I have evaluated it to the best of my ability and don't believe it's a majority by any stretch. Why would I reject the null hypothesis when there is no evidence for another one?
The woman who took issue with the framing thought the Kotaku article was too hard on Atari's culture, so that only supports my argument.
The people involved don't think the behavior was shitty. It's only now, 40+ years after the fact, that people on twitter are complaining about it.
Yes it is a straw man. In Atari's case the people working there enjoyed the culture and didn't have an issue with it. You can't say the same thing about slaves.
I don't understand why the standards[0] of 2018 are relevant to the culture of a startup in the 1970s.
[0]: And these standards aren't broadly shared. Rather there's a vocal minority who wants to classify much of what was previously common behavior as harassment.
There is (or at least used to be) a menu next to people's posts that lets you stop following similar posts (or unfollow the person completely while remaining friends).
> Any way you look at doing software development as a career you come to see that it stinks. I'm not going to recommend it to my kids.
What are the alternatives though? Lawyers work much longer hours and only the ones who went to top schools and get into top firms make more. Doctors make more but have 6+ more years of education and training. Finance is competitive and also has long hours. Programmers have it pretty good.
Yep, I switched from fintech to another industry (still software development) and took roughly a 50% paycut to do so. It let me live in a much nicer part of the country (given my non-work interests), but I might go back since the pay is so much more.
This is the most perceptive comment in the thread. Based on moving from NYC to a much smaller metro area without any major tech companies I think you're right. Compensation here is roughly half of NYC compensation. The big tech firms are driving the high salaries.
I'm sure you'd see the same pattern if you looked at finance grads. The top ones who went to work for investment banks, hedge funds, etc. are pulling down large salaries, the rest are making much less working for small to medium size companies.
NYC metro area population is ~21M. It's way more dense than Colorado, so it's not surprising that a large company moving into NYC doesn't change it much.
I meant that having a publisher or distributor provides a lower bound for quality, not that it indicates high quality. There's plenty of crap published by legitimate publishers and plenty of movies not worth watching. But the quality is even worse among the people who self-publish (talking about averages obviously, not outliers).
And for books critics typically only review books from established publishers. Films might be a bit better in terms of allowing unknown directors to be discovered because of independent film festivals, but the barrier to entry is obviously higher.
I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but a lot of these "gate keepers" are performing useful functions. Particularly for things like books and movies a major publisher or distributor gives some level of quality assurance. They also handle a bunch of stuff that you wouldn't expect an author or independent filmmaker to be good at.
No, I meant interest rates. There's an inverse correlation between interest rates and asset prices. Most governments have been keeping interest rates low since the financial crisis to spur investment, which causes asset rates to rise. So while asset prices are high on an absolute level interest rates are also much lower than the historical average. My guess is that if you account for interest rates being so low assets aren't priced all that highly.
There are lots of problems with today's democracies, but the problems of the 20th century are on a completely different scale than the ones we're dealing with now.
I'd be interested to see the value of the stock market compared to interest rates. My bet is the market is only a little bit high if you account for how low interest rates have been for the past ~10 years.
This is absolutely true, and obvious to anyone open-minded who has spent time in those countries, but good luck trying to have any discussion about the downsides of immigration in the US without getting shouted down as a racist.
The woman who took issue with the framing thought the Kotaku article was too hard on Atari's culture, so that only supports my argument.
The people involved don't think the behavior was shitty. It's only now, 40+ years after the fact, that people on twitter are complaining about it.