/Google/MS/Amazon etc which are frequently discussed here.
Not all basketball talents play at the NBA. And there are musicians after Mozart and the Beatles. Look at people you can admire, and make even tiny steps by their standards. You can be 10% Bill Gates (example, pick your own), or 1%, or 0.01% or 0.0001%. But you are both on the same track. The important thing is to push your limits to something you believe is worthy and that you can give a unique contribution that pushes that something an inch forward. Good luck.
Well, this is the debate. OO tends to reduct the total lines of code, but increase the lines of code you have to view when you debug per issue. When you look at the code that triggered the bug, it's hard to tell what is local and what was inherited, patched, subclassed etc.
VB was about getting stuff done. Ugly, awkward, convoluted, nowhere near a real programming language. But, the things you could build. Fast. In no time, you had something that worked, installed anywhere, no approvals, no app-stores, no complicated deployments. Microsoft miserably failed to scale it to the web, and with some efforts - to mobile. They just drove developers away, and till today we do not have a similar tool for the semi-developers, the hobbyists, the lawyer who wants to make some app for his office.
An amazing choice of something that is used daily, which unlike many Nobel price level physics, everybody can relate to. Generations of physics students will be raised by this particular choice.
As Benjamin Franklin famously noted, even animals eat animals. The problem is quantity. Never in human history, even modern times, meat was served daily, in mass. For most people, it was an expensive food, affordable once or twice a week. And that before population increase we see. If people consumed meat once or twice a week, the diet, and for those who like it - taste, were OK, yet many many problems would be solved. Much more food, and less cruel industrialisation of animals to food.
The most important point in the lecture: Startups are the one area where the traditional gaming of the system will not work. May bring you seed or even series A, but not users. Learning in a college is, after all, gaming a traditional system.
Everybody should adjust to facts and experience. PG points to an important issue that this is an important period in life where you are old enough to to do things kids can't, yet young enough without the daily responsibilities which will patiently wait for you for the next decades. The startup can wait after these unique years
Dave Winer (in 2007): “Sometimes developers choose a niche that’s either directly in the path of the vendor, or even worse, on the roadmap of the vendor. In those cases, they don’t really deserve our sympathy.”
Also consider international, same thing. Even streaming is not available in many countries. Even if you want to pay - you can't, while the pirated files are one click away.
That's my point. We are one of those 5 people. Daily. What we consume, eat, how we influence others, the agenda we vote for, is a choice. The bacteria has no such choice, we do. So we can, and should, take a moral stand. Always.
I would suggest a different context. If someone states that 2+2 = 5, and at the same time he/she states that somebody is bleeding to death nearby, now - than the 2+2=5 is the less important statement, if at all. But the real issue is that it's far from 2+2=5. Consuming the biosphere is not gas release. It is a moral choice that individuals, communities and nations can change daily.
Correct. When we speak of moral we assume that there are choices, and then you pick one. If there is no choice, there is no moral. The description of what happened to animals and wildlife (especially from the 20th century) as a deterministic force of nature, a.k.a gas release, can lead us to think that this is how evolution works, no choice, no moral. You can say "I support ivory jewels" or "I object ivory jewels". Both opinions are very different than saying "ivory jewels is a natural force of nature like gas release". The level of nature depletion by humans is, to some extent, a choice.
Sorry for the way I put it. The meaning was "argument without a moral stand". If moral is considered logic, they are false. If moral is not considered automatically as logic, then most of us faced, or will face, a situation where their choice will be based on moral, and thus not logic?
> Either it is by releasing nefarious gazes in the atmosphere, or creating a Primate intelligent enough to rule and consume most of biosphere.
This sentence says that consuming the biosphere is natural as gas release. This colours a choice as an unavoidable step, and thus justify it. And this kind of logic was used by nations against other (as a side issue, disagree with other opinion is OK, downvote it - no. unless it's a Parimate evolution thing).