fpalmans

Maybe because it is a different type of person who would prefer to use a 3d printed gun. She or he isn't seen obtaining a gun, isn't posting about it on social media, or heard firing rounds 'to test it out'. Might not even have a criminal record, history of violence, etcetera. In other words, someone who wouldn't be (easily) flagged as a dangerous individual could be planning and executing a murder. Also - there is no organization necessary to go from idea to planning to execution. There would be no warning until the attempt.

I remember from my time working in the US that you couldn't be too paranoid in the quarter in which you had the annual performance review. As a team was graded on forced distribution, team members were incentivized to screw over others competing for the tops grades. In other words, if someone with whom you seldom work suddenly wants to loop you into a project, you should be suspicious that it might be an attempt to blemish your perceived performance.

you forgot to add /s

Wouldn't that just move the problem from dealing with visa and mastercard to dealing with the banking sector?

Isn't it challenging for, amongst others, adult entertainers, the legal marijuana industry and bitcoin/crypto currency businesses to maintain stable banking relationships?

Perhaps you are not good at just one thing, perhaps you need to find a focus area where the three topics in which you are interested are combined. Robotics springs to mind.

I too feel inspired by talented people, and stand in awe of experts. Through feedback from others, I found that I was rather good in an area I would never have expected earlier, namely managing people and later building teams and running projects/companies. Perhaps your true talent lies elsewhere as well?

A friend of mine has a VR start-up and has shown me some demos. Some of those were of concerts and parties. The experience is quite unique, especially when the camera is on the stage.

It is a unique experience and if done right, I would likely purchase recordings, even though I am quite unlikely to buy regular recordings of live shows.

Unsure if this would even be possible. Perhaps the following would be more effective/motivational.

Figure out whatever it is that the boy likes, whether is in relation to learning/reading or not, and give him a toy in that subject. However, when you give him that gift, tell him something along the lines of this: "What you are about to do, going back to school, learning something new, is _the most important thing_ you could do for yourself. Endeavoring to become the best possible version of yourself is the most noble pursuit for any person. I could have given you an education gift, something symbolizing the path upon which you are currently set. However, I am gifting you something of which I am told you are currently interested, because what we are celebrating here today is you, not just the path upon which you are currently progressing. We are celebrating 'you', and all of that you may become."

Anyway - just a thought, I am still learning how to motivate my own kids and have found similar approaches unexpectedly successful.

{edited obvious typos}

No, you shouldn't.

Have you checked what the local universities are working on? Are you tied to your area?

You should probably try to meet new people and network. Try to learn enough about their businesses, challenges, etc. As soon as you understand their challenges sufficiently, and you know of some solutions, suggest them. Eventually you will find something interesting you could do for them, and take it from there.

EDIT: of course, you should double check if there's nothing interesting you can do in your current company.

Also, network with the purpose to be helpful / find something interesting, not with the purpose to find another job. In case of the latter, people are likely to give you an introduction than to go in depth about what they are working on.

What is most fascinating about your first choice is that you received an offer after telling them you don't want to do the work. Do you know why they want to hire you despite this?

EDIT: Depending on their reasoning to extend you an offer, option 1 could be an excellent opportunity.

Get their permission, preferably in writing. If they love your product, you might also ask for a testimonial.

The last company for which I worked usually added a clause stipulating that they could not be identified as a customer without explicit permission.

Based on my very limited experience, VCs ask for either a one-pager or a pitch deck to separate the wheat from the chaff. I assume very few people actually follow up and send the info.

In my experience, VCs usually respond relatively quickly (1 to 2 days, week at most).

If you're looking for funding, you should be pitching/trying to pitch to as many people as possible and listen closely to the feedback you're receiving. Don't wait for a single VC.

After a week or two, you can always send a follow-up with a friendly reminder. Maybe asking if he has an feedback on the deck.

Have you considered running several vnc(or similar)servers on separate machine/machines and connecting to those?

Answering some other questions might help you decide where to focus your efforts more on A or more on B. For example, and generally speaking:

1. Do you know your customers and their requirements? How valuable is it to them, does it address a pain point? Is it easy for them to use your product, i.e. fits in workflow without change or is there an incumbent process/product that needs to be replaced, etc.

