That's true of any language. Even within the same language paradigm.
If you know C#/Java then learn C++ or vice versa and it'll affect the way you think about programming.
Or move on to different paradigms...
Go outside of the statically typed OO world and try out the dynamically typed OO languages like ruby or python.
Even better, learn a weakly typed procedural language like C ( lingua franca for CS ).
Or choose an architecture and learn some assembly. Now that will affect the way you think about programming.
Move out of onto a different domain altogether and try one of the flavors of a declarative language like SQL.
Learning a bit here and there of many different languages and paradigms will affect the way you think. Clojure isn't special.
You can even just stay within a framework and try to get a deep understanding of .Net language/IL/Framework Libraries/Runtime stack. Then you get into the debate of breadth vs depth. Should you learn one language/framework/paradigm exceptionally well or should you learn a bit about a lot of a lot languages/paradigms?
> Many years ago Microsoft was trying to purchase Yahoo for $45 a share. Every company has their Yahoo moment, where they consider making an over the top purchase offer for a company, that in hind site looks like a terrible idea.
That bid was terrible for YHOO shareholders. You do realize YHOO owned a ton of alibaba stock and yahoo!japan stock right? The alibaba shares alone that yahoo owned is now worth more than the $45 billion offer by MSFT. That's after Mayer foolishly sold off a huge chunk of alibaba shares a few years ago to go on her buying spree.
If steve ballmer had managed to buy YHOO, it would have been one of the greatest deals in history.
YHOO owned 25% of alibaba ( which is worth about $400 billion today ). YHOO also owned Yahoo!Japan which was worth $10 billion.
If MSFT bought YHOO back then, we would be calling Steve Ballmer and MSFT a genius today.
It's all journalists. It's all media. Some are for sure outright corrupt but it's just part of the job.
> I'm not sure how easy this would be. Does anyone know if something like this exists?
Don't know of any such thing that exists today. But it shouldn't be that difficult. A simple database linking journalists, news organizations, to topics/companies/keywords/etc.
The most worrying part is tech industry buying news media. Steve Jobs wife bought The Atlantic. Bezos bought the washingtonpost. As the news properties become cheaper and the money floods the tech industry, I'm sure they'll snap up some more.
We really need a more diversity media landscape. It's entirely liberal with pockets of conservatism. We need less liberal, more conservative and much more moderate media.
It's unhealthy for the media to be heavily skewed to one or the other side.
Not only that, we need this is academia and corporations and the banking sector. More diversity. More competing thoughts/ideas.
> Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable?
From your "context": "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B?"
$5-10B Losses doesn't translate into "profitable".
> Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?
Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA.
What is with you? I'm a fan of TSLA. I like electric vehicles. I just don't believe in the cult of it.
Honestly, I don't expect crazy comments like "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B? Even if Tesla were to spend another $50B and go bankrupt, I would still maintain it's great. "
to be upvoted on HN.
Maybe on reddit or some other social media, but I feel there is a higher quality of people here. And when I see something odd, I'll point it out.
> I don't see the jump from noting that the same enthusiastic fanboy is in the HN thread and the TSLA thread to "It's like a TSLA/Elon cult meeting in this thread."
Yes. From all sides. It's sad thing to witness because my naive young self viewed social media as the promise of free information flow, honest interaction and entertainment. I guess that was wishful thinking.
> The Allied Powers had seemingly learned the lessons of Versailles and didn't try to punish the losers (well, not as much), instead letting them grow.
This was true for Germany but not for japan. Due to hard feelings over ww2 and of course racial animosity/hatred, our plan for japan was deindustrialization. We wanted japan to be at least a few decades behind the US and turn more of their nation into docile agrarian farmers. We also instituted starvation policy to thin out and subjugate the japanese. There was rampant starvation in japan in the first few years after ww2.
We had troops specifically assigned to destroy japanese industrial/engineering/science capacity. One of the most famous was the destruction of japan's cyclotron.
