hnnewguy

>I don't see how you got there.

Well, I started with the fact that he said he isn't social and made few connections, while his sociable friend made many connections. From there, it wasn't hard to conclude that "college" had little to do with generating connections.

>but you can't just meet the diverse number of people that its possible to in university

Completely untrue.

First of all, you know where you can find diversity? Almost anywhere. Join a club or a team sport and you're likely to encounter people of all shapes, colours, ages and occupations.

Second, the University isn't as diverse as you proclaim. The average person you will meet in college in America or the Commonwealth will be globally wealthy, speak English and probably be a WASP, somewhere between ages 18 and 24. You surround yourself with like-minded people in your courses, many of whom will not graduate, and even fewer who will go on to careers related to their education.

Don't get me wrong; I love the college experience, and am a firm believer in education. I've already spent more time there than is optimal for my career.

>College is the best time to make connections

And what do you base this argument on? I didn't have a clue who I was at 20.

>Ten years out, those numbers look more like $250k and $150k.

If there are managers willing to pay an employee 40% more based on an education received a decade prior, there's a huge economic advantage to be had hiring those of "lower pedigree".

>So just because I wasn't personally able to capitalize on the networking opportunity doesn't mean that the opportunity wasn't there.

It sounds to me that you reinforce the OPs argument: social people will make connections regardless.

>And ISIS wins.

Honest question: what exactly is ISIS "winning" by depicting their group as crucifying members that they couldn't accomplish by, say, actually crucifying members?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with essentially everything in your post; the planted stories, how virality works, the lack of any diligence in fact-checking, the state of modern media in general. I just don't understand your reasoning for ISIS wanting to plant the story, rather than some stupid teenager in Wisconsin.

>but the point of being a journalist is to find out the truth behind rumors

Agreed. Defending the story as reporting a rumour is even worse. As a journalist, being duped is one thing; not caring enough to print a real news story is another.

>And the tendency to play semantics and say "since GDP hasn't fallen for two successive quarters the recession is over" when the economy is clearly still in shambles ignores the real struggle of millions of Americans who are not seeing the benefits of our "recovery," other than hearing about it on the news.

The formal definition of recession as two quarters of falling GDP isn't prone to semantic arguments, while your soft definition, talking about "real struggle" and "what Americans see" is.

That's why we choose the former.

>Banning dangerous and illegal services is fine

Things that are banned are always described as "dangerous and illegal".

>Will they be able to compete on price if they do that?

Can they even be considered to be competing now, if they can't assure me that the driver will be able to cover expenses if he injures and/or kills me or other passengers?

Banning products and services in demand by every day people has a long history of working out.

>So you need to sit back and start thinking why is it that Bitcoin keeps growing and reaching milestone after milestone

Because it has the support of a vocal, passionate, educated community of tech people, some with a monetary stake in having it succeed, combined with the hide-in-a-bunker, sky-is-falling crowd, still feeling the effects of the financial crash.

>As Boland explains it, Facebook simply shows advertisers that a given number of people who saw an ad for a product also purchased that product.

Facebook doesn't share my personalized shopping data with advertisers. That's good.

But the data still exists. So the data the advertisers receive is only really anonymous until there's some sort of security breach or economic decision whereby it's suddenly more profitable to sell the personalized data. Either or Both of which are inevitable.

All in all, a moderately informative marketing piece.

>The Blockchain provides an audit trail that is considerably more transparent and easy to access than the audit trail a bank uses.

If I send money to someone unintentionally or undeservedly, how does the block-chain rectify that charge?

My bank simply reverses it. That's powerful.

>This second option requires the person in the Philippines to have a bank account

True, but Bitcoin requires a cell phone or consistent internet access, doesn't it? And there's no recourse to having your money stolen or lost? I'm not sure those are appealing scenarios to the poor, either.

Transaction fees aren't high "just because". Otherwise anyone could open a lending facility of some sort and kill it. I mean, it's not like Western Union is making excessive profits. There's a matrix of risk involved with the movement of money. Bitcoin solves some, and creates others.

>The Supreme Court of Canada says law enforcement officials can go through the cellphone of someone under arrest as long as the search relates directly to the arrest and police keep detailed notes.

Fair enough. Now how do they plan on enforcing these rules?

I fat-finger down-voted you. Sorry.

>it holds your money, it sends your money, it allows people to send you money

It also provides an audit trail for where money comes from and where it's going, and assumes some of the responsibility as an intermediary during those transactions. Believe it or not, that's vitally important to businesses.

