crush-n-spread

  There's also probably a bunch of people from rural areas in your downtown office who think you're crazy. The foreigners probably think the same thing.

I have found this to be true. Two disparate groups reject the narratives that dominate North American media: Male foreigners from arab and poorer countries, and whites from rural North America. The whites don't voice their opinions, because they get viciously attacked; the Arabs and immigrants from poorer areas just laugh at us.

I feel that we're only getting the half of it since we're seeing 30-40fps video, but in real life it's going to be much different than what we see.

What's your point? Others can raise money more easily than you can, due to some ambiguous idea that investors prefer these other people from Stanford? No one that is going to build a successful company should care about that. Because you're 10x better than the competition. The lack of an inherited advantage isn't going to make the difference between success and failure for you.

The thing is that you can sell a good product without VC money, even it's a high-capital product.

OK so your post boils down to "VCs want to see growth or prestige". It's actually that they want to see customers and revenue, not necessarily growth. And so the sentence "VCs want to see revenue and customers or prestige" is completely reasonable.

Look, if you're a VC who goes to those "clubs", and you trust the people there and are comfortable giving them your money, _great_. Why should they be handing it out to you, with your no-revenue company and no prior associations?

Most everything with CSS Grid is broken on Edge 15, which is what most Edge users are running. Thus Grid is not something you should be putting in production.

https://caniuse.com/#feat=css-grid

network effects, and convenience.

They are not struggling. This Yahoo article is fear mongering. I just listened to the whole earnings call and everything sounded terrific: They pulled their best engineers to Gigafactory to mitigate a supplier misleading them about one of their battery production lines, and so they dropped production of S and X. Apparently as a result of the supplier f* up, they rewrote "20 man years of software in 4 weeks". Which is absolutely incredible.

Don't listen to this fear mongering BS. Tesla is the only one in the electric car game. Who else has the charging network, the half-million pre-orders, the 3.5 billion in cash and easy ability to raise more, the Elon shine?

Can't stand these articles

I listened to the whole earnings call that just happened, Elon said they had laid of 2% of their work force which is much low than industry standard for yearly layoffs.

Elon quoted GE which lays of the bottom 10% of their staff every year. It's not that bad.

It's too expensive to mine minerals and send them back to Earth. Until we are launching hundreds of rockets a day, we can forget about this.

Lots of comments here about how to be a successful CEO. We should all be looking at Elon Musk as the prime example. Work 120 hour work weeks when the going is tough, 100 hour weeks when the going's good, and if you're just starting out, spend every waking hour on your product/company.

If you do this, people will tell you you're insane, and you'll eventually stop. That's why Elon is different, because he cannot stop. I feel that this alone explains 90% of the CEO question - who can choose to stop and who cannot choose to stop.

Wait a second. In the quotes I took of Jackie, he says that he is critical of Japan behind closed doors. Your Nazi comparison holds no water.

You claim that having solidarity with your nation, family, corporation, etc. is an enabler of evil. But what you see as evil probably looks a lot like dominance, control and strength to the rest of the world.

Ultimately, national power is extremely valuable on the global stage. Every single industrial nation on Earth has tens of thousands of business leaders and decision makers working to usurp that power from other nations as their own; this must be known and acknowledged! Whether it be exploitative trade agreements or owning parts of a neighbouring country's industry, to have control and dominance over other nations and their diverse varieties of resources is what wars are fought over.

Thus, if Americans do not seek to solidify their dominance at every moment, their dominance will be taken from them at some point; of this we can be sure. We _must_ have solidarity. It is not an enabler of evil - rather, it protects us from the evils that others might inflict upon us. Because that's how the world works. We fight over resources.

Jackie is Chinese. He ought to be pro-China. In the WaPo article you linked, he says the following:

  If our own countrymen don’t support our country, 
  who will support our country? We know our country 
  has many problems. We [can] talk about it when the 
  door is closed. To outsiders, [we should say] “our 
  country is the best.”

and

  Seriously, I am always like, when the door is 
  closed, “Our country is like this and this. Who 
  and who is not good.” But outside, “Our country 
  is the best, like so and so, is the best.” You 
  cannot say our country has problems [when you are
  outside], like “Yes, our country is bad.”

Can you fault him for that? Perhaps it is the American standard that is wrong. Perhaps it is wrong to talk poorly of your own state on the global stage. Just because Americans (who own the fruits of 70-odd years of global dominance) are willing to disparage their country to no end, does not mean that it should be a standard for everyone.

t. Canadian

It also creates artificial scarcity.

Tone-deaf or not, you have to go where the work is. You might have to pick up a laptop and learn to code. Maybe that means uprooting your family and finding new friends. You have to make it work. To not find work is to not survive.

In your first argument, you argued that we could not colonize Mars. Now you concede that we can colonize Mars, while arguing humans have a fundamental flaw. What is your point, and why do you hold it?

We need to dream big while we commit to solving the problems spaceflight poses to human health.

