O____________O

My advice is, hands down, to get on with the Googles of the world. They have actual career trajectories, and bosses who actually care about moving them along it.

Financially speaking, a startup is almost always the worst choice, unless you're a founder (and even then, the reward is most likely going to be satisfaction of seeing something through, rather than financial).

I hear stories of bureaucracy at large companies, but I've been amazed at the amount of it at so-called startups. Unless you're a founder or a principal engineer role, you're probably going to see the same endless meetings and religious arguments over minutia.

you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times

Hence my statement: if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome.

Please do provide some reasons why raping a day-old newborn infant wouldn't be considered unethical.

I've always thought this part was, by far, the most likely. It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering. It's the same thing that's caused me to shift from "I don't believe in god" to "I believe there probably isn't a god". For example, infants have been raped in Africa due to the virgin cleansing myth, and every year thousands of people kill themselves due to unmanageable misery. Not to mention the way that so many people die of "natural" causes, e.g. drowning in their own phlegm only to be revived by hospital staff for another go-around.

(I heard that discussion discussed on the Adam Carolla Show from the 10th. I'm guessing it's a hot topic at the moment due to Hari promoting, I think, a book)

Wrong. As others are pointing out, by stifling your honest feedback you're harming the company and your now-former coworkers.

All because you fear a hypothetical situation.

I'm sorry, so you're now casting my comments under the light of the tautology you're declaring?

The original post was about how it would have been a mistake if he had let his emotions get the better of him.

The original post was about how he stifled his criticisms and caved to the general advice to keep opinions to yourself. The exact statement was:

So I backed off and gave some general feedback—hard to find interesting projects, considering a career change, that sort of thing—without going into too much detail.

As other commenters here are pointing out, this is doing a disservice to the company and to your now-former coworkers.

Nobody is advocating "running your mouth", whatever that highly subjective and inflammatory phrase means to you.

I noticed that every person arguing with me over this is using inflammatory language implying unprofessional and irrational behavior.

Explain to me the upside of honesty.

but can definitely see risk and downside

And this is the problem, in my opinion. People are being dishonest with themselves and others, promoting bad work environments, all due to fear of imagined consequences.

You assumed that I'm promoting unprofessional behavior. In fact, you appear to be defining the entire discussion such that anything that disagrees with you is inherently unprofessional and, thus, a poor decision.

Also "harsh" is entirely subjective.

I did no such thing.

This assumes the bridge isn't already burnt.

If you worked for an incompetent a-hole, chances are he'll have a negative opinion of you regardless of your exit behavior.

I've watched people bust their asses to leave their employer in the best position possible. The employer goes on to hold a negative opinion of them because they were too self-centered and stupid to understand the value that employee created. It was all wasted effort.

So? Leaving a company is always uncomfortable. And you're leaving. Who cares if your parting conversation with your ineffectual boss is a slightly worse experience?

If I had been harsh in my exit interview, what could have happened? What might my old boss say if he was called to verify my previous employment?

This seems like much anxiety over theoretical possibilities.

It seems to me that people's attitudes toward hiring would utterly doom anyone who has ever had an incompetent, a-hole boss. Personally, I've found that employers who actually want me will hire me on the spot. Ones who want to dink around with references and confirming employment history have proved to be wishy-washy and overly cautious in everything. If someone wants to chat with your last employer, expect them to be reluctant to approve that new machine you've been asking for all year.

Why wouldn't you want to go to Mexico City? It's said to feel very European, and there's a lot of interesting history and architecture. I'd go there just as soon as I'd go to Bangkok.

I was confused by your seemingly conflicting comments (the other was about the six month visa allowing remote work), so I Googled it:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/127125/thailand-immigration-of...

Foreigners working for a Thai firm must hold a valid non-immigrant (Type B) visa, but so-called ‘digital nomads’ – who are often self-employed – can sidestep that requirement.

So, the 'raid' was because officials thought the foreigners were working for the co-working space.

Today is the first time I've seen C++ mentioned alongside COBOL. Today is a dark day...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the language itself', since isn't all compile-time metaprogramming in the language itself? But this question has an example of computing Fibonacci sequences in C++ templates:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/908256/getting-template-m...

The second part of the question is about how to turn that into a table which can be referenced at runtime, which would seem to be the same as your question.

I felt rather similarly in my early and mid twenties. I didn't click with people, and it always felt like too much effort to socialize. Then I moved to the Bay Area and my life changed over the course of two months. I finally met people with interests and goals I could relate to.

For what it's worth, if I were doing it again now, I'd move to a great city and exploit things like Meetup.com, get out, and take up every class and activity that so much as caught my eye.

Remember: to be interesting, you have to be interested.

That sounds interesting. Have you written about it anywhere?

The numerous Spanish-speaking men I saw at Autozone at around 10pm on Arizona (the only place I've lived where parts stores were open until 11pm) were good counterpoints[1].

The reality is that it comes down to some combination of know-how, discipline (nobody wants to change an alternator at midnight), resourcefulness, and innumerable other factors. The example in the article -- a failing radiator -- has workarounds that would allow someone to nurse it to and from work. An overworked, single mother of three is pretty unlikely to know the workaround.

That said, by all means, buy the newest car you can afford, unless you're specifically seeking a challenge.

[1] I noticed that, somewhat ironically, the people in the poorer neighborhoods around Phoenix had the 'privilege' of more parts stores open later.

It's common knowledge, part of the most basic examination of a car. It's on par with noticing a crack in your sidewall or a badly frayed brake line.

I can't come up with any other reason why the passenger side wheel has an inch or so of play side to side when it's jacked up, or why it clunks when I turn left.

OH MY GOD. I created an account solely to comment on this.

CV joints have NOTHING to do with retaining the wheel, holding it in position, or anything else of the sort. NOTHING.

Your ball joints are shot (and/or your hub). If you're driving that vehicle, YOU ARE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING YOURSELF. Pardon the caps, but seriously, you appear to be unaware of the danger you're creating for yourself and others.

A timing belt won't give you that luxury.

I don't know why you're going back to timing belts, as they are scheduled replacement items.