2. Do you need a team to build an MVP, and if so, do you already have that team? More generally, do you require more resources (people, money, knowledge - e.g. from customers (1)) before you can build your MVP? Assuming that an MVP already delivers value to the customer and can be sold - is perhaps a POC a more logical first step (for example - if you need additional resources for an MVP)

-- if you know your customers and their needs and you have all the resources necessary for an MVP. Focus more on building an MVP. Start selling the MVP while focusing more on A to grow your business and revenue.

-- if you need resources you currently do not have for an MVP, or you are uncertain about the requirements, your customers, etc. Focus on A to either:

* find your customers and get the requirements. Possibly even a contract for a 'custom MVP'

* find investors (who preferably know your customers or their industry/requirements/etc.) to get the resources for an MVP. A POC will greatly help convincing investors.

* etc.

Without more details, we are stuck with generalities.

Whenever someone talks about senior engineers, two close friends spring to mind immediately, one of which is my brother (software development).

Even Though I am convinced that experience (and thus age) contributes to the segregation between engineers and senior engineers, I also think that it is a special frame of mind which enables some people to truly become the top of the crop. Despite my inflated self image and overly optimistic assessment of my own intelligence, and despite the fact that I am convinced I would have little trouble convincing an f500 company to give me the title of senior engineer, I know that I can never attain the 'seniority' my brother and friend already possess.

Having scanned through the responses, I didn't immediately see the specific behaviors I have found in top engineers. First of all, I disagree with the humility trait. I would not call top engineers humble. I would not call them arrogant either. Top engineers have strong opinions, yet are flexible. They have their ideas about best practices, yet are 100% comfortable adopting something else.

Using a stupid example in software development, tabs or spaces. Number of spaces. Top engineers will have their preference, whichever it is. And they have thought about it, deeply. Not just from their perspective, but from the perspective of all engineers, future, present, and past. You may probe as deeply as you want, they will have looked at it from every possible angle and will be able to explain to you in every detail why they prefer the one over the other. And! This is so, so important... And! They will put their preferences immediately to the side if that's just not how things are done on this particular project, in this particular team. I wish I had better words to convey this thought...

Top engineers will work with what they have to get to where they want to go. And, that's not just the technology, it's also the team. Senior engineers in your team will automatically make everything better. Sometimes their value is educating the entire team on best practices, sometimes it is just driving towards success despite the all of the feces.

Sometimes they might come over as arrogant, because they can speak with confidence on certain topics. That's another thing that sets top engineers apart from junior and regular engineers, whenever they speak with confidence, it is because they are in fact confident. And they are only confident when they have analyzed an issue sufficiently deeply and from everyone's perspective that they are comfortable being probed deeply.

When they do not speak with overzealous confidence, it is because they are still learning about the subject. And they will learn and analyze it deeply if that is necessary.

A single inconsistency, or a single counter example, or even a single ambiguity is sufficient for them to reconsider their position completely.

Also, senior engineers will never assume they know anything. They tend to listen attentively whenever anyone is talking. When someone says something 'stupid' they won't assume that the person is stupid, or said something stupid, they will assume they did not understand something and ask for clarification. They tend to not jump to conclusions... If something is ambiguous, they will identify it and ask for clarification. As a result, they will often ask for follow-ups in the future... such as: "Thanks for the information, can I get back to you if I have more questions?" Now that I think of it, I don't think I have ever seen someone whom I consider to be a top engineer not keep that door open....

I hope this helps.

Though I feel most of the advice is centered around a subset of concerns wrt working from home, I want to hear more about your thoughts. Can you please elaborate?

To make the advise from HN more relevant, perhaps it is better to follow up in a week or two and describe your experience working from home. Are you indeed easily distracted? Or, are you working crazy hours? Are you more/less productive? Are you happier? Are you less stressed, more stressed? Are you eating more/less, etc. It is also relevant to whether or not you live alone, have a family...

Working from home is not for everybody, and can create a myriad of unexpected issues, some of which can be easily solved, others require more effort. For others it can be a blessing.

The one thing to bear in mind, though, and which is repeated often in the responses below is that by working from home a lot of necessary actions which force you to structure your daily life suddenly fall away. Getting up, showering, dressing, getting to work, etc, don't just prepare your mind to get into 'work' mode or whatever, but also force you to think about grocery shopping, breakfast, dinner, planning for the weekend, planning recreational activities and more.

