rdouble

Blueberries.

What are examples of iOS gaming companies with multiple hits?

In this particular story the answers are easy.

The work of a steveadore, one of the examples given, has been vastly automated and unionized. The work is much physically easier than before: operating a crane vs. manually moving cargo. Dockworker's unions have negotiated strong agreements related to overtime pay which guarantee time and a half. There are a far smaller number of employees needed, and those employees want to pack in as many hours as they legally can, to reap the overtime benefits. Automation of an industry can actually lead to longer hours for the fewer employees still working in the industry.

Since there are far fewer well paying positions like being a longshoreman, people who may have once gotten a job on the docks have to compete with everyone else for service jobs. The service jobs don't pay enough, so many need 2 or even 3 jobs to keep their families afloat. The need for multiple jobs explains why this class of people is working longer.

We are allowed 45 minutes for cigarettes and internet before Sunday prayers and lights-out.

I agree. I'm 13 and spend over 120 hours per week in the oil mines of North Dakota. I puked when I read the first comment and slammed my laptop shut because I was shaking with disgust.

Cal Newport's advice is more along the lines of "Do what you're really good at, rather than only what you love."

That's interesting, as other career gurus argue the opposite view. For example Barbara Sher, author of "I Could Do Anything If I Only Knew What It Was" gives the example of herself as an unhappy stay-at-home mom. She is an expert at cooking, changing diapers, and other aspects of child rearing. If she pursued what she was really good at, she'd be limiting her options to work as a nanny, or perhaps open a day-care center.

As the book is so poorly written, those who enjoy it as literature are indeed in a small club.

"God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board"

-Mark Twain

Are the murder squads under the same command structure as the death panels? Or are those two different departments?

Ya, just had a flashback to a former paycheck...

Go to Harvey Mudd and major in Econ and EE.

http://www.payscale.com/college-education-value-2013

Sadly, in the Bay Area $4166 is almost exactly what an exempt employee making $100K actually takes home every month.

My friend is a high school teacher and her husband is a civil engineer in Albany. They make about $150K total. ($65K+$85K) They have two kids and I'd say they are pretty middle class. They seem to have a lot more feeling of security than most of the software engineers in the area, even though the engineers have higher wages. Their house is a lot smaller than it would be if they lived somewhere like Minnesota, though.

Everyone I know in Tucson already goes to Nogales for dental work.

US schools usually include sports facilities which are very expensive. My sister moved to Australia, which is about as similar to the US as it gets for a foreign country, and the schools have no equivalent of a Texas football stadium or Minnesota hockey arena. I don't think there is any other country that spends so much on public school facilities.

The extra spending mostly goes to services for special needs students, followed by inflated salaries for administrators, then programs for the poor, like school lunches and school nurses, then infrastructure.

Dances/events are usually funded by fundraisers. Although an exorbitant amount of money is spent on sports, they also have a lot of funding from booster clubs and fundraisers.

Schools do get stuck paying for extra sports staff, and sports facilities. Sometimes a wealthy donor will spring for a giant football field. That actually sets a bad precedent, because then neighboring towns feel they need to spend more on their sports facilities.

Arts and music programs receive almost no money from any source and are cut every year.

Maybe someday one of those consultants will package an approach based on raising the bar on salary and teacher/student performance moderately and call it "Moneyball Education" and it will finally take off. It will have a better chance of success if it's already been approved by ESPN.

If people really wanted to spend more on education, why don't they vote to raise their own property taxes? If they think the schools are being run poorly, why don't they get involved with the school boards and make changes?

"Asian" educational models will never work in the USA. You can't convince middle America to pay more for teachers and/or enroll their kids in programs that involve hard academic work. After school academic programs are crazy, only for obsessed nerds. When would they have time for football practice? This model only works in American communities with large Asian populations. It partially works in low income communities in which the main benefit is keeping the kids away from their screwed up home life.

This is a bit off topic, though. The article is about a guy who makes money off of video lectures. Americans do pay money for videos of things they care about, such as losing weight or improving their golf stroke. Only a small subset of the population would pay for academic tutoring videos.

I'd suggest a VM with Samba mount and Sublime Text. I'd suggest this setup even if you're using a Mac because then you can match your deployment environment.

To be honest, I wish I wouldn't have use that phrase because it adds negativity that is probably unnecessary.

In my case, what happened is the failed startup I worked for was "acquired" by another company that was funded by the same investors. The acquiring company wasn't acquiring anything: the software was open source, none of the founders worked there anymore, no key engineers were left, etc. The deal was done to avoid a loss on the VC balance sheet so that the fund wouldn't lose face with its institutional investors. The people who benefit: investors, and also mediocre late hire employees who stuck around through the transition. They ended up with a higher salary and better title than they would have if they had been hired directly by the acquiring company.

When I read about an acquisition where it doesn't seem like anyone is going to make money, nobody uses the product, the founding team isn't there anymore and key engineers have left, it just reminds me of this situation I already lived through.

I worked with a well known group who paid their instructors $2500 to $4000 per week long class. The classes cost the students $3500 to $4000. The salary variance was due to seniority and whether or not the instructor was "famous" in his niche. Clearly, if you can run the class yourself you are better off than working with a group.

Your soon to be ex wife, if your data doesn't jibe with hers.

There is a national tax on gasoline.

Weren't there a half dozen Facebook acquihires where the company hadn't launched any product at all? A former coworker coined them "fist-bump acquisitions" because the defining characteristic was that one of the founders was always a former roommate of Zuck or other early employee.

I didn't read him mention people working under him.

I agree that it's probably not something a Cisco engineer would be wearing, but it seems like a normal 20-something outfit in Manhattan.

It could, but to me it looks to me like a normal outfit a 20 something woman would wear in Manhattan.

This reminds me of working with crotchety gen-X and above sysadmins. They complain about "hipsters" but the people they are talking about are wearing standard issue clothes from the mall that everyone in that age bracket wears. They don't realize that wearing a "JavaConf 1999" fleece, bat-belt, cargo shorts and Tevas is not what other people consider normal work attire.

When I worked at fashion startups in New York, women did wear outfits like this, including the engineers. The engineer in question is in Buenos Aires where both sexes tend to have a bit more flair.

Try the free podcasts from bleep.com

It's cynical but there is a lot of cognitive dissonance surrounding software startups. The players involved in a deal like this seem to go through a lot of twisted internal logic to convince themselves that what they are doing isn't just an investor shell game. Whereas a corporate raider type simply wouldn't care about having extra-financial justifications for the deal.

I'm not saying that is what happened here, but I have been involved in a startup acquisition which was an investor shell game, and even guys who lost in the acquisition had to come up with a warped internal history about what happened in order to not feel bad about it, or something...