> With those odds populations cant have everyone taking risk. Such populations sooner or later go extinct.
Not trying to be a jerk, but there is a logical fallacy here. If you've ever read the Selfish Gene the central idea is that there is a common misunderstanding that animals/societies evolve for "the good of the population". A population is better understood as a collection of individuals with each being a collection of genes, and really it is each gene that is trying to replicate itself. Applying it to your example, a risk-taking gene with .998% chance of failure would probably not replicate itself successfully, unless the .002% of individuals that succeed were quite prolific at procreation. The good of the population does not really come into it.
Most people automate things just barely enough to work. The thing is, having a barely working script or process can save someone thousands of hours. It's actually hugely valuable. Trying to make it more robust/productionized/whatever may have diminishing returns.
Some of my favorite qualities in various managers:
- Deep technical knowledge. Someone you can respect as a fellow engineer.
- Really loud and forceful in meetings. Someone who can represent your work well to a team of other managers
- A good friend
- Super honest and transparent
- Combination of deep technical knowledge and passion/involvement in the team's mission. This was my favorite because I felt the manager could truly appreciate the work I did.
I really don't think bad Product Manager's is a good explanation for the UI. Any big company like Netflix is going to heavily A/B test any and every change to the UI. They will only ever add things that boost metrics like engagement. You may not like the UI; it may annoy you, but you should have some appreciation for the fact that they are using sophisticated techniques to optimize for what they care about.
As a morning parent of a toddler, part of the morning routine is playing a toddler exercise video. It's funny, my initial thinking was to burn some of the toddler's energy before sitting down to breakfast, but at this point it's definitely more for me. Sometimes the toddler even complains but I've come to really enjoy doing some stretches in the morning.
> There's a reason people pay for Netflix despite pirating proposing a higher level of quality; Netflix is just easier
I'm slightly annoyed how this comment completely ignores the moral and ethical reasons someone might want to avoid making an illegal copy of something while denying it's creators any compensation. I need more coffee.
This reminds me of when cities in the Bay Area started considering restrictions on free meals at work, because local restaurants were annoyed it reduced their lunch crowd. I'm sure that same group has a vested interest in people commuting to jobs.
LOTR
The Matrix
Gladiator
No Country for Old Men
QT: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs
PT Anderson: Boogie nights, Magnolia, There will be Blood
Fight Club
Nolan: Memento, Batman
Galaxy Quest
Dumb and dumber
Jurassic Park
Terminator 2
Princess Bride
Star Wars OT
Indiana Jones 1 & 3
Office Space
Your degree and work experience are huge assets, and it would be wise to leverage them. It's too bad that you got burned on your first job, but there are huge differences across jobs. If you don't like learning new tech you can find many jobs where it's not required (government and bigger companies). Even if you decide you don't want to do coding, you can leverage your education, experience, and tenure at a company into adjacent roles (product manager, manager, business intelligence, DBA, QA, etc.).
As others have mentioned this site heavily implies causality with statements like "we can clearly see that the experiences of their childhood had a huge effect" and "college or technical school can mitigate some of the effects of adverse childhood experiences". It is simply not possible to draw such conclusions from a longitudinal study. Interventions and actual experiments are necessary.
The site is really nicely done and even moving, but I find the ideas it is putting forth harmful honestly. We all would like to see better outcomes for teenagers, but if that is truly our goal we should not be shaping public policy around non-scientific observations on correlations. Let's do some actual science please and build policy around that.
It doesn't seem unlikely to me at all. Lots of people are smart or successful despite coming from a broken home. Weird example but Eminem was extremely poor growing up.
> every business is a scam of sorts that relies upon the weaknesses of human nature to thrive
Yes, the next time you go to buy a computer or mobile phone you should just skip it because it's a scam. Just manufacture and assemble the hardware yourself and create the operating system/ecosystem of apps while you're at it. It just pure laziness not too. Or maybe consider that capitalism and the division of labor benefits you massively.
It's true the system may have glitched in the past, but IMO the bigger issue is that the system provides no troubleshooting steps. What if it snapped a photo of every passenger as it scanned their ticket. Then on a duplicate scan it could display the photo of the passenger who already scanned the ticket. That could help the gate agent to actually troubleshoot the warning and figure out what happened.
As bad as it is that he was unjustly sent to a mental hospital, I wonder if getting on medication helped him get into a better place and advocate for himself more credibly.
With a CS degree you are well-positioned to get a job making good money after graduating. CS is still a good career, where you can work sane hours, with low stress, and get paid to think and solve and problems.
The current economic climate means it may mean a longer job search or worse job options, but getting any job with regular coding will be huge deal as the work experience will open many doors further down the line.
You already invested 4 years in training. You are qualified for a great many jobs. Unless you truly dislike the work itself, my advice is to stay the course.
Not trying to be a jerk, but there is a logical fallacy here. If you've ever read the Selfish Gene the central idea is that there is a common misunderstanding that animals/societies evolve for "the good of the population". A population is better understood as a collection of individuals with each being a collection of genes, and really it is each gene that is trying to replicate itself. Applying it to your example, a risk-taking gene with .998% chance of failure would probably not replicate itself successfully, unless the .002% of individuals that succeed were quite prolific at procreation. The good of the population does not really come into it.