ImTalking

Trust is earned, so at the beginning you give people the benefit of the doubt and you have 'faith' that they are trustworthy. But don't call it trust. Trust takes time.

And regarding your 3 unfortunate betrayals, just remember: people can justify anything.

Reminds me of "It's a Wonderful Life".

This is why I can't understand age discrimination. We oldies have a wealth of experience which we can turn to. How can a new programmer have a "gut feel" which should be listened-to when there is little to no experience? The oldies "gut feel" is real because it is based on true experiences; either direct experiences or experiences of (say) a colleague.

And most of the experiences that I have, for example, are largely independent of a particular language or environment, they are more about the correct way to structure 'things' within programming regardless if it's GO or COBOL.

My kids school had a career night where parents from all sorts of different jobs came to answer kid's questions. I was the IT rep and I thought I would be inundated with kids all night. Well, I had 3 kids. 2 were definitely geeks and one was a smart kid who said he would try other jobs before he would think about IT.

I couldn't understand it. Here we have an industry that is full of billionaires and success stories and yet only 3 were interested. I thought maybe they felt is was too boring just staring at a screen all day. Maybe they didn't understand how pervasive software is and how it basically drives everything. Or maybe they have a different definition of happiness which programming seemingly won't give them.

Yes, and the State and society is fine with that judging by the fact that we understand the severe consequences of tobacco, alcohol, and opiates and they remain legal. For example, we know that in 2015 over 10,000 fatalities occurred on the roads due to alcohol and, once again, we are fine with the human tragedy and increased healthcare costs.

You cannot use harm as an argument unless you also include tobacco, alcohol, and opiates. These are the drugs that kill directly and indirectly. We know this, we've known this for decades, and yet they are still legal.

And if it is harmful to smoke, so what? The State allows me to drink 10 bourbon bottles a night, or 10 packs of cigs, or 10 large pizzas now. Do we own our bodies or not?

Don't think of it as legalising another drug; think of it as expanding the rights of a person to own their own body. What right does the State have to legalise and promote one drug but put another in jail for a different drug. Do we own our own bodies or not? These morality laws are from a different era and need to be removed. Drugs are here to stay so lets be sensible about their use.

As for schizophrenia... it's funny that people think that cannabis use is a recent thing. Do you realise that cannabis has been used for centuries and if there was a solid causation between cannabis and schizophrenia you would see the effects now. Also no one has disproved the theory that schizophrenics and other mental health sufferers naturally gravitate to cannabis to ease their symptoms.

Yeah, maybe I should travel more.

I was born in NZ but the family moved when I was 2. I recently got NZ citizenships by descent for my kids because I want to give them the option to move to there if all hell breaks out in the world. It's probably the last place on earth that one can still drink pure water right out of a lake. I choose not to move back there as an adult due to the isolation but if climate changes or wars happen then this isolation becomes a positive.

Don't agree with this at all. Pricing should never be up to the client and their ability to pay. And also, you will have to keep track of every customer and their individual prices which would be a mess to keep track of.

You have to remember that most industries are very incestuous with people moving between companies within that industry. So what happens if someone from a price-sensitve customer (price A) moves jobs to a price C company and tells the new company the low price that their old price-sensitve company was getting? Price C company will demand that price (as I would) and then you're in trouble.

I make things simple. I charge the same price for everyone with discounts for volume. That's it. Nice and clean.

Agreed. I got my PP license 40 years ago on a 172, then 4 years ago went thru training again to renew but quit due to the condition of the planes (all 150's, 172's). I also quit because I realised (maybe because I'm older now), that there is no place for a part-time pilot. Too dangerous. Either you fly every day or don't fly at all because eventually something is going to happen, especially considering the planes I was flying and if you fly 1-2 times a month you are ill-equipped to handle any emergency situation.

The market's invisible-hand benefits. If this corporation is toxic, then it fails and in it's place will come a better, more ethical, more resilient corporation.

