patanegra

Yeah, because they built it. If people were using Linux everywhere, the situation would be different.

One company's margin, is other company's opportunity.

Well, 'theft' is more of an artistic licence.

It's a breach of intellectual property rights owner.

LOL. Does intellectual property exist, or not?

If yes, then it can be stolen.

If no, then it is fine to take any source code, any photo, any information, and do whatever I want with it, right?

Pirating of course exists. You might rebrand it, but hardly as hero-, more like theft-. Theftbay would sound good to me.

Is it because of moderation or because people come here to learn about STEM & tech?

You could have HN for politics, or art and philosophy.

This is exactly how I don't want to build my apps.

As much logic on the backend as possible makes it easier to prevent concurrent changes, support multiple frontends, debug while having the whole env under control etc.

This week, I learned that our website's homepage has 40 megabytes. Another frontend maximalism. :/

We were building decent apps long before React.

Even pre-web. I remember, how quickly I could create Delphi desktop app with drag & drop UI builder more than 2 decades ago. If we speak about generic ERP, you could make dozens of screens in a day.

You just split your app to layers.

That might be for example:

1. Just UI;

2. UI logic (validations, preloading selects...);

3. Transformation of data between data model and UI model

All of the things above lived on users' computers.

All of the things below were on servers.

1. API gateway (terrible things like SOAP, XML-RPC or completely proprietary formats);

2. Business logic;

3. Database

No, you should tie the squatter, drive him to the middle of wilderness, and leave him there. So he will no longer have such bad ideas.

If your view was true, we would have a super-successful middle class here in Europe. We don't, quite the contrary. The UK used to be on par with the USA. Now, it's stagnant since 2008. Other countries are falling behind too.

Because power of labor to negotiate is a zero-sum game that doesn't create anything. The only sustainable way to lift anyone's living standard is through improving prosperity.

And guess what. The USA gives much better opportunities for motivated people to build themselves.

It depends on how you measure it. A kid from independent school with AAA is going to be worse than a state school AAA kid. But state school AAA kid might be 3-A* kid in independent school and might do better.

For smarter. My narrative is more prepared, used to working harder. And also, it's self-selection. If you are not made for that type of education, you are going to leave.

No matter if universities select for potential, or operating near it. Both would be nice. Now, it is increasingly also how they will shape the society if they accept student A instead of student B. And they want to shape society in a way that discriminates against certain kids for who their parents are.

Well, yes. Everyone needs to try harder.

In China, they speak about 996 (working 9am to 9pm 6 days a week; and since we speak about education, Chinese kids often learn from 7am up to 9pm, and when they are getting ready for University, they pull 12–14 hours a day consistently), in Europe, we speak about working only 4 days a week, and whether it is bad for kids to have homeworks.

We all, in Europe, should speak about working a bit harder. Especially those, who are not happy with where they are.

Well, when you as a parent, basically get your 9-year-old, work as many hours per year, as a full-time employed adult, so your child reaches its full potential, you expect, that this possibility will continue in all levels of education.

Anyway. If Oxford is going to pass on those kids, who are often multiple years ahead of the average, some other university will accept them. And then, this university will likely beat Oxford in ratings.

The genes of your parents?

Or now, for $20/month OpenAI? Or for pennies through OpenRouter?

As if it isn't true.

And I say it as someone who went to a state school, just like my parents, grandparents...

I am not sure, if it isn't so intensive in other schools. It is so intensive in our prep school.

All kids aren't equally smart. Not all kids can also handle such a regime. It isn't for everyone. Those, who succeed in such schools, deserve not to be discriminated against, because their dad has a Range Rover and tweed suit.

If a good independent school prepares a child better than a state school, the child should have a preference. Otherwise, all those years of preparation and all that talent is wasted.

if they think you're really smart, have great potential, and then you'll be of the caliber to get 4 A* no question if you had rich parents

Assumed, they really are 4 A* material.

If not, what might happen is, that Oxford might get worse in ratings. Is Oxford getting worse in ratings?

It isn't dumbing down or taking worse students, it's easing out the rich types

But those rich types already have 4 A*, or they are close to it. Their kids have spent 10 years boarding, learning 10 hours a day, including Saturdays. And then, they are discriminated, because of hate towards the rich.

I guess, what will happen, is that some other universities will pick them up. Kids, who are used to work extremely hard. Kids, who know how to learn. Kids, whose parents and grandparents knew how to apply themselves and who instilled all this in them too.

And Oxford will be dethroned. Cream always rises to the top.

By bad, I mean being in a bad situation.

I don't say people are evil for not having much money.

I grew up in a family with very low income (my dad was earning about £12000 per year, when he retired a few years ago, my mum about £6000, I am from Central Europe, so things are a bit cheaper there, but not much). He worked shifts, and my mum worked 1.5 jobs.