Not sure if this is true, but I suspect certain sounds make me sleepy, such as the sound of airplane engines in the cabin, some projectors or airconditioning units. On most airplanes, it is near impossible for me to stay awake.

The Master and his Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. http://iainmcgilchrist.com/the-master-and-his-emissary/

Can't the UK still unilaterally decide to stay?

I actually followed the link and was entertained. +1 would read again.

I'm interested...

As has been mentioned before, that's not how it works. Your desire to be laid off is (often) an incentive for the company to keep you on. Eventually, you'll tire of waiting and do the reasonably thing (financially speaking, from the company's perspective) and resign.

If you're unhappy, develop your exit strategy. Do not dally, do not add to your discontent, do not make your own life more miserable in hopes of some payout, or favorable employment status, or some sort of guilt free closure. Go for what you want and accept the consequences.

FYI - mainly sharing based on my personal experiences. I do not know your situation nor the source of your desire...

Thank you everyone for this little thread. This is exactly what I am looking for when I read the comments to a video link!

Agreed, arguments will not convince them they are wrong. Data will not convince them they are wrong. Attempting to force them to vaccinate will not only make them fight more. In addition to fueling their arguments to grow their ranks, they will likely be able to attract others to join their fight on ideological principles.

I propose the following (briefly):

* Though admittedly callous, do not force vaccination, do not penalize refusal to vaccinate. Sadly, there will be a toll. But, eventually, this will change some hardliners' opinions. Having them advocate to vaccinate will be more effective.

* Focus on the fringe cases. For example, if the child desires to be vaccinated, or if one of the parents wants vaccination. Allow this to expand to concerned grand parents. Civil courts.

* Continue with the information campaign. As the decades roll by, more and more hard data will be available showing occurrences of autism (or whatever it is they claim is caused), life expectancy, etcetera.

In other words, focus on those who have not been indoctrinated yet. Adjust your strategy on constraining this movement to the fringe. Do not invite lengthy court battles determining whether or not they have the right not to vaccinate. Let's just prevent building case law [edit] in that area.

edit2: Let's avoid building case law on whether or not the government is allowed to force vaccination. Of course, building caselaw wrt my second point is unavoidable.

We already give you a fine if you don't wear a seat-belt, smoke indoors, have glass containers in public places, and so on. You may disagree with all these regulations on some libertarian(ish) ground, but then we have a fundamental disagreement about when your freedom infringes on my right to be safe, and your right to be a burden on the state.

Whether or not one is fined for not wearing a seat-belt, smoking indoors, having glass containers in public, etc. is irrelevant. I honestly couldn't care less.

[...] the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens by enforcing as high a vaccination rate as is reasonably possible.

I merely disagree that protecting the its citizens is best achieved by enforcing...

> This will only feed their discourse.

I don't care. Should we kowtow to every group with "discourse"?

Perhaps the word "discourse" means something different than I thought it meant. I meant to say that forcing vaccinations would only end up making their arguments more plausible.

I do not advocate kowtowing, I advocate carefully choosing a strategy which addresses the main threat here.

Nor do I advocate ignoring them, I merely disagree that fighting them will make them go away.

I wouldn't say that I am casually dismissing them, I am callously dismissing them.

But seriously? What is the alternative? Moving closer and closer to forced vaccinations for everyone who can be vaccinated? This will only feed their discourse.

Though I believe we both agree on the benefits of vaccination (my children are vaccinated and will continue to receive their vaccinations as recommended), I think we disagree on the nature of the perceived threat. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you consider the lack of vaccinations the main threat here. According to me, the antivax movement itself is the greater potential threat.

As mentioned before, I was being sarcastic.

Why does anyone believe that marginalizing or demonizing the antivax movement, that attempting to force them into submission, will do anything but strengthen their resolve?

Even I am starting to wonder why, when the benefits of vaccination are obvious, governments feel the need to _force_ parents. If the vaccination story is solid, which I believe it is, let's just let this play out. Let the anti-vaxxers be our control group. History will settle the debate.

Yes, it was

If massive civil suits, huge fines and, eventually, forced vaccination won't convince everyone there is no massive conspiracy, then, pray tell, what will?