Keep in mind that we were an extremely racist nation 70 years ago and we had just nuked and firebombed japan into complete rubble. Whereas germans were "our white aryan brothers" ( it's absurd to think it now, but that's how the leaders of the US thought back then ) and we felt an obligation to rehabilitate them, the japanese were viewed as inferior asians with plenty of motive to attack the US again.
The only reason japan was allowed to reindustrialize was the soviet threat and the korean war. We needed japan to help seal off the soviets, chinese and north koreans.
It's fascinating stuff. If the communist threat didn't exist and the korean war never occurred, japan might be a more agrarian society today controlled by the US administrators.
> I like how you portray the US to have a higher moral standard for this subject matter. I wonder if there's a Chinese guy who read the article and said:
It's just the nature of where we live and our propaganda.
We have been told over and over that we are the light of the world and we represent good. China/Russia/Muslims/others represent bad.
> If China doesn't do it, USA will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the Chinese standing toe-to-toe laughable. If USA doesn't, Russia will.
I'm sure there is. Human beings are human beings.
In the future, maybe instead of national/racial demarcations, we'll have "valid" and "invalid" demarcations a la "Gattaca".
> it's inevitable that we also learn to control our own evolution.
The problem here is the pronoun "we" and "our". It isn't "we" who are going to control evolution. It is a select group of wealthy elites.
Also, just because china and russia might do it doesn't mean that we necessarily should do it. After all, the pioneers of illegal human experimentation was the US and britain but most of the world didn't follow along.
I agree with you that genetic engineering ( controlled evolution? ) is inevitable. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the ethical concerns and other such pitfalls.
> You're not taking into account the size of the US. If you look for per capita Nobel prizes the US is not even in the top 10.
Per capita doesn't matter when it comes to being a superpower.
The US is an economic superpower and norway isn't even though norway's per capita GDP is larger than the US.
People are so interested in pushing their agenda that they refuse to address my point.
My point was that canada isn't an education "SUPERPOWER". I'm not saying canada is a bad country. I'm not saying other nations don't produce nobel prize winners. My point was solely about the article's propagandistic use of term "superpower".
You can twist data/stats any way you want. Under no definition is canada a superpower of anything, let alone education.
I'm just pointing out what a absurd "article" BBC pushed out.
> Nope, They were the first settlers in those area just like first settlers in Europe, Africa or Asia some 30-40k years ago before they were invaded recently in 15th century and the migration wave started and guys came in 500 years back calling the current bunch immigrants
Your comment is a bit confused. So are you saying the europeans who invaded 500 years ago are immigrants or not? Because in your previous comment, you claimed they were.
> So for example, if now Germany attack Ethiopia, kill those people there are. After 500 years if the native Ethiopeans become 2% who according to you is Ethiopean?
The ethiopians are ethiopians. And if the germans created a new state called "Germania", then the colonizers/invaders would be "GERMANIANS". Or something like that.
Just like we have native americans and people of other ethnicities in the US. What's your confusion?
You haven't answered a single question of mine and now you are taking us on a nonsensical tangent.
I asked you, someone is born in ohio. Lives his entire life in ohio. You claim he is an immigrant. Where did he immigrate from.
The fact that you refuse to answer this basic question just means that you aren't interested in discourse but to push your agenda.
> Amazon had almost 20 years in business without "making any money" except a few quarters where they accidentally eked out some non-trivial profit.
AMZN could get away with it because it was growing and expanding nearly monopolistic company. It was similar to a social media company in that regards. There is only ONE AMZN and was a pioneer in a new "industry/sector".
TSLA is different. They are trying to invade an industry/sector with a lot of heavy hitters and established companies with lots of money.
If you think TSLA is going to be the sole monopoly in the car/electric/etc sector, then you might have a shot. And if you think TSLA could expand into other sectors like AMZN did ( IE cloud ), then you are right.
> It's amazing just how many people on different sites (stocktwits, seeking alpha, reddit) continue the "they're losing money, why are they valued so highly?" comments.
It isn't amazing. It's sensible. The problem with a company like TSLA is that there are a lot of people with vested interests to only talk about the "good side".