Yet, I was able to achieve everything I wanted.

Maybe you should re-read what I write to understand it better.

Well, isn't it because kids in independent school are in the school from 8am till 6pm, including Saturdays, since the age of 9, and by the age 11 they board, and all their lives revolve around learning?

In my sons' prep school, I have seen kids playing musical instruments so good, they could do concerts for a general public. I have seen boys taking GCSEs in Year 6.

And 100% of parents are university educated, often high achievers. Don't let me start speaking about Chinese, where kids come from school 6pm, and they often get two more lessons at home (Chinese + music instrument most often).

Parents in state schools don't put in even half of the effort on average.

When you are a talented child born into a bad family, your success is to go from £1 to £10M.

If you are a talented child born to a millionaire, your success is to go from £10M to £1bn.

If you are a dumb child born to a millionaire, you go from £10M to £1.

You probably assume that people with the same skills should have the same absolute outcomes. I don't. There shouldn't be glass ceilings for talented ones, so a son of a carpenter has a right to become a billionaire, or earn a Nobel Prize in science, or apply his talents in any field. But I don't think there exists any socioeconomic system that would deliver more equitable results and had more pros than cons, especially compared to the current system.

Oh yes, I have kids in a prep school where half of the class goes to Eton, and the rest to Winchester, Harrow, Seven Oaks, Derby... Now, for the past few years, almost no parents want to send kids to Eton. They know how much are those kids discriminated against. It's better to send them to a school with lower profile.

When you compare 1:83 vs 1:2600, it is so big difference, it deserves bold statements.

In the UK, there's 1.5 million kids playing footbal. 1:83 ~18000 kids play in any professional club. 1:2600 ~580 kids get to play in Premier League, EFL Championship in a season

What is Oxford doing is letting kids who play in absolutely any club, if they go to state school, or only those who got to Premier League, if they go to independent school.

Again, it's discrimination so bad it should be illegal.

It might come over as appalling, given the whole culture has shifted towards: "Nobody is dumber! Every child deserves a medal."

Which isn't true, and never was. I get why we do that with kids in Reception and Year 1. With young adults, like University students, the fact of inequality of potentials of individuals, is just a fact anyone has to live with.

I am clever, but I am a fat, average looking guy. So that's what I have to live with. David Beckham is not so smart, but he is sporty and looks great. He uses his innate talents, and I use mines. Nobody is discriminated by being different.

The system has been built by those with means. And those with means more often than not are clever, hard-working people. That's how you get successful in the first place. And when you are born with great talents, you will go up too. That was the point of aristocrats being replaced by bourgeois, and now people in tech growing no matter where they are from.

There are studies that show how heritable intelligence is. Very.

It is quite common people say, that something is only a correlation and not causation. But if you can point to a common denominator, that has been shown multiple times, to have a massive effect, it's not likely to be just a coincidence. Genes are this common denominator. Society and habits (for example, protestants vs catholics) are another.

Things that consistently impact the whole population are not just a random process that picks: "You will be clever, ugly.", "You will be pretty, sporty, but will be dumb." It's always genes, society and habits.

Maybe statistically gifted child is more often than not born to parents who were gifted too. Then, they read more to the child, speak more with him. And maybe either have higher disposable income, or liberty to recommend books, and learn with the child.

In the future, it's going to be a nil argument anyway, as world-class AI tutors are going to be available for every child 24/7 for a penny.

Clearly, it's because talented people grow to the top (not just economically, they might be cultural elites, like people working in news, academia). Then, they marry people who are on the top. And they pass their genes and habits.

It's nothing bad that their kids end up good students again.

I think that French system is superior. It gives fair chances to everyone.

It's always the same argument.

If you are world-class talent (someone who gets to Oxford), you should be capable of similar results as kids from independent schools. Like Joe Seddon did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Seddon - growing up with a single parent mom, working as a therapist in NHS).

It isn't fair to ask ones to have 4A* and others to have just 3As.

Only 1 in 2600 gets 4 A.

And 1 in 83 gets 3 As.

Making it 31 easier for people from state school is discrimination so bad, it should be illegal.

This is extremely unfair framing.

Oxford University has been discriminating people from independent schools for a while now. To get in, you need 4 A* from an independent schools, or just 3 As from state schools.

That's not "letting in poor people" as you framed it. It's letting in dumber people, worse students. Lots of that is mainly based on classism (against people from middle class), racism (against white people).

Oikophobia is a cancer, and Oxford getting worse ratings is the direct result of that.

In the last 10 years, they did £18107.3m turnover, and cumulative -1180.3m loss.

Poor shareholders, mainly Ontario Municipal retirement fund pensioners, who are the biggest ones (32%) and retired British academics (20%).

Can you show me which UK water companies are in such a situation?

My provider is Thames Water. They are losing money.