1,378 karma · joined February 24, 2012
Alternatively, renting or staying in a hotel/resort is _significantly_ cheaper than $500k, even amortized over 10 years. TBD how much you can sell your timeshare back for at the end, but I'd argue the risk + the significant upfront capital + not getting to put your crap in your expensive rental™ makes it a tough sell for all but a small niche.
>let market decide not folks on HN
I'd point out that a number of the threads on this are more upset that this seems to be a timeshare system that dodges regulations around timeshares, just as Uber is a cab system that dodges cab regulations and AirBnB is a BnB/home rental. It's more anger that these startups raise massive cash to distort the markets in ways that have some advantages but aren't always long-term positive, and it takes regulation too long to catch up. Comparing regulation dodging timeshares to iPhones feels disingenuous.
Agreed that credentials aren't required for a pass to the genius club, but I didn't read that in the post above either.
Netflix and the video streaming services are the worst here. I hate my Netflix recommendations, and can't get out of them.
Also last time I checked, the big automakers investigated and then abandoned Toyota's manufacturing strategies, and it's the Korean manufacturers who have taken top quality marks lately while Toyota has fallen. GM and American manufacturers may have improved, but are still straight garbage when it comes to quality control... I dare you to buy a Buick.
You might be write, but as you said it's best to say that kind of things after you are proven right, and anecdotes and comments in a forum are hardly proof.
I'm not saying I think it's good that private companies collect all of our data (and personally the info a CC company has creeps me out far more than FB or Google), but I can choose to stop using their service and greatly minimize the amount of data they receive. There's very few caves in the world where you can hide from the US Government.
That analogy is crap. Is the difference between reading and launching people into space childhood, too? We don't blame authors for kids who can't read any more than you can solve technical illiteracy by bludgeoning software authors. Can we help? Yes, certainly (and check out https://www.cs-first.com/en/home if you haven't). But throwing shade isn't going to magically make an entire class of folks learn something they don't care about.
Teaching kids to code is similar to teaching just about anything else: get them to have fun and find how it applies to them, followed by how to figure out what they don't know, then how to keep going when things are frustrating and they want to give up.
More practically, the kids who are into games have probably already figured out how to write Minecraft mods or something, so introing them to something like Code Combat is a fairly natural next step. For kids into music, try http://sonic-pi.net. Sports? Maybe wade into statistics/data analysis and show em some moneyball or fantasy football. Lego Mindstorms-style stuff is awesome for just about everyone because of the tactile aspect, and moving from that to playing with simple electronics can be done with gentle happy path introductions.
Also be aware of where the falloffs will be. Lots of kids can change the color on a prebuilt object on Khan Academy, but going from changing a field to starting from scratch on a new idea is an incredible. Teaching debugging and figuring out how to solve something you haven't seen before is more important than anything else.
I think there's a cool idea in a platform designed like this... somewhere in between Kickstarter, Patreon, and NPR, but with a whole bunch of tools for news consumers to discover, read, and support both journalists and stories they're interested in. Things like supporting and discovering topics like "local region politics", "travel", or "technology", while allowing journalists to describe their backgrounds, political leanings, etc, might be a way of addressing trust and transparency in journalism and journalistic leanings while also allowing a range of opinions and perspectives on one platform, rather than being driven solely by editorial control.
1 https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-...
While it's true that criminals, by definition, will break the law, all laws are not treated equally by individuals. Millions of people litter or speed despite the law, but I imagine not all who speed in a car also rob banks. It's my understanding that psychological, social, and legal thresholds are not the same for all people, nor are they binary (there's some really great research into ethics thresholds if someone knows of a link). Sure, adding an additional law might not deter the truly determined, but what about those who have a lower threshold for criminal activity? Why not call all manslaughter murder? Would those who commit suicide with a firearm (half of American suicides [1]) choose a more difficult and less immediate method?
So the question might be, how does changing a law affect those thresholds? Maybe we don't stop determined criminals or mass shootings, but maybe we can make a dent in the more than 20,000 Americans who choose to shoot themselves every year, or make a difference in urban gun violence.
That said, I personally believe that American society is probably too violent and too committed to gun ownership change anytime in my lifetime. We as a society value arguing about gun ownership over actually taking steps to reduce gun violence, or even gathering data on it. The folks that crack me up the most are the ones who say things like you can take my gun from my cold, dead hands because that'd somehow be a check on government power, despite the fact that the federal government possesses tanks and stealth bombers and whatnot. Bonus points if they also think net neutrality is bad, even though open information is demonstrably better for civic checks and balances.
I have no idea why I'm responding to this.
Point is, effective team building doesn't end at offer letters. Hire for fit, then fit the hire. Train up. Just because someone is weak in some area doesn't mean they can't contribute meaningfully given the proper resources and support, nor is a strong hire going to succeed without the same carefully tailored support.