I owned TSLA for a few years and I sold last year. Probably sold too early but couldn't justify not cashing out after more than a 400% gain.
I may buy back in if it drops significantly, but it looks like it's gonna keep going up for a while. Who knows. In an era of easy money it's hard to valuate a company. Especially an "all-or-nothing" stock like TSLA.
One similarity between TSLA and AMZN is the backing they both had from the hedge funds/wall street. And one of the reasons why I invested in TSLA is that Musk was able to get people with money to trust him. The same way bezos did.
But one thing I don't like is the near religious/cultish craze over musk that didn't exist with bezos.
> Comparing raw numbers like that makes no sense considering Canada has a population of 35 million against the U.S.'s 323 million.
Even on a per capita basis, we outstrip canada easily. But raw numbers doesn't count? So the US has 7000 nukes and north korea has 5. So calling the US a nuclear superpower doesn't matter? The US has an $18 trillion economy. So it's wrong to call the US an economic superpower? Using your logic, north korea is a nuclear superpower and norway is an economic superpower?
So what's your definition of the word superpower? Just use it in a way that suits your agenda regardless of raw numbers?
I can't believe anyone on HN is advocating for the rejections of numbers and data on HN.
> Only if you measure the "start" of a country as the time of its declaration of independence.
No. If you measure when a nation became independent. Canada can't claim to be independent when their laws/government/etc was controlled by britain until 1983. You can't claim to be an independent nation when the final say rested with britain.
> For Canada, that's 1867, which a major politically significant event.
You mean when britain consolidated its territory? Canada was still ruled and controlled by britain. If that is independence, then once again, we have a difference on what words mean.
> By comparison, the Canada Act of 1983 was a formality.
Oh was it? When canada finally took control over its constitution?
Hong kong is more independent from china than canada was. Under whose rule did canada fight in ww1? Oh that's right. "Independent" canada fought under british rule. But certainly canada was "independent" by ww2 right? Nope. All the canadian soldiers fought under british commanders.
Instead of accepting reality, you are just changing the definition of words to suit your agenda. If you want to make up your own definition of superpower or independence, then so be it.
> Good student performance consistently correlates with higher-paying jobs and higher quality of life.
Because that's the more sensible definition for superpower?
> Good student performance consistently correlates with higher-paying jobs and higher quality of life. At the nation level, this correlates to higher Human-Development Index, which is generally considered a pretty good thing to have...
Great. I agree. Did I disagree anywhere? My issue is with the usage of the word superpower. And americans on average earn more than canadians.
> Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Mark Zuckerberg, Sean Parker, and Steve Jobs were all college dropouts.
And? They did go to college.
> They simply had the right idea at the right time.
Right.
> Their economic success has very little to do with the U.S. education system.
Ah I see. When the US education creates successes, it has nothing to do with the US education system. When canada's education system produces successes, canada is a superpower.
As I said, my only issue is with the BBC blatant propagandistic article. Their use of "superpower" and their perpetuating the lie of Canada's 150th year.
I'm for education. But canada is no more an education superpower than north korea is a nuclear superpower.
And I love your logic. Bill Gates, Zuckerburg, etc don't count. But kids taking silly tests count. Okay.
If you know C#/Java then learn C++ or vice versa and it'll affect the way you think about programming.
Or move on to different paradigms...
Go outside of the statically typed OO world and try out the dynamically typed OO languages like ruby or python.
Even better, learn a weakly typed procedural language like C ( lingua franca for CS ).
Or choose an architecture and learn some assembly. Now that will affect the way you think about programming.
Move out of onto a different domain altogether and try one of the flavors of a declarative language like SQL.
Learning a bit here and there of many different languages and paradigms will affect the way you think. Clojure isn't special.
You can even just stay within a framework and try to get a deep understanding of .Net language/IL/Framework Libraries/Runtime stack. Then you get into the debate of breadth vs depth. Should you learn one language/framework/paradigm exceptionally well or should you learn a bit about a lot of a lot languages/paradigms?