I think what JPMorgan fails to realise is that their entire business will be subject to automation. In a way they are signing their own death warrant. Obviously they will reap the benefits of AI while it's in it's infancy, but it won't take a quantum leap to realise that most of their business can be replaced by software eventually.

Anything that reduces the oppression of women is a good thing. Freedom is the ability to make choices.

I would say change one's attitude from a technical-person who happens to make money programming, to a business-person who writes code. You must put business first and understand that coding is only a tool to be used to further yourself.

Just shows that every financial decision regardless of political system is driven by incentives.

That 9% is a sham. Here's the critiera for an substance addiction which only needs 2 to be checked. Note the 1st 4 points and the Tolerance point. It's easy to see how 9% checked 2 of those points (I would).

  - The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.
  - There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful effort to cut down or control use of the substance.
  - A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects.
  - Craving, or a strong desire or urge to use the substance.
  - Recurrent use of the substance resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home.
  - Continued use of the substance despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of its use.
  - Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of use of the substance.
  - Recurrent use of the substance in situations in which it is physically hazardous.
  - Use of the substance is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.
  - Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
      - A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect.
      - A markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.
  - Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
      - The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for that substance (as specified in the DSM- 5 for each substance).
      - The substance (or a closely related substance) is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.

What does it matter since the prohibition of cannabis has never been about harm. You can have all the studies in the world and it won't matter a damn... and my proof of this? Why is industrial hemp illegal?

You can have all the technology in the world but eventually what censorship really means is someone else stopping you from speaking your mind, and that person can be benign or malignant.

"host better conversations" is a nice little marketing jingle but what it really means is "host conversations closer to what you consider 'better'". And 'better' is in the eye of the beholder.

> it doesn't benefit society as a whole...

But there is no benefit to society by incarcerating someone removing the possibilities of a functioning life. Does Louisiana benefit by having 1 out of 7 black men either in jail, or on parole? The private prison system, sure. But does Louisiana overall? Not a chance.

> And because Americans are somewhat punitive in nature.

Yes. Very much so. And at what stage does the word 'punitive' turn into it's next level of synonym: 'sadistic'?

> "Police arrest a heroin addict along the tracks."

We humans think that we are intelligent and just, yet I would love someone to explain the wisdom and/or logic behind this policy; to arrest someone who is addicted; to give someone a criminal record which removes any possibility of bettering oneself all for the so-called 'crime' of succumbing to an addictive drug. Even more appalling is that it is a subjectively produced list of drugs that will get you arrested, as other drugs won't.

> "Everything happens for a reason."

I don't know why people believe this; like there is some grand universal plan. This way of thinking also unnecessarily brings emotion into the events of life which does nothing other than complicate the situation since one may question the universal 'reason' why some event like a business closure happens. Things happen because they happen and it's best to view these events logically so that one can learn from them rather than try to figure-out some metaphysical 'reason'.

4th amendment is a farce anyway. Asset forfeiture is a direct violation of the 4th and yet has passed judicial constitutionality tests. Asset forfeiture was never supposed to be used on US citizens since citizens can be prosecuted under federal criminal/civil laws. It was put in-place to seize the assets of non-US citizens who could not be persecuted under such laws, such as foreign ships/etc. Bennis v. Michigan was one of the worst SCOTUS decisions.

Huh? This is still an issue? Well, glad that we finally have a decision after 129 years since George Eastman.

Classic m.o. of a fledging dictator. Begin to instil mistrust into the people of the very core of the political system, then once this mistrust permeates society enough, come in with an alternative system which, surprisingly, consolidates power at the top.

Bring in the family as well, because everyone else is untrustworthy; a classic ploy used in North Korea, Iraq (Hussein), and virtually every other dictator.

I would suggest you turn on the 6pm daily news.

Yes, the 'why' that is eating at me is why anyone would try to proselytise religion to anonymous people on HN.

Despite his intellect, he was a child really and his only hope was for management to rein him in and focus on deliverables (which they did not).

Not a chance. Brilliant jerks are a cancer on the team and business, and they very rarely deliver.