OgAstorga

This X10. Nowadays is virtually impossible to create something out of thin-air. We learn from our teachers, our books, and our influencers. From a philosophical standpoint it's very difficult to defend the idea of "copyright".

I don’t think you understand what “one guy turning $17k into $600k with Amazon call options” means.

I don't think this is "spammy" nor "unnatural". There are important persons in our life that are worth keeping contact with for the sake of keeping contact with.

If you create this list and it's only filled with people that could be helpful to you in the future (agents?). Maybe it's time to recall that we the people are ends rather than means to themselves.

Second, Mental memory is lossy. Sometimes you move for a while to another city. It's easy to get distracted and forget to keep in touch with the people you love.

You are not aware of how extremely lucky you are. I’d advise to get to know people working in other fields to get a grasp.

C) no copyright after 2 years. (would this really decrease output?)

I believe that the whole Texas anti-abortion law is unfair. Nevertheless, undermining public discourse based on political preference is going to be always wrong.

I don’t think so. Everyone is free to leave if the don’t like the new policies. It’s not like there is a tight market for highly skilled software engineers

Just a reminder. Everything you say is your opinion by default. No need to write “(imo)” every two sentences.

Your “proof” it’s more like. No one has ever stepped on Mars. Therefore no one will.

Yet another pedantic fallacy.

I’d start with the ones that are clearly doing irreversible harm. Think of a coal burning plant to produce electricity or deforestation of hundreds of acres in the Amazon to build more IKEA furniture.

I won’t criticize you because your ideas. Still, I’d like you to know how a society would work if we were more aligned to think like that.

There is a government philosophy called utilitarianism. It’s based on the premise that a policy is good if and only if it increases overall happiness in a society thus, ends justify the means.

It’s totally valid to be an utilitarian. Nonetheless, you have to accept two premises.

1. There is no individual rights. 2. Measuring happiness is a trivialization of human experience (ex. How many people would need to be given an iPhone in order to justify the torturing an assassination of a child?).

Try reading Justice by Michael Sandel if you want to learn more.

This has nothing to do with the good work, awesome intentions, nor the fact that they have no financial incentives behind this.

Claiming something that is not true is in itself wrong.

Please don’t make this political.

I’m a software engineer with 10+ years of working experience. Currently working at FANG.

When I see the word architect I think about architecture. Not software architecture.

This is a great list. Thank you!

Isn't a good hand in Texa's considered luck? Isn't being invited by M. Zuckerberg to help code a side project named thefacebook considered luck (whether or not you've accepted)?

Hard CS is rarely needed in my projects but there are times that it's unfeasible to make things work without it.

My last project involved making calculations, clustering and specific spatial queries over a set of 4D points ( GPS + time ) there is no way to make competitive complex applications if no one in your team understands O-notation, Dynamic Programming, Euristics, Graphs Theory, etcetera.