willbw

It's actually not hardware at all. I say this not to be annoying but to make the point that perhaps we shouldn't be computer-morphizing the human brain. (I know that's not a word but was the best I could do!)

Very enjoyable writing style and content that is resonating with me as a developer who has made the transition from university to professional life recently.

Lawyers earn a median amount of $120,000 a year - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm#tab-5

Chefs and head cooks earn a median amount of around $50,000 a year https://www.bls.gov/ooh/food-preparation-and-serving/chefs-a...

So I'm not so sure about your point.

There are a lot more people going to university these days, and grades are inflated. That's the short story. If you have to look at many many applications for a spot at a top university you are more likely to choose someone who is a "traditional" talent.

There is a part of some humans that drives them to do wild, adventurous things that can't be rationalised. Personally I find it quite a romantic notion, ignoring the sensible, boring options and doing something just because it is hard and exciting (and yes, stupid as well).

I see this sort of comment on every New Yorker article posted here. The style of the magazine is not efficient, short articles. Some people do enjoy longer form, descriptive writing, even if it could be summarised in a shorter article.

But say the euro goes down 50% against the USD, then you are probably going to want differing amounts of those currencies right?

I think generally you 'need to know' immediately.

Well done mate, very impressive.

You realise this type of parroting only works for logical arguments right? It's pretty pointless to flip the meaning of everything in an anecdote, you can't refute an anecdote by disproving it logically.

Cheers!

Yes, it is opinion journalism - it does not claim to be objective. I am as confused as you are

As an Aussie with a similar background - what sort of work were you sharing that got you on someone's radar? Your own projects or contributions to someone else's?

I suppose perhaps you can try and write a library or SaaS service that you find interesting? Or join a company that does?

Why would "the lawyers" choose to conspire about this in particular?

What do you mean?

You could also just write a regular comment arguing that point. Your approach risks coming across as condescending, and depends upon the reader having the patience to read essentially the exact same comment twice, keeping an eye out for whatever clever substitutions were made.

edit: that being said, I'm more than happy to move on. To each their own

Is it just me or is this style of comment, where you replicate someone else's comment and change some words to make them appear foolish, tremendously irritating and not conducive to good discussion?

Imagine having a conversation in person where someone parrots back your phrases changing a few nouns. Would you do that?

It is also such a derivative style of commenting, I've seen it many times on HN and I wish people would not recycle it any further.

Great article, however it doesn't say that really (perhaps you missed this bit)

"Learn at least a half dozen programming languages. Include one language that emphasizes class abstractions (like Java or C++), one that emphasizes functional abstraction (like Lisp or ML or Haskell), one that supports syntactic abstraction (like Lisp), one that supports declarative specifications (like Prolog or C++ templates), and one that emphasizes parallelism (like Clojure or Go)."

I agree with many points in the article, but it seems to me his core point is that alternatively economic and political models to capitalism should be taught in business schools.

It isn't clear to me that this is a job for graduate business education. The author clearly has an agenda to change either some aspects or capitalism, or to change economic systems entirely. I don't know why he thinks educating business school students differently is going to be something of a catalyst for change of this magnitude. People are studying these degrees with the sole aim of advancing their careers within a capitalist system. If you want political or economic change, these ideas are going to have to be spread throughout the general populace, as most of us here live in democracies.

I also don't think its clear what system would be better than capitalism, despite its flaws, and asking a curriculum to give focus on some alternative system which is completely unproven is a big ask.

I'm guessing this is supposed to be a sarcastic rebuttal to my point but I'm not entirely sure.

You realise that insurance is all about calculating the statistical incidence of events right? They don't make life insurance more expensive for alcoholics and smokers because they are evil but because they are more likely to pay out a claim earlier.

New Zealand for whatever reason I used cash a lot too. Australia you can pay stuff for small sums like $1 on card almost everywhere so no point to carry cash most of the time

Thanks for this, interesting stuff!

I couldn't agree more.

I would love to hear how this happened.

I don't understand the comparison. Aren't the highly salaried AI experts also people who undertook a lot of hard work to get there?

Can I ask, what would you have rather done?

It's an English term for a young, obnoxious lower class person wearing tacky clothes.

An accident will happen yes. There are about 3,287 road deaths per day globally[1] already however so hopefully people will view this in context.

[1] http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safet...

And France has...?