DeepThoughts

I’d like to propose a reframing of your scenarios for objectivity:

WFH is horrible for some people in some scenarios.

WFO (work from office) is also equally terrible for some people in some scenarios. It’s just that people have generally normalized and accepted that these horrible WFO situations are required to feed yourself.

Barring jobs where you cannot function without physical presence, I’d say we need to fundamentally rethink why WFO is a default. And why we think a baseline of suffering for some people is generally OK.

Next up: we’re disrupting finance by bringing back debtors prisons!

Too many steps to send a private note. An @ is immediate and the. You can move right on.

I’m not sure he needs a chance to lead. While certainly interesting that he’s joining the leadership for Medium. Seems like he’s been leading for years.

When the bodies start stacking up, we’ll all have a chance to decide which decisions were injustices and which were pragmatic.

Would love to see your sources. I’m shocked there are still people like you claiming this is all an overreaction while the smart folk are all bracing for impact.

You gotta get it together man, this is bigger than anything you’ve ever seen in your life. If we’re very lucky it’ll be bad in the coming weeks and months, if we’re not it’ll be much much worse.

Source that Trump doesn’t need the money?

The harder you tug on those bootstraps the more likely you are to pull yourself up.

No one is currently preventing you from homerolling a mobile operating system and building your own smartphone (provided that you avoid or license existing patents). It would be difficult to break into that market, establish share and make money in the short term, but no one is actively being prevented from doing so (see Chinese knockoffs).

I fail to see how you see the above scenario as some flavor of monopoly.

The problem here is that Warren was arguing in either ignorance or bad faith by implying these orgs need to be broken up because they are too big or monopoly’s. They are neither. I could sit down today and create a new Facebook, Instagram, or Amazon and release it. There will be no consequences or jackbooted thugs coming to shut me down.

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you should be able to use scary words to shut it down.

The reality is that people like Warren want to dictate winners and losers in the market. If you feel privacy or business practices aren’t to your liking, you don’t have to use Facebook or Amazon. Don’t like that Google is censoring (or not censoring) something? Use Duck Duck Go, or Ask. But don’t pretend to be Teddy Roosevelt when you’re really just trying to project your personal biases on the market.

I'm not sure what the point of all this high-horse rhetoric you're putting out there is, but as an American citizen I think it's our duty to question and vet most of what our leaders say and do, even when we believe and agree. Without that vetting process, we invite a state of perpetual lies, because very few people in power will tell the truth when there is no consequence for telling a lie.

I don't think that taking the president and numerous government officials (who have little to gain by lying) at their word that Obama is a citizen is that much of a stretch of logic. If you think being called a racist for insisting that Obama is a foreign national is unwarranted, I'd ask when the last time you even considered such a thing about any president much less voiced it.

In the end, though, I firmly believe that Obama released this document for those in the center and center-right of the political spectrum, not for the hard-right who demanded to see it lest they initiate some kind of armchair revolution. Producing this document will not silence the far right, but the fact that it won't will push them further into the fringes in the view of mainstream Americans. They will appear unreasonable, unappeasable and extremist, all qualities that will slowly choke out their chances of claiming the White House.

Looks like somebody is trying to cash in their chips before the casino burns down.

Facebook is so massively overvalued that the only thing smart people can do is consider this period being close to the high water mark and get ready to get out while the getting is good. I don't think the swelling dot com bubble will be anything like the one at the turn of the century, particularly in the sense that I don't think many of these overvalued companies will actually fold, but I think it's safe to say that how ever it turns out, some folks are going to lose a warchest full of capital investment by the time this is done.

Yes, but who watches the watchmen?

Unless you are actually applying to a company in the video game industry, I would highly recommend that you avoid trying to use this as legitimate bullet point on your resume. In my experience, unless a person is a game player themselves, it is very difficult to see the value in such a potion, or organization skill required to maintain it. In fact, a great deal of people might see it in a bad light, which of course is the opposite of the intended effect.

That said, if you are certain that you want to go this route, make sure you mention it only briefly, and couch the experience in terms that are a bit more obtuse than you would otherwise. For example, instead of saying your position was for a guild in EVE, state that it was a leadership role in a 2500+ strong online community. Emphasize the elements of the position that directly relate to the skills that a prospective employer would hire you for. Most importantly, keep it short, very short. It should be the icing on the cake for an employer, almost an afterthought, something that solidifies their interest in you. And if you find yourself in a place where you need to explain the position further, don't start gushing about the gameplay aspect of it, stay steady and calm and direct any conversation about it towards the importance of the role and the responsibility and trust you carried while you held it.