citizen_friend

In other words:

- you previously spent time building relationships with contractors. You didn’t just type in property management in Google

- a significant overhead goes to insurance and management. Your comfortable putting money as needed into the venture. You have knowledge of legal pitfalls of being a landlord.

- you regularly spend time managing these contracts

I believe you can do well with rentals, but not without labor and knowledge. The danger is people thinking they will just hire a manager.

I would also rather be an engineer than fix apartments.

Idk if it was very technical for him to succeed. Know your local market and be aggressive in buying is a good strategy throughout 80s and 90s.

Seminars were important knowledge distribution networks in the 80s and 90s.

Scams and low quality content are usually a strong indicator something used to be good, and attracted copy cats.

You don’t think he made a lot of money in real estate?

He already has stated publicly that the “rich dad” is a characterization. And the book is about the 4th product in his attempt to teach finance courses. So I’m already suspect of the article.

Yes it’s a terribly written book, but that’s typically the case from non-professional writers who just have something to say.

My biggest takeaway is that “stay in school so you can get a good job” is not a great wealth creation strategy. You just compete with other highly qualified candidates for jobs that pay 20-30% more (See 20+ years at Boeing). Jobs like this also attract other risk averse people.

You’re trying to say that I’m defining success as money and he’s defining it as more wholesome factors.

That’s not what’s happening.

Having a job he likes that pays him money he wants. That’s the criteria outlined. He’s just afraid it might end up being a job he doesn’t like.

There is a myth that higher paying jobs must be more miserable, but it’s rarely true.

this sounds a lot like the psychology of having nothing to lose vs something to lose. You play more aggressively and are more successful in the former case.

Remember that like wikipedia, citing yourself, or people related to your work is a form of marketing, and important for careers.

I would expect them to have someone with at least an undergrad in math look over the math. Editor would help identify that

This. He tries to do a few epsilon delta proofs and completely gets the concept wrong. I’m surprised an editor did not stop this.

If he can’t understand a limit it really puts a question mark on whether it’s worth reading his insight into the subject.

How many meanings of the word emum do we need? Whose code does this improve?

Hash maps are extremely difficult to make general which is probably why they were never included in C++98. unordered_map is a disaster.

> Where do you see three sorts

stable_sort, sort, and sort_heap

The creator Alex Stepanov also included insertion_sort (used in sort) but it was rejected by standard committee.

That suggests that the idea that complexity is primarily to compare is wrong, because then why would anyone pick insertion_sort? Of course there are real world cases where it is the right choice. But if you need the complexity guarantee, then it's not.

> shiny new general purpose sort

I don't want it in the standard until it's proven useful and has some longevity, not just a micro benchmark. Shiny and new are exactly the wrong adjectives.

Why can't you include a header?

> quicksort

Introsort is simply a variant of quick sort with heap sort as a fallback to avoid the worst case, and insertion sort at the lowest level.

Anyone who tried to pass off naiive quick sort simply wasn't educated about the topic, so it's good that they were not standard compliant.

I would disagree. The purpose of big O in the STL is not to allow you to compare different algorithms, but allow you to reason about how that will scale with input size. If I test perf with a size of 1000 and then it’s declared to be linear, I have a pretty good idea if that’s the right tool for the job.

Do you have any examples of “better” algorithms that the STL is not able to use? Another idea in STL is to provide many algorithms, which is why there are 3 sorts.

To refresh. My argument is that if you are starting out you need to have drive and interest. That’s it.

> Being successful in this field doesn't require programming in your spare time

I already addressed this point.

> No one made a statement even remotely like this. This is a strawman you chose to "reply to"

No. My argument was that it’s important for a new engineers to have drive and curiosity to get started. The other poster replied that this wasn’t true because “teams”. So I was checking for understanding about why this individual does not need to take their personal development seriously.

> I don’t think your advice is good advice

This is why I am asking questions that seem stupid to you. You don’t think someone should have strong natural interest at the beginning of their career?

So no such thing as a good or bad engineer? Just teams then? Have you ever worked by yourself?

I think the bias today is actually against individuals and for community.

Money ball didn’t get them the best team it got them the better team than others expected for less money.

Do you think you can become a really good engineer without being personally motivated and curious? I don't.

That's not to say you can't have seasons of more or less interest, but this guy is at the starting line.

Agreed. And I don't blame mid career workers for not having time to do much after full-time jobs.

But this is an individual who is early in developing their skills and indicating they may not have motivation to do that. That's an essential step.

This. If you haven't been naturally excited to work on your own projects during this downtime, this field might not be for you.

Math is all about taking a notion from life that you might consider “common sense” and using it to solve a problem. You have to prove it works carefully though.

This is Turing’s works where he is translating the idea of a human “computer” into a mathematical machine.

> cutting edge of cloud services documentation

I dont know what this means

Nobody did gradual rollout in 1992

Its always a great tool if you need to automate a computer task.

Everyone I know who is extremely successful in the field is the opposite. They have way more ideas than they have time for.

I think we are talking past each other and it’s not worth continuing this discussion.

The reason why no fund will take that deal is the market for investments is much more favorable to managers than that.

Yep I’m just pointing out S&P. Or VTI anre not magic

There are funds that beat them often. Is your claim they don’t exist? Or that you can’t find them.

This sounds clever but many funds did exactly that. What’s your point?

S&P + nvidia was better than just S&P over the last 5 years.