If it's well run, you aren't working late every night and every weekend.
If it's run by sociopaths who want to keep their employees in a state of perpetual crisis in order to maximize the value of their shares, it's pretty awful.
529 karma · joined September 21, 2017
If it's well run, you aren't working late every night and every weekend.
If it's run by sociopaths who want to keep their employees in a state of perpetual crisis in order to maximize the value of their shares, it's pretty awful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg#1945:_Alsos_...
It makes the story even more interesting to see Bohr and Heisenberg participating on opposite sides.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/87a8ea/1927_group_pho...
Schrödinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, Dirac, de Broglie, Bohr, Planck, Curie, Lorentz, Einstein... the number of Nobel Prizes here is left as an exercise.
One could also argue that both Windows and Unix were necessary phases for general computing given limited hardware resources, and only now is the stateless functional paradise envisioned at MIT in the 1960's actually possible.
-o fieldseparator=,
-o fieldkeys=2,1,3
which could be used by any program whose capabilities require such a specifier, could be parsed from config files and environment variables, and aliased for reduced verbosity.
My basic philosophical disagreement is with the idea of avoiding interactive command shortcuts. This essentially limits you to only using command line features you can memorize, or be willing to look them up every single time. There are too many commands, with totally inconsistent argument styles, for this to be practical.
The result is that you're only going to use a small subset of the command line's power if you limit yourself in this way.
RANT: Yes, I agree alias ll="ls -l" is a crutch. But why does 'sort' use -t for separator and -f for field, while 'cut' uses -d and -k? The famously composable Unix tools really aren't very consistent. Radically improved tab completion and documentation (vs man pages and Info) might be a start, but in the end you have to evolve new syntax.
I think this insightful, and I suggest there is a motivation to hurt other people in general - but it's only feasible to do so when those others are relatively powerless. Hence the targeting of the defenseless.
This is not a popular opinion in the modern age, as it's become dogma that "all men are brothers". However from an evolutionary perspective, a tendency to get pleasure from causing pain (sadism) is a vital component in the kind of psychological makeup which thrives in a Darwinian world.
We shouldn't justify this tendency but recognize it and learn to work around it (perhaps by playing contact sports, for example).
Seems more accurate to say, that hope was shattered when people gave up on decentralized infrastructure like RSS and email in favor of Facebook's walled garden. Now there's an opportunity to go back (to the future!) and do it right.
Viewed from that angle, it becomes clear why antidiscrimination laws favoring AA in traditionally Cauc challenges are legal
I'm not sure it's a good idea to enshrine the idea that "Cauc" have an inherent power over "AA" into law. This seems close to running afoul of Equal Protection.
Again you assume that money directly decides who our leaders are. The best evidence says it works at least partially the other way around: the leaders most likely to win attract the most money. And as was pointed out already in this thread: the winning candidate in this election was the one with less financial backing.
Furthermore to the extent it is true that money influences elections, we need to solve that problem first - rather than suggesting, as you do, that our leaders ought to be "bought and paid for" by our own home-grown evil corporations and special-interest groups. What kind of improvement is that?
You are saying that the dollar amount spent decides every election. Do you really believe that democracy is nothing more than rule by whoever spends the most money?
It's not the engineer whose bug accidentally irradiated a patient that's the problem; it's the VC's investing billions in spying on and shaping human behavior.