Like I replied to someone else, what do you do about all those innocents who get killed in a driving accident with someone who's not drunk?
That kind of ruins your simplistic little moral diorama, doesn't it?
1,499 karma · joined September 9, 2010
That kind of ruins your simplistic little moral diorama, doesn't it?
Does it? I can think of any number of civil liberties which I would associate with the "right" wing of American politics. Right to bear arms, for example, freedom of speech and religion, right to life. The "stand your ground" phenomenon, a very American thing, is definitely right-wing.
It seems to me more that the "right" and "left" have adopted certain civil liberties for their pet causes, and the ACLU, a left wing organisation for sure, advocates for their favoured issues. But let's not confuse that specific organisation and their agenda with the general concept of "civil liberties" per se.
I was just saying that attempted murder is when you actually attempt to murder someone. It's not the same, not at all.
As a whimsical thought experiment, care to explain why the other 60% of fatal accidents should not be classed as criminal negligence by one party or another? : P
edit: since this got a few upvotes, I'd like to expand. I'm in my late thirties; I got my drivers' license in the early nineties. I was never really educated on drink driving the way people are today.
I didn't take it seriously enough. I thought it would be OK; I didn't know the risks properly, and I certainly didn't know the penalties. I had no idea that being a couple of times over the limit led to a 20x+ increased risk of accident. Maybe I was stupid to not know that, nonetheless I had never properly internalised that fact.
Maybe everyone here is smarter than me - it certainly seems like that most of the time - but I am not completely stupid, and my internal risk profile was totally wrong about this. If you're of a similar age as me - earned your license decades ago, in a more permissive time - I beg you not to make the same mistakes I made. Drink driving is never an option. It is not even on the table. You are endangering yourself, the community, your reputation, and everyone you love. Catch a god damn taxi, like I wish I had done that night.
Drink driving - not even once. From one hacker to another. Please.
Oh FFS, don't do that, it just encourages them to treat visiting whiteys as walking ATMs, which is bad for their tourism industry long-term.
Stay at hotels, eat at restaurants, take taxis, but don't encourage the obnoxious hawkers, no matter how young they are.
Don't underestimate Chinese political sophistication, especially amongst what we might call the middle class (a <10% minority in China). There is a common feeling, if not outright belief, that a strong government is necessary to hold the country together, especially during its current transition period with its massive inequalities. I am no expert but my impression is that the people who do know - the middle class educated, with internet access (firewalls are trivial to get around) understand or at least play along with the idea that from a stability point of view, some information is best not fully shared.
I see some interesting parallels between Chinese political censorship and the debate about the NSA revelations, by the way. Both are about concealing information of great public interest in the name of some alleged greater good. The only real difference is that the events in Tianenmen Square happened outdoors.
Oh come on. I've lost my license for what you'd call DUI - made a stupid decision to drive the 1.5km back home from a pub, got a 1 year ban and a hefty fine. Yes, it was a stupid thing to do and I deserve what I got, but attempted murder? Don't be ridiculous.
At most repeated DUI is criminal negligence, and negligence on the part of whomever supplied the offender with the vehicle. It should be met with driving bans and escalating punishments if those are ignored. Life imprisonment is an amazingly harsh and expensive over-punishment for a stupid but usually non-malicious crime.
It's a fantastic book. I probably re-reread it once a year.
And yes, I am sure in certain circles this issue has been discussed for years, but I would say Manning's case is the first time a lot of people have thought about these issues.
woman |ˈwo͝omən|
noun ( pl. women |ˈwimin| )
an adult human female.
If those two words did in fact have the distinct meanings you imply, that would solve some of the problem.
I have no problem whatsoever with "trans" people but do not think it is optimal for, eg, Ms Manning to be simply labelled a woman. She is clearly not, at least not 100%, female, not in the same holistic psycho-physical way that other females are. For example, I'd like to see her try to use a female changeroom and see if the other females go along quietly with that.
Of course Manning should have the right to her name of choice and to be treated as the person she identifies as. But asserting that one can change gender just by announcing it - even when it is a completely sincere statement - seems far too simplistic to me. I of course understand the argument that inventing some new gender designator could further marginalise an already vulnerable demographic, but by simply avoiding the question I think we've dug ourselves into a bit of a hole.