Banking isn't about making payments. It's financial intermediation, and will not be usurped by Bitcoin. If anything, it will merely adopt Bitcoin into its practices.

>especially for the poor

Maybe I'm dense, but how exactly are the poor paying for things with Bitcoin?

>if BitCoin is supported and has zero costs and a lower risk

That's a big "if". As it is, neither of these things are true.

There's no such thing as "free"; services have to be implemented, infrastructure must be built, systems must be supported. Hopefully Bitcoin will be cheap, cheaper than the alternatives, but it won't be free.

>executives at massive companies are taking it seriously.

Having come from they heydays of Facebook gaming, and having seen the rise and fall of numerous payment providers, I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion.

Implementing a new form of payment is trivial, especially one that's now relatively "mainstream", as Bitcoin is. I doubt there were many late nights in the board room considering this decision.

>with bitcoin you are your own bank

A bank isn't a vault to store money, it's a service provider. They provide services for money, including the assumption of risk. Whether those services justify the fees charged is another story. But you certainly aren't "banking" with bitcoin any more than putting cash in your wallet is "banking".

>Looks like a normally proportioned guy to me.

Skinny by American standards?

>and "business" in the 1400's isn't really relevant or meaningful in 2014

So I guess you'll be saying the same thing about Google and Apple in a few hundred years, rendering your argument moot?

"Not going anywhere" means still here.

>I already outlined what they should have done

And what sort of authority are you? How many multi-hundred-million-dollar companies have you run that you make it sound so easy and obvious?

>Because Apple was founded in 1976 and I'm guessing they aren't going anywhere. Google was founded in 1998 and I don't think they're going anywhere.

I'd bet everything I have that you'll be wrong. Look at any list of "top companies" over decades or centuries, and you'll see that, almost exclusively, they eventually disappear, via bad business, takeovers, whatever. There are so many massive, "successful" companies that you've probably never heard of because they no longer exist.

That said, not sure why people are ragging on Rovio so badly. These guys absolutely crushed it.

>I'm surprised, how Assange is at all relevant.

Simple: he's an intelligent, charismatic individual working on and for the defining issue of our generation.

Like it or not, these issues need faces to humanize them. He's good at that.

>A shortage is a lack of supply

No, a shortage is the discrepancy between the quantity supplied and quantity demanded at a given price.

When wages offered are too low, there is a shortage of labour supply. Increase those wages and that shortage disappears.

>If we have a shortage of carrots, we dont have enough carrots at ANY price.

This is simply not true.

>If people are unwilling to pay 5$/LB for carrots but thats what they cost in the store, that is not a shortage.

The shortage of carrot occurs at every price below $5/lb. You cannot talk about shortages in the economic sense without prices. Period.

I'm not sure why people are insistent on arguing the semantics of the word "shortage", rather than the far more interesting supply/demand dynamics underpinning the markets being discussed.

I almost spit out my coffee when the OP stated "for free", as if not having to pay anything but time, my most valuable asset, was some perk.

I'm sure the OP means well, and it may have been a success for them, but I don't know anyone in my circle who would participate in something like this, unless they were utterly desperate for a job. I thought there was a serious talent crunch? Who is courting whom?

I wonder what sort of engineers self-select in a process like this?

>Doesn't mention anything about not paying the market price.

That's the flaw in that definition. Price is the most important factor.

Edit: If price isn't accounted for then what isn't in a shortage at prices just greater than free?

>but let's not pretend that this isn't going to reduce tech worker wages in the area

Right, I don't dispute this.

But whether this is good or bad depends on whether you are buying or selling the labour.

>There's absolutely no talent shortage in the Bay Area, provided you can pay

But this is precisely what defines an economic shortage. There's no shortage of anything, if the price offered is right.

I wonder if the discrepancy between supply and demand for labour in the Valley has to do with the fact that, unlike most other industries[1], so many companies aren't making money, and hence can't pay, but still demand much labour? It seems like labour shortages are built into the system.

[1] Speculation. What are some examples of companies with billion-dollar valuations and no-profits, outside SV?

Why do people downvote questions?

>So what he's describing, beating the S&P 500 by a bit over that period, isn't implausible.

Certainly not. I suppose I take issue with having been able to do so for "decades", via only large-cap stocks.

That's implausible, to me at least. That would be all-time-great hedge fund manager type results.