johnnybgoode

Headline should be "How to Run a Meeting Like Marissa Mayer"

I've heard that she is hated within the company for things like this. Maybe that's a minority view, but the article is still way too positive overall.

I don't think Ning was ever in YC.

The two pictures the author showed after saying, "Here are two photos of the same model" are of two different women. I'm pretty sure about this, because I know who the first woman is. So it appears he did catch them on some things, but he's made at least one mistake himself. Maybe someone else will know if this led to any other mistakes on his part?

I just don't see why this would be worth $300-$400. Based on what I've seen, I doubt the software will be really good.

Edit: Remember when it was supposed to cost $200? Then it was $300, and now it's even more.

> I doubt there's an example of a monarchy anyone would seriously want to move to

You doubt that people wanted to move to the old European monarchies? Even if we're only talking about the present, I'm not a fan, but there are plenty of people who would love to move to the UAE.

I get the impression that you've tried to pigeonhole me into a category that you're familiar with, and then responded to me based on that, instead of addressing my points directly.

> In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote.

Yes, I know the quote, but I'm not sure you do. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=571797

> Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you.

If this is what you believe, I doubt you are familiar with much of the work of either of those groups. Who said anything about the top 0.5%? Do you really think all of the bottom 99.5% in a monarchy were like chattel slaves, but today's bottom 99.5% are free as a bird? Please consider what I wrote earlier -- even the average citizen was more free in many non-democratic countries.

> "democracy", which is a shorthand for what America is supposed to be about - government by, for, and of the people and all that.

It's not at all clear that America was supposed to be about this, even if that is what they teach in schools today. However since it's not really relevant I won't argue the point further.

> Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free?

Many monarchies and similar governments throughout history have allowed more freedom for their citizens than today's democracies. Of course, no one is completely free under any of these governments (certainly not a democratic one).

> I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress...that make it possible for most to start anything new.

You really, really shouldn't take that as a given, especially that "democratic" part. It is understandable, though, that many people believe this -- considering it's essentially what has been taught in schools for the last century or so. Do you really believe enterprise did not flourish in the West until after the rise of democracy? That is not what history shows.

> what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have? Nothing.

Not that I want your hypothetical to come true, but it is worth considering that tax rates in monarchies were generally quite low (<10%), especially when compared to the tax rates in today's democracies. There are well-understood reasons for this if you are interested.

Of course you can. Even mainstream commentators agree with me on this one; they have a term for it: "illiberal democracy" [1].

In any case, I would make the stronger point that you can't really have freedom with democracy.

[1] The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997

> To make this treaty take effect in the US as written, the Constitution will have to be rewritten. Politicians are much too lazy for that, so I am not worried.

Don't be so sure. It's not like they don't ignore the Constitution when they feel like it.

> That is not democracy. Not even close.

Why is that not democracy? What does democracy have to do with it? I often see the word "democracy" used as if it means "freedom".

What do you think has been going on for the last century? The "ruling class" has greatly expanded the education bureaucracy. They love democracy; when combined with their schools it makes it easier for them to achieve their goals.

Interestingly, some of you find this disturbing. Out of curiosity, if we work backwards from the percentage of annual income taken, what percentage of you does the government own?

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the reaction to this, but I was. Honestly, I'm disappointed by it.

This is on the front page, so maybe this is a good place to remind people that GeoCities is being shut down today. If there is some content you want, make sure to download it and/or have the Internet Archive crawl it ASAP (See gojomo's comment).

The problem is, he hasn't actually admitted his biggest mistakes. As far as I know, he has never taken responsibility for the credit and housing bubbles.

No, I don't think there is any Python support, but they do support some other languages.

Edit: After investigating further, it looks like there is an alpha-quality Python plugin, and eventually there will be full Python support, available in its own IDE or as a plugin for IDEA.

So the whole thing was a Microsoft conspiracy to make people think twice before trusting the cloud? Just kidding. ;)

A few days ago I posted one potential issue with Heroku: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=859544

Does anyone know if this has changed recently?

What is?

Wow, that sucks. At least you've been able to see the truth about what's actually happened and why.

"Absolutely nothing...say it again!"

(bad joke, but also an article summary)

Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure how you feel about it, but that sounds terrible to me.

I agree that's one perfectly valid way to interpret it, and I can see how articles like this can have that effect. It does seem like the author had something else in mind, though.

Personally, I find these emails annoying. I don't doubt that they work in general, though.

Are you saying they did have failover set up for everything? I'm just curious. I do agree with your point, though.

> I don't think either of us know enough to say for sure, I was simply speculating.

Agreed, but I'd think you'd have to be sure to say it was incorrect.

> I'm claiming that for society (underprivileged * degree) + (privileged * talent difference) > (underprivileged) + (privileged * degree * talent difference). Less people collecting welfare, less crime, less single moms, etc. I'd like to look at data that contradicts this. I can't offer up data myself though at the moment, so I certainly don't expect it.

There is no data that proves your statement. There are millions of unknowns hidden in your inequality, any one of which could reverse the sign completely.

I am not very familiar with Dreamhost, although I've heard of them many times, but if they're big enough, shouldn't they have failover for everything?

> If you're running a University as a business to make money, it's incorrect because attracting highly talented students capable of such feats is expensive. Far better to find less talented students that will attend and pay tuition.

That depends. Isn't it possible that you'd get more money by investing in attracting the highly talented students and reaping the later benefits, like large alumni donations?

> If you're running a University as an educational institution it's also incorrect. Your students are not going to become deep, consciousness thinkers in a homogeneous group.

I hear this very often and it sounds like wishful thinking, not fact. Usually it's heard in the context of justifying race-based admissions.

> Also, as an educational institution is it your goal to improve society as a whole through education.

Are you stating this as fact? I'm honestly not sure since you wrote, "is it". If so, what if some do not share this goal?

> If there are minority students capable of finishing your degree program, giving it to them is going to have a far greater impact than giving it to a slightly more talented member of the majority.

How can you possibly know something like this with such certainty? It literally takes just one person to make this statement false.

Sounds cool. Out of curiosity though, what is the actual record that's been set? The article isn't very clear about this.

> You claimed that Universities should be more concerned with making billionaires and Nobel prize winners than having diversity. It's an incorrect claim

How can this claim be incorrect? You might not share his goal, but does that make it "incorrect"?