ggame

I thought it was because Umbrella corp was taken

I wish it was my lack of marketing and business skills, that way there would be more room for others to succeed.

While I'm not claiming to be a marketing guru, I am successful in business in a different domain. Hence my early retirement.

None of the ideas you present are new to me. I've tried them all. I have many friends in the space who have tried them all as well. If anything worked we'd be the first to know.

"If it can be phased in a culturally acceptable way" - have you ever tried to intentionally change a culture? It's damn near impossible. Having it as a prerequisite to success practically guarantees failure.

People will complain about the code of conduct and again about their banning upon breaking a code of conduct. Managing a community takes a lot of time for something you're not getting paid for.

For general purpose programming I consider the meta languages (ML) to be great. E.g. Rust, Typescript, Swift, Scala, F#, Haskell, Ocaml etc. Something like Hindly-Milner typesystem in order to build good tooling. Scripting languages don't have this so I don't consider them great. Facebook build one for PHP after the fact and at great cost. So, I consider them successful despite the initial lack of a type system. It is great that the world is catching on to ML languages now. This stuff has been around since the 70s so it has been ridiculously slow.

I personally use Vim and Tmux for my IDE. But I build tools for people who aren't me and they need tools specialized for their job.

Even general purpose devs can benefit from better compilers and code completion.

I think the point I was alluding to is that the market should be much bigger than it is. And it would be great if open source contributors could make money from their work.

As you point out, sufficiently good. But not great.

I agree that the world is a better place with open source. I simply wish there was a culture were developers opened their wallet and supported it. That way we would have even more of it.

Python, PHP, and Ruby are not great languages. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are successful inspite of them.

I'm not saying open source is bad, I'm saying Dev culture in not paying for tools is bad. I agree that ideally it would be different.

I speak from decades of experience doing Dev tools inc open source. All of my friends are practitioners in the space. We're all obsessed on how to get people to use better tools. It is something I've put a lot of thought into. I've personally spent over $200K on salaries for people to build open source tooling. If I could make a business out of it I would spend more. But I can't. I had to build an entirely separate company to make money.

Edit (addendum): People who have paid $1500 for my software are grateful that I'll even talk to them; whereas open source freeloaders constantly demand I do more free work for them.

Not getting paid for open source is how the world works.

If you do any of the above you invite yourself to so much criticism that it's not worth it. I have first hand experience of this.

I hope to retire next year to do open source full time with money made from closed source. My audience will not be developers though; I'm soured on them. I'll be targeting a niche group who are actually grateful for free tools and don't feel like it's their life duty to criticize every small thing.

Why would SV clash with Trump on this? This seems like a sensible solution to the problem and one I've seen posted multiple times here on HN.

This brings back nightmares I had from working at Microsoft (2009).

As a PM; responsibility without authority was the job description. Hallway estimates and schedule chicken was 70% of the job. And the there was stack ranking...

Could be a hypercritical hypocrite.

It's a common cooccurrence.

China is an economic house of cards. The best course of action is just to wait it out.

An aside; I recently found out about the Nipster movement, Nazi Hipsters. Be afraid be very afraid

Not a fan of Trump but this is a good thing. See this exert from John Oliver on the effect of such trade deals; https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8

And that's the existing trade deals, TPP would have made it much worse. There is a reason why democratically elected governments need to protect their sovereignty. The scope of the legal provisions along with the requirement to use easily corruptible mediation is superfluous to free trade.

In addition, I don't understand those that think boxing out Russia and China from the rest of Europe and Asia is a good thing.

I look forward to seeing the parody in HBOs Silicon Valley

It mixes a virtual world with the real world; thus augmenting the real world. I would argue that a fine grain occlusion (individual pixels) vs coarse grain (movable display) isn't that big of a difference with immersion. Consider that we are immersed with our phones quite a bit already.

In addition the lack of 3D isn't that big of a deal given the brain fills in the details with other cues. E.g. People that go blind in one eye can adjust quite well to the lack of 3D.

I personally would love a HUD for my sporting activities; e.g. Skully. But my phone is perfectly fine as a daily driver.

Founders can pull money out in later rounds and pocket a lot of cash. E.g. The Secret founders.

Wow that TED talk really explains everything. I get it now.

I'd hazard a bet that augmented reality already peaked with Pokémon Go.

You're correct. I read the principal incorrectly. The Peter principal requires that a person is competent before being promoted. The Dilbert principle doesn't apply either as management has too much power. There must be a principle where politically the most incompetent person you promote owes you the biggest favors.

I never said they were alternatives. I specifically referred to federations of democracies where power is shared between state and federal government.

I figured one counter example was sufficient. Thanks for adding to the list

I'll defer to the wealth of online information on this topic.

That said even my pro EU friends don't make the claim that the EU is democratic. Usually pointing out that the U.K. and the US are not that democratic either. The U.K. being a monarch with a hereditary House of Lords and the US being a federation (see previous election).

I also hold the view that democracy does not scale well beyond city states and that a federation is preferable so long as the federation has constitutionally limited powers. This way demicracy still dominates the affairs of the citizenry. Unfortunately federations have a habit of extending their powers which is where the political system becomes less democratic. I would argue that the EU has increased their powers over time and the system has become less democratic. I would argue the same rule applies to the US.

Once again we are in violent agreement. Trade is the strongest defense against war.

In the same vain, economic sanctions are a prelude to war and in many cases considered an act of war. Which is why the EUs economic sanctions against Russia are troubling. Such sanctions would not be possible without the EU.

I too have many problems with hypocritical US foreign policy.

I did not infer you were American, I assumed for sake of argument in an effort to tailor my response. I then let you know about my assumption so I could be corrected. Which you did, and thank you.

I don't understand what you're trying to refute. I agree with all of your points; EU was started to stop wars, trade and not democracy prevents wars, and the EU is undemocratic. All of these points are inline with the statement that "many people believe that a democratic Europe is a war risk" which is what I thought you were refuting?

I think economic sanctions is a bigger war risk than democracy, but I'm not "many people"

I think you have your parents mixed up. Assuming this was for me; I walked you through the logic and am in total agreement that a large part of the rational for the EU was to prevent war in Europe.

My case is that the EU is undemocratic. Therefore when the these two are conflated the resulting inverse is democracy is a war risk. I gave the case of my pro EU German friends but I know many others.

A counter argument would be that the EU is democratic but no one is making that.

Of course America with its democracy exporting foreign policy gives the rational that democracies don't go to war. I understand why the idea that democracy is a war risk is so foreign. (Assuming you're also American)

I'm pro democracy and anti-war and I believe the EU, despite its intentions, is the cause of circumstances that will lead to war. The definition of irony. Already we can see the rise of openly fascist parties, it won't be long until they start winning elections.

I was told this by EU loving Germans with the explanation that the Germans, and Europeans, can't be trusted and need a superstate to prevent war. "Never again." Obviously forgetting the US civil war.

It's a natural position that logically falls out when you combine the anti-war rational behind the EU with the undemocracy nature of the EU.

That the EU is undemocratic is in general agreement. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

Not disagreeing... would the Peters principal also apply? Intentionally hired to be incompetent that would also imply malice? Those involved may have the best intentions, so no malice, and we're back to incompetence. Either way, if I were in charge and I needed someone to fumble it I would have picked her. That mail campaign asking people to self identify for deportation was the most anti Brexit thing I could imagine her doing.

I second your statement. The EU is another attempt at a global power structure that has been going on since people were people. It's most recognizably German, and once the realities of governing a superstate are take into account, this was how I imagine a post WWI German victory to look.