padobson

Bravo.

There needs to be trillions of dollars of overvaluation and a huge amount of leverage to constitute a financial crisis. I'm open to being wrong, but I don't see that here. Valuations may cut back a bit, but as you say, it's not like these companies are worth nothing, like Bear Stearns and Lehman and most other investment banks in 2008.

If there's a market correction in startups, I don't see it necessarily leading to a systemic financial crisis. More like a mild recession.

The wealthy folks everyone gets in an uproar over don't pay any taxes, have the political power to avoid it, and even if they didn't, would be able to hire lawyers and accountants to help them avoid it. As a result, it's the people trying to claw themselves into the wealthy class that are most penalized by income taxes.

Let's go to a consumption tax with some kind of cash prebate to make sure the first $10k-$20k of spending is untaxed, and dispense with income taxes that have largely failed to do what they were designed to do.

I agree with this completely, but the converse is also true. Sometimes you need to switch context during the day, and scanning headlines and reading emails helps me do that (I'm doing it right now!).

The best context switching strategies I've found are eating and meditation, but those aren't always feasible or socially acceptable, so browsing headlines is a good stand-in.

I certainly believe this on a national scale, but I've never seen these stats properly adjusted for globalization. A billion people were lifted out of poverty in the time period mentioned. It doesn't seem to me that these traditional indicators are wrong, they've just been corrected for a global marketplace.

I think a true quantitative comparison would have to account for market size, market share, age of the market, and typical industry profit margins.

A qualitative comparison might be more instructive, though. How many truly successful user experiences have been built on top of Facebook? Newsfeed, Messenger, and Ads? Maybe Farmville? On top of Google? Search, Gmail, Analytics and Ads? Less than a handful for both. Playstation, on the other hand, has had thousands of successful user experiences over a twenty year period.

Facebook, Google, and others often seem to have an adversarial relationship with their 3rd party developers. I could only imagine what types of amazing experiences we could be enjoying if they adopted the licensing model that's led Sony to dominate its industry for 20 years.

My most productive days are the ones that start at 5am with a run, followed by a shower, meditation, and writing up a list of things I want to accomplish that day. Then I start working with my noise cancelling headphones and my flow-state playlist. It's very deliberate from start to finish.

My least productive days are the ones where I roll out of bed randomly, when the sun has been up for a while, and sit down at my desk still in my pajamas. HN or YouTube tend to be my first tasks of the day, and sometimes I don't get to any others. These types of days seem to be something that's happening to me, rather than something I'm choosing.

I struggle with depression, and I find the second kind of day is a feedback loop of anxiety and procrastination. The first kind of day is a virtuous cycle of productivity and serenity.

That 5am alarm is the best way I know to set the whole thing in motion.

Sony's first goal every generation since the PSOne has been winning game developers to their side. Game devs like large user bases, but that's only one aspect of why a developer picks a console. Sony's primary focus every generation is to get everything else right: development tools, hardware storage and performance, consistent controller design, software medium, and so on. They've had some misfires here and there (the Cell processor comes to mind), but they typically outperform their competition in all of these categories.

I think it's because Sony knows their customer isn't the gamer, it's the game developer. The game developer's customer is the gamer. Again, user base numbers attract developers, but Sony recognizes that user bases are driven by developer support. It's definitely reciprocal, but Sony's dominance comes from understanding that catering to the developer is paramount. That's why they've consistently created an environment that breeds killer apps. I can't think of another platform maker in the last 20+ years who's been better.

So after 20 years of building up that kind of leverage with developers, it doesn't make much sense to just give part of it away until game developers make it clear they need it.

you'll be better than most players up to probably a US division 3 college level

If you really love the game, this sounds like a fairly satisfying career peak. A reasonably healthy player should take comfort in knowing it's achievable through effort alone.

You could say that about any form of government. I think it's human nature to want a single dictator, so the governed seem to eventually give their consent to one.

Rather than lobbying to increase gas taxes and funnel more cash into various government bureaucracies, Domino's is trying to address the problem directly, by getting the money directly to the local agencies that actually fix the roads.

I hope others follow suit.

And if something can be labeled GMO or non-GMO, why can't it be labeled lab-created or bio-engineered or the like? It might be molecularly the same, but what's the harm in letting folks know?

This can't go understated. Life is hard and often tragic. Everyone will be a victim of injustice, often grave injustice, at one point in their lives or another. The worst thing a culture can do is demotivate folks to face their tragedies because something about their personal identity (race, gender, geography, religion, etc) made it impossible to overcome.

This problem needs a real, statistical, multivariate study. Any publication casting judgement on the tech industry while remaining unwilling to pony up the dough for such a study should be properly criticized for playing the race card and inventing false narratives to gain readership.

Telling me there aren't many black folks in tech is not enough. I need a data-driven explanation of WHY before I accept it's mostly racism, or it's mostly a pipeline problem, or it's mostly a primary education problem, or it's mostly a cultural problem, or it's not a problem at all because black folks don't want tech jobs in the first place.

Cleaning up 150 years of emissions in 20 or 40 or even 60 years seems like a miracle on par with the moon landing or eradicating smallpox.