PhilWright

As the Higgs fills in the last missing particle for the Standard Model, creating such a new accelerator seems very speculative. Maybe there is nothing else to find at higher energies, there is no hint of them at the LHC and the Standard model does not predict anything. I understand professionals always want more experimental power, but given the $10billion+ cost, it seems hard to justify.

Aha, so he is performing arbitrage. Charge customers a $1 for something he can buy for much less than a $1. I wonder if the recursion works, use the virtual assistants to bring in leads to also get his own customers.

If that would be faster, why not do that then?

Goes into good details about the tactics used to come up with an idea and then recruit the first few customers. After signing up $5k/month revenue it meant he needed to generate 5,000 leads per month for those customers. That is the hard bit, how did he do that on a side project? He says that the income was passive, so how did he generate 5,000 targeted leads passively? That is the magic, not the ability to recruit some customers.

Because you are disadvantaging people for a behaviour they might never exhibit. There is a reason we do not punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. You should judge people on their actual actions and not on your prediction of their actions.

Typical salesperson, he lies in his presentation. Says he just sold some to Elon Musk and this is his last one available. Do you want your salesperson misleading?

Yes, but then they have to integrate all future changes to the original to keep their fork in line with new features, bug fixes etc.

But then it would not be an application class processor.

There are relatively few 'rockstars' that perform at that level in every position throughout their whole career. I have seen people struggle at a company because they do not seem to fit into the culture/dev processes/hierarchy that are excellent performers at another company when everything gels for them. And also visa versa.

I think half of your performance is not your technical ability but the environment you are in and how it suites you. Some like a free wheeling, high pressure small company feel. Others prefer a structured large company where they have a well defined set of tasks. Some developer take a few years to figure out which is best for them.

Maybe the most popular small libraries should be merged together into a single library that can be used to reduce the number of dependencies, in the hope it can become a standard. Like a jQuery for npm.

TL;DR

They are going to start trying to build an idea and they have proven nothing so far. Check back in 5 years.

I am not aware that Linux has a reputation for being non-complex.

The post only mentions .NET Core, but should actually be mostly talking about ASP.NET Core that runs on top of .NET Core. The features such as dependency injection and Razor Pages are ASP.NET Core specific.

Microsoft have announced that they will be porting WinForms and WPF over to .NET Core so that they no longer need the heavyweight .NET Framework. However, this DOES NOT make WinForms/WPF cross-platform. They will still be restricted to Windows but will allow you the benefits of .NET Core, such as allowing side-by-side versioning.

The irony of bank lending is that the companies that are safe to lend to, do not need the money. The ones that really need a loan are the ones that might not pay it back. When you do not need to borrow, your bank is constantly trying to encourage you to borrow money. When you really need money, the bank is not interested or wants a very high interest rate to compensate for the risk.

In this case Stripe has the most important information about you, your revenue numbers. So they can judge if you are a good risk or not, plus they spread the risk over many companies. Finally, they avoid the biggest cost on small loans, which is all the paperwork/admin on the backend.

You would think that the CIA/NSA has a team whose job is to try and identify their own people using just public information. Like white hat penetration testers to ensure you spot weaknesses in your own processes/systems before the enemy does. Or at least have a new team try it out once a year so you have a variety of different approaches tried.

Just looked at the transferlot.com site. The first three entries were the following...

Repick.com MRR:$100 Price:$20,000

byteptr.com MRR:$50 Price:$20,000

getvora.com MRR:$550 Price:$40,000

Is this a bad joke? Asking for 6 to 16 times yearly revenue? They want people to buy a site that then takes many years to get your money back, whilst crossing your fingers the site stays relevant for all those years?

The author probably does not realize that Moore's Law has really slowed down and the geometric increase in 3D rendering power is unlikely to continue as fast as in the past. Not to mention that you need ever more graphics processing power to make smaller and smaller improvements in realism. I therefore suspect it will take longer than anticipated to get to the cinematic quality that he hopes for at the price needed for the transformation he anticipates.

First, I recommend you do not quit your job. No matter how frustrating it might be, it is always much easier to find a new job when you already have one. So if you decide it is best to move on, look for and accept another position before handing in your notice.

Their children are tired of living in poverty and go back to step 1.

If your spending $11,000 on boots and welding gloves, your getting a very bad price. Shop around.

Occam's razor cannot be used to assert that when something exists, if must be or indeed is likely, to be in its simplest possible form. Human DNA has plenty of redundant areas and yet we still exist. Indeed, probably all organism have a non-simplest form of DNA and yet still do just fine. We only have one example of a universe and even for that we have an imperfect understanding of its working. It is therefore impossible to know or assert that the universe is it its simplest possible form.