As another commenter said, names are important. It is important for Chelsea to be addressed as she wishes. But it's also important for our language to have a reasonable set of tools to unambiguously describe things. Simply declaring "she's a girl now, and if you disagree with that in the slightest you're a transphobic cis majority oppressor patriarchal bigot", as I see far too much on Twitter, is not the solution.
It's a complex question and I'm not sure what we can do to solve it. I am glad, however, that the topic is on the agenda - the fact we're even talking about it is surely a step forward.
Yes, he realised that the culture of trying to trick women into bed via tricks or routines was wrong, and the people who went down that path had flawed, weak personalities. It's interesting that on HN we tend to laud people who try to "hack the system" - but it's a shortcut, it's not real, and even if you succeed you can't handle it when you get there.
He realised that the real way to "win" women was to be yourself, the very best version of yourself you could manage. That is the central truth to which I was trying to refer. If you want to get the girls, be cool and confident and popular and successful. If that doesn't drive at least 50% of the startup community then I don't know what does.
I think we actually agree, except you have picked up a negative bias somewhere that I don't have. I liked that book very much. I have never been, nor want to be, a "PUA" but by god do I understand the sentiment.
For me that book shone a really bright light on a community, and its two types of citizens - the "wantrepreneurs" who would try to trick their way to success, and the really serious guys who changed their whole lives to succeed.
I saw obvious parallels between them and the startup community. And, yes, I suppose, serial killers and any other community who wants to succeed.
Curious as to what you found was negative and why.
FWIW, to be accused of misogyny is really offensive to me personally.
"Negging" is a negotiating tactic and you have failed to show how it is linked to misogyny in any way, shape or form.
You should read "The Game", by Neil Strauss. He documents the process of becoming a pickup artist, the people he met, the stages he went through. And as you read it, you will realise something - the only surefire way to becoming a successful PUA is to improve yourself, to become the best version of yourself, and at the end of it all, that's what these guys were trying to do.
Yeah, there are assholes. There's always assholes. But at the end of the day, this so-called "PUA" culture is about turning yourself into the best version of yourself you can be. And isn't that what all us startup types are trying to do? Rising to a challenge? Stepping into those shoes? Pushing ourselves beyond what we thought possible? Closing the deal?
There are more parallels than you think. Read that book. And don't be so eager to judge people. They're more like you than you realise.
I now hire spreadsheet testers on odesk for $10/hr. Upskill when you have the chance or die.
It took me way too long to accept this. I always thought those people just did not know better, or something.
I will never forget the QA department at a previous company and their ~200-step excel-based manual QA procedure. For me, that is basically a nightmare made reality. I tried to talk them into automating it, but they resisted that, almost angrily. They liked stepping through that 200-step spreadsheet.
I cannot understand it, at all, but I now accept it. People are different.
Anyone tried them? Experiences?
Perhaps videoconferencing could be a good option for simple cases (viagra, sleeping pills) while a medical pick-up system could be instituted for patients requiring in-person consultations, but lacking mobility or the urgency required for an ambulance.
I'd advise you to read the essay I linked. It might change your thinking on a few things.
Okay, let's apply a gross reality check. You're an alien. You're
observing Earth with an infinitely powerful telescope from Alpha
Centauri. You have a simple question. Since 1950, has human
civilization - or American civilization, which amounts to pretty much
the same these days - advanced or declined?
Apparently the easiest way for Sam Altman to answer the question is to
trade it for a different one. He is not alone in this. He asks:
since 1950, has human technology advanced or declined? Clearly, the
alien, you, I, and Sam Altman all have the same answer to this
question.
Any question with an obvious answer is a stupid question. "Is an iPad
more advanced than a Smith-Corona?" is a stupid question. Who asks
stupid questions? Obviously, blithering idiots.
But we can compose an interesting question by factoring out the stupid
question. Which world would Sam Altman rather live in? 2013, with
iPads and teh Internet? Or 1950 - with iPads and teh Internet?