Whether or not NASA has the right amount of funding is not going to make or break this; instead, we need to lower the cost of spaceflight and start sending more stuff and more people up there. With the cost of going to space lowered one hundred times, suddenly NASA's current budget becomes quite sufficient.

This article is one man's emotional retelling of his first days on Earth after a year in LEO (he's trying to sell his book). In contrast, a trip to Mars is only three months, and it will be on a ship with a water layer (radiation shielding) between the outer hull and the cabin - a much better environment for humans. Thus this article is not the determining factor for whether or not Mars is a pipe dream.

The other big danger of spaceflight is the body's response to microgravity, which can be solved with a massive centrifuge. Hard, but possible.

Telling humans to not dream and have hope for colonizing Mars is an egregious offence. The window of technology is open, but it will not be open forever. We will lose our technology in the future, either soon or in many millenia. In addition, there is rising tension in our low-growth society. A few more natural disasters or bad geo-political alliances and tensions might explode, hastening the closing of our technology window. Should that window close, and we fail to reach Mars, then humans will be a grand failure: We had all the resources to colonize another planet and begin colonizing the Universe, but instead we killed ourselves as we gave in to our aggressive tendencies.

Thus we _must_ be more ambitious. We _must_ dream big and strive every day to do the impossible, for the cost of not striving may be another 14-billion-year waiting period to get the opportunity to do this again, on another planet, at another time, waiting for another species to awaken with consciousness and begin it's own effort to overcome the Great Filter[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

Musk knows that it is not the ideal environment for human health. But Musk also knows that the rate-limiting step is not human health in space, but the cost of getting to space. We can not move forward in making a healthy environment for humans in space if we're not putting hundreds of ambitious, fearless humans in space at low cost per human.

Organizational coherency?

  To work with this administration ... is to normalize it

  the ... great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is ... the white moderate

I read these quotes as saying "You're either for us or against us." I strongly resent this sentiment. I don't like being urged to subscribe to a certain set of views to avoid being called a racist. I want to be able to hold my own views, however moderate, without being cast out as a fascist.

There's already a product called Momentum Dash[1] which is a project-organizing Chrome extension.

[1] https://momentumdash.com/

It should be hard. That's why networks are valuable.

It's a couple memes in one.

"I accidentally a word." is a meme

"He doesn't afraid of anything." is a meme

"Don't afraid of makefiles." combines the two and catches the eyes of those who know their memes.

I see what you're saying about how they're being responsible by holding off on sex, cars, and drinking, but there is an opportunity cost in holding off on those three things - They miss out on the enormous compounding effects of having their own relationships, vehicles, and high-impact social gatherings happen 2-3 years earlier.

Maybe an anecdote will be useful. I started dating, drinking, and driving at 15-16 y.o. All three of those activities have been formative in building my career as a tech worker. I had a choice to move to a big tech hub, and having a potential partner living in the target city was a key factor in moving. To even consider moving to the city, I needed to already be comfortable with packing up my life in my car and physically driving, which I had already been doing for years. Moving to the city was insanely stressful for 10 consecutive months, and I found that having an excessive amount of beer with a good friend was pivotal in helping me navigate my stressful, heavy emotions.

In conclusion, you cannot grow up slowly and expect to do big things. You need to get comfortable being uncomfortable. There's no sense in keeping your kids away from real learning because you have some notion in your head about "responsible ages to do things". There is no goodness in slapping age requirements on activities and then stopping to think about it.

And one more thing, WW2 produced the greatest generation of all time, the baby boomers - That war gave our nation a widespread sense of purpose and unity that has not been seen since. So while war is bad you must also consider that the stress of war creates great men that make great leaders.

  financial and social risk is just too much to handle for most people. they just won't do it.

  nobody else is doing it 

People tend not to try because they cannot embrace the intermediate feeling of "I f*ing suck at this."

When you embrace that you are not very good, you become the master. It is a tautology.

His key premise is that freedom of association extends to seed investments. As the other poster said you have set up a straw man argument here.

Books are good if you do the exercises alongside each chapter. Blog posts are also useful if you need a breakdown of a specific technical subject. However the best way to improve, in my opinion, is to play in your mind with mental models of whatever you're studying. Thus, if you wanted to be a great programmer, I think you should build up mental models of many reputable open source software projects and play with those mental models. That basically builds up your neurons to quickly recognize patterns in new software situations.

It's like music. Play a lot, listen a lot, and you'll build up a mental library of riffs and sounds that you can use to build a song or phrase. If you play with software a lot then you'll see those patterns and become a better composer, and you'll also be comfortable answering questions about optimization, architecture etc.

But not huge on blog posts. Not engaging enough.

The comment suggests that Naomi Wu is a front for another engineer's work, and that it is insincere. It doesn't suggest that women cannot use tools.

Look at the root cause. Humans are driven by the exact forces that caused evolution. Those forces are to gather resources and maintain social dominance. Anything other than that will never be a force that shapes the world.

"Not being fully clear about their means" is just a manifestation or symptom of someone's quest to acquire more resources. I repeat that you must look at the root force and not the symptom.