A common mistake I see is developers often view a big and well known service and assume that means the entire market is fully catered to. For example, 'Firebase' is a large Google service that handles backend-as-a-service (BaaS). Does this mean the entire BaaS is now off the table for others?

Of course not! Maybe you can create a specialised BaaS that works great for the unique demands of Ruby developers, with a seamless SDK for them. There will be multiple specialised niches that Firebase does not cater to because they are so large that small niche areas are not worth their effort. But that niche might make a nice little lifestyle business for a developer! Do a good job of it and you become known as the go-to place for the Ruby community. (This is just an example, I have no idea if the Ruby community needs a Firebase BaaS)

Thanks.

Forgive a related question, but I have never understood why quantitively easing was used to get demand into the economy by buying back bonds. Surely the money will just get reinvested in stocks or other bonds and not stimulate demand? Buy back a rich persons Ferrari and they just go and buy a Bently instead.

Why not do the obvious, which is to give every adult some free money each month? Most people are not rich and so most of it gets spent very quickly on goods/service? I live in Australia and this happened back in 2008 to stave off a recession. I remember twice getting cash in the bank account without having to do anything! I am not an economist so forgive me if this is a banal question.

The problem with game theory is it does not take into account human psychology and often assumes everyone has perfect knowledge. Some people will buy from the lowest priced shop even when they know they could have bought at the guaranteed price shop instead. They will knowingly walk straight past the guaranteed shop. Why? Because they are shy about asking for the lower price and do not want to make a fuss. So to avoid any possibility of conflict they made a longer and less convenient journey. Someone else might be cynical and avoid the guaranteed priced shop because they think these statements mark out the shop as underhanded. People are not always rational and do not have perfect knowledge.

Apple would need to show that they had lost business as a result of the false story and hence claim damages. Businessweek would defend themselves based on it being in the public interest and they cannot reveal their confidential sources.

Probably hard for Apple to prove they have lost money because of the story and it would need to be enough to warrant the time and hassle of a court case. Not to mention they would probably rather avoid having the issue mentioned even more often by dragging it through court for a year or two.

Relatively few journalists are actually investigative reporters looking to discover scandals and other issues that would constitute holding governments/corporations to account. Typically when a scandal is revealed it is an insider reaching out to a journalist as a means of exposing the problem. Such as the 'deep throat' source for Watergate or Edward Snowdon for the NSA overreach. These are obviously very important for a democracy but newspapers need the 99% of people working on sports/gossip/crime/etc to pay the actual bills.

The problem with your personal data store is that it will be impossible to stop the large companies like Google/Facebook from simply copying and caching a copy of all the data they need to access. You give them permission to handle your email and calendar information and bingo, they have a copy of your entire set of emails and appointments. If you use multiple services from Google/Facebook then they will end up with a good copy of your entire dataset and can mine it of value just like they already do.

Great point. Telling us how the CEO operates day to day now when they are the finished product is not helpful in understanding how they became that person. A step by step description of their career would be more useful. How did they get every promotion, how much was luck by being in the right place and how much from hard work and talent. What were the thinking and strategies they used along the way.

I think Joel Spolsky is fantastic, I read his excellent blog articles way back when they were first written. His intelligence, business acumen and subsequent success are not in dispute. I am a big fan of his ideas and work. But even I would say this marketing puff piece is over the top, I thought it must have been satire...

"Back in 2000, two visionary founders, Joel Spolsky and Michael Pryor, envisioned a new tech company that would distinguish itself by the way it treated people — both its employees and its customers"

Visionaries? The company they started was a consulting shop that only later transformed into software products when the dot com boom crashed and consulting dried up. Was that part of the vision?

"The company they created, Fog Creek Software, has gone on to create multiple ground-breaking products and to help change the entire tech industry along the way."

Trello is great and I use it myself, but it is a TODO list application and certainly not ground-breaking. FogBugz is a bug tracker, which is not ground-breaking, and was actually out-competed by JIRA. StackOverflow is definitely ground-breaking and I would agree changed the software development industry, but the original idea came from Jeff Atwood with Fog Creek providing mainly the money and initial public profile.

"...other successful and influential products like Manuscript and Kiln and Copilot and CityDesk..."

I mean no disrespect but I would not consider any of them successful and influential.

Maybe Glitch will become a big product in the future, but for now can be step down the marketing intern that wrote this whilst drinking too much caffeine.