In a sense, this 1950 is just as real as the "real" 1950. Neither
exists. Sam Altman cannot pack his bags and move to either the real
1950 or my imaginary super-1950. Both exist only as thought
experiments. It is not hard to construct or define the super-1950,
though - one run of a time machine, with a printout of Wikipedia,
would be pretty much all the real 1950 needed. Send the technology
back to 1945, and you'll have iPads by '55 at the latest. Those guys
got things done.
The interesting (and scary) question this thought-experiment asks is
whether, aside from technical progress, human civilization has
advanced or declined since 1950. In actual reality, this too is a
stupid question. The answer is no less obvious - I assert.
Of course they won't be directing Star Wars - although a case might be made that that would be preferable - but I don't see any reason almost all cooking will not be done robotically 10 years from now. Hell, try and buy a non-sous-vide steak these days. That's a dramatic step towards automatic cooking right there.
Like everything in software it's about tradeoffs. Maybe they erred a little too far on one side of the curve, so let's learn from that. But it's unfair to expect startups to be in the same league as banks security-wise. Do you have any idea how much a good pentest costs?
Forgive me for putting the "human cost to the operator" a very distant second in my reckoning about this issue, ie dropping bombs on people, wiping out whole generations. This is killing people, do you understand? Dropping bombs and killing people. You know, I want it to be difficult.
> Drones don't kill innocent non-combatants, people do
Well it is exactly like guns, isn't it. Guns don't kill people, people do, but guns sure make it a hell of a lot easier. There is no nation on earth that looks at America's gun culture and thinks "that is a good idea!". Same with military drones.
Warrior? How dare anyone involved in this dignify themselves with such an honour-laden term. They're just murderers, and the fact they hide behind so many layers of technology just makes it all the more cowardly and despicable.
For example, a friend of mine markets himself as basically a part-time CTO. He's been there, done that at a number of startups over the years, team lead the last few, a strong record of delivery. Management (who are not or only partially technical) does not hire him for his programming skills - that is not even a question at the (short, single) interview. He develops software, yes, but the main priority is giving management confidence that their software story is in safe, experienced hands, gives them someone to interface with, and frees up their bandwidth for other concerns. This guy makes well over six figures working part time.
It's no secret that many startup founders come from finance - and despite their bad rap here on HN, mostly they are very smart, decent people. But they don't know tech like we do. What are their needs? What are their fears?
They're not looking for the cheapest typist in town. They're looking for a credible partner to take co-ownership of the tech side of things. Maybe that's taking co-ownership of the mobile product, or something more inclusive, it doesn't matter - they just don't want to have to worry about it. So be that person who can take care of that for them.
And one more thing. There is a bizarre tendency in the software world to eschew anything that smells like management, and to almost revel in the fact that IT people can often get away with dressing down at work. Don't do that. Always wear a suit, or at least a shirt. Business has rules, and the dress code is one of them. Demonstrate at the very first impression that you understand this, and you will gain a lot of respect. Suddenly, you are not just another slob typing gibberish in his dirty t-shirt, you are a fellow manager, but with rare and valuable technical skills. Big, big difference.
Ha! That's what they tell you. To the right kind of startup, time is everything and they will pay good money for someone they think of as an asset who will demonstrably help them execute.
I am guessing here - but it simply sounds like you are coming to the table with the wrong attitude. "Please sir, give me some dev work". Well, under these circumstances you will of course be treated as "just" another outsourced programmer.
Don't be like that. Be a partner. Turn up in a suit. Show your business savvy, list your successes, and matter-of-factly tell them that they are excited about their plans, you can likely help them achieve their execution goals, and your rate is £600/day (or more). Give them your business card and tell them to call you when they're ready to start. You're a pro, you can and will manage yourself, and you will deliver - you're not a teenager looking for a part-time job.
Startups aren't really interested in bargaining over your hourly rate. They want to execute! Frankly, they are bargaining you down only because you allow them to. That obviously means you are selling the wrong thing. Instead, make them understand that you are the guy who is going to take ownership of their mobile app and help them get it out by the end of next month. Now you're not an outsourced programmer, you're a partner consultant who takes ownership and has real commitment. Your rates double. Try it.
And of course, once you make that promise and gain those rates, you gotta deliver!