nattaggart

It seems that there is a much higher threshold of "changing the world" applied to the private sector than to government or non-profits. I routinely hear people in relatively less influential organizations of the latter make such claims without coming off as arrogant.

This makes me think that people in Silicon Valley aren't arrogant as much as they tend to break an unstated social rule: One can't claim to be doing good while making a profit (even if what you're doing is in fact net-good).

After they bought VoodooPC they turned that org into their Envy line which put out industry-leading PC's for a minute. Now it just makes low-end Mac knock-offs :(

Good point, but it's not just about limiting one's ability to move. Tying up most or all your savings in a down-payment plus taking out a large credit line sometimes means not having the freedom to invest elsewhere, go back to school, start a company, or start a family.

I eat it because it's cheaper, faster, and I trust Rob when he says it's healthier than any other meal I could make. The flavor/texture is something that I got used to almost immediately and I actually crave the stuff now ;)

An added bonus is that I can completely eliminate over-eating from my lifestyle (without feeling hungry all the time), which has allowed me to lose weight.

"were it not for the fact that his mouth is situated much below his muzzle, almost, indeed, in the middle of the belly, not a fish would be able to escape his pursuit."

Does this make any sense?

Good point. From my point of view, no poach agreements are entirely immoral and, as you point out, also illegal. In this case both companies clearly crossed a boundary. From what I've seen, however, the damage done in this case isn't noticeable relative to the global scale that these companies operate on.

There are other situations where each one of these companies has been sued and lost (Microsoft was an illegal monopoly once.)

I would argue that occasional missteps are not grounds for calling something evil. Most people, for example, would admit to having made immoral mistakes in the past and I've met very few evil people.

These are all great companies that have done a lot to improve the world. I have a hard time calling any of them evil. I think the harshest criticism that they should receive is that (Google and Apple specifically) aggressively optimized their business around labor and tax laws to the point of conflict with the spirit of those laws.

True that. Web development from my laptop seems like a total chore compared to my 2 monitor rig at work.

What's interesting to me is that someone who uses a work computer mainly for word processing (like the author) would think he could be more productive on two screens in the first place. Did other professions imitate web developers by using more than one monitor?

Well done sir.

I think you are a little dismissive of the value of tech in start-ups though. Start-ups will typically need both better tech and better distribution to displace an incumbent. In my experience, the technology side of this is especially critical. Consumer start-ups, for example, often don't have sales teams at all.

That said, budgetary constraints and optimism towards equity grants keep salaries well below 600k at start-ups :)

Good point. This study seems like it would be biased by a region's perspective on city living. My guess is that people who want to live in the city will self-identify as urban much more often than those who want to live in suburbs.

In defense of the article, when picking between protein shake brands to stock up on, I ended up selecting a pre-packaged one for the exact reasons described in the article: quicker, less messy, requires no extra tools.

Pre-packaged soylent seems like a good idea. Might not be possible, but if it is, that would probably win me over. I have to imagine it'd make the author happy to.

The first photo in this article pretty much sums it up: someone echoing "banana" to debug PHP. Nailed my life.

Advice to author: learn to stop worrying and love the bomb :)

Thanks for the correction. Institutional funds were off my radar but they definitely apply in this case.

Even an algorithm has some (although very small) management fee. The cheapest ETFs have an expense ratio of .05%.

So from this perspective, it'd make sense to go with the human fund manager who was beating the market and charging exactly his outperformance.

I understand your point. I think in this case, the author is talking about a scenario where the price of rent in San Francisco drops dramatically to where it is no more expensive than anywhere else relative to the opportunities.

At which point, even people who would find themselves priced out of SF in today's market would already have moved to the city if they wanted to.

Really awesome story, I can relate. One thing I learned after the umpteenth time falling in the pit of picking a technology: do it in PHP, it's fast, I'm good at it. It's going to invariably be the wrong choice, which will become apparent at some point in the future, but in the early stages of a project speed is the most important thing. Your technology is a tool to create the product, not the other way around.

One more thing, you should spend more time defining the product/business before you begin implementing or even thinking about technology. Bounce the idea off of smart people, use usertesting.com (I'm not affiliated with these guys but I use them a lot) and do market research. You don't want to realize that your idea sucks after a few weeks of development because you'll be discouraged from fixing it at that point.

It looks like UTC time is indicated in the watermarks. 11:17 - 11:24 UTC.

Paul's comment about ADHD seems like really good advice, but assuming there is no medical solution to your dilemma, maybe some words of encouragement may help:

When you first start off programming professionally it feels like there's an infinite list of things you should have already learned, and it can be really overwhelming.

I remember my first job out of college, it was really stressful at first. Good news is that after a year on the job you'll feel like you've done it your whole life. There will always be things to learn but it slows down drastically after the first few months.

One bit of advice I have (and not everyone will agree with this) is that if you really feel that you're falling behind your peers, you may want to work longer hours than they do. It'll give you more time to learn and people have a lot more patience with someone who shows they're trying.

my daily dose of nihilism

Points 1 and 2 seem entirely self promotional.

Since when is not outsourcing your development a recipe for disaster? Conventional Silicon Vally business wisdom leans in the exact opposite direction: keeping core business functions in-house.

I get the sense that this author is misinterpreting what a someone from the Silicon Valley means when they say they're going to change the world. To the silicon valley, "to change" means "to improve by eliminating inefficiency."

If the complaint is that the Silicon Valley should be more charitable, the author is missing the purpose of their goal. Charity rarely, if ever, improves efficiency and often detracts from it.

I'm not trying say that charity is wrong. It's just the wrong standard of success in this case.

Not sure if I agree with the second paragraph of this. But the original comment has a point.

CrunchBase and AngelList are meant to be directories of companies. While side projects often turn into companies, there is a difference at least initially. Uploading a weekend side project to these sites is creating noise rather than signal.

Yeah really interesting.

My takeaways:

When operating an underground network 1) don't post to SO questions regarding Tor 2) keep distinct login names for everything

It sounds like you are suggesting a rather perverse sort of inheritance where the "right" to San Francisco stock is granted to those who are born into it irregardless of that man's wealth, merit, or ability.

Allocating resources this way would be bad enough if housing stock was a public good, but it's not. It's owned by landlords who are then required to subsidize the lifestyle of the beneficiaries of this "right".

I think you nailed it. I've noticed this a prevalent opinion in SF.