360 karma · joined June 25, 2012
Consider this: many great "theoretical" discoveries in history, including those in CS, were not theoretical at their inception. They were the result of people trying to solve practical problems -- not the product of a bunch of debt-ridden students trying to maximize GPA in an ivory tower. This cannot be overstated.
At the end of the day, the distinction between academic and practical is largely self-imposed, at least partially ego-driven, and probably highly inefficient for society as a whole. If you want "practical" people to engage "theoretical" problems, then make it practical for them.
I agree with the sentiment, but people need to remember that the number 'X' is different for different people.
Why is this an irrational viewpoint? Sure, someone who has an advanced degree is unlikely to be dumb. But as any remotely educated person should know, it does not follow that someone who does not have an advanced degree is not smart.
I think the obsession with advanced degrees is fascinating though. Do people really believe that getting an advanced degree will make one a more productive web developer? Are the years spent getting that advanced degree remotely comparable to years of meaningful industry experience? Or comparable to using the countless online resources to educate oneself in topics that are directly applicable to web development?? Hint: no.
[1] "Brains don’t matter as much as resilience in your first couple of years as a startup. I borrowed a lot of money to put myself through one undergraduate and two masters programs so, yes, it hurts to write that."
Disagree. If you learn more in 3 years of college than you do 3 years on the job, you are a shitty employee.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I actually think you have a valid point.
You absolutely do NOT need multiple years of CS undergrad to have a sense for scalability. If you open your mind, you will see that world history is chock full of systems that have scaled -- they just don't happen to be written in binary or backed by CS degrees. And I would say that these historical systems share more similarities than you would think with scalable computer systems.
In order to be good at this kind of thing, one just needs some sense for abstract thinking -- which countless non-programmers have, we are actually not unique in that regard -- and if you are adequately dedicated, a few weeks (or a few months at most) of study time to understand fundamental algos and data structures. After one has an understanding of it, it will certainly take more time to become practically comfortable using said concepts, but that's what entry level jobs are for.
Rather than make any dead-end accusations about wealthy people being good vs. evil, the focus should be on altering the system such that people are given the right incentives to do what is best for the economy as a whole.
What was the reason for creating the patent system in the first place? To give people an incentive to invent new things: if someone invests the time in coming up with something novel, the legal system would give a temporary monopoly in return.
But in today's world, clearly one would imagine the vast majority, if not all software would have been invented as is, without the incentives that patent protection provides. When one contrasts this with the well-known downsides of software patents, the outcome should be clear: abolish them.
Oh, and the article does not support the title at all.
1) In a market economy, monopolies should generally be distrusted and prevented whenever possible.
2) There are people who are unsatisfied with the claimed (lack of) health effects of GMO on human consumers.
3) There are people who are unsatisfied with the claimed (lack of) effects that GMO seeds could have on the broader ecosystem.
As an extreme example, I'd wager that most people instinctively admire those who can make it all the way through Navy SEAL bootcamp, and one of the reasons is that participants are literally working NONSTOP during that period, at a level of physical exertion that most people nowadays could not sustain for a few hours, let alone days on end.
Nonsense. This is but an externality.
What is maddening is the current state of the financial system as a whole. Though its intellectual underpinnings should have been completely shaken by the events around 2008 and the subsequent rescue of its champions, vested interests would prefer to pretend the emperor still has clothing -- and thus the externalities of QA, of which startup money is actually among the most palatable.
This raises the question: why aren't browsers already using this or something superior?
Believe it or not, some people pick up merge sort or balanced binary trees faster than they can learn Rails (which has a BIG amount of content to master, by the way).