run4_too

"High Performance" anything tends to mean doesn't last too long and more expensive when it breaks. I'm sure the 19" standard tires are a little better on both counts.

I would imagine that there is always the chance of 'false negatives' (people you call as failures that eventually succeed), but they are probably pretty bang on with identifying positives.

As an investment first that pretty much the only statistic that matters.

That's not contradictory to what the quote says. In fact, "do it now" is pretty much exactly what he's saying when he says most men die with the song still in their heart.

Moot point however, the quote is a missed one. He never said this.

Actually, the advantage of science is that it can predict the future in an accurate fashion.

Ergo: I know x will happen because when all the variables are the same in the past, x has always happened.

The accuracy of the prediction is what changes in science, which is why it is a better system to use for predicting future events than other dogma based systems.

Ergo: Recently discovered factor y can be changed as a variable, and this accounts for x sometimes not happening the same way. We must account for this as a variable too.

This completely ignores that you have choice.

You can go get another beer, as would be expected given you had three previously and chose to come to a bar, or you can choose to go home and sleep, or get in your car and drive, or swear off drinking forever.

The fact that options are present to you because of your previous choices (causality) is irrelevant to the fact that you still have full control over what option you select (free will).

um, yes. I've got a major business system running on django right now. I'm also just starting a new one on the same platform.

I personally couldn't care less what the flavour of the day is, because I'm not chasing celebrity, I'm making my business money.

Django works really well when you need a full stack web-app up and running quickly. You know what I don't need? Javascript anything, really.

Made by some concerned youths

I don't think he's too far off.

Point being getting so pissed to make an entire website about a company you don't like says more about you than it does the company.

This is an ad.

It's only vaguely disguised as a how to, even if it is something many HN'ers are dealing with.

There is no "speed limit" per se on the Autobahn.

I personally do not see how SMBs can compete when they are paying 4x more for labor.

This makes the error of assuming that the only thing a consumer values is cost. That isn't actually the case, but it varies greatly.

Strange game, the only way to win is not to play.

Companies have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profits, but that doesn't directly translate into how they treat their employees. If company directors felt that hiring the 'best' employees at a premium was actually making them more efficient and thus in the best interests of shareholders, they could do exactly that.

You are speaking about company directors deliberately devaluing their company on purpose to serve some other end. Often this would be connected to fraud, or semi-fraudulent, hence the the case law behind your idea.

There is nothing stopping the union from re-negotiating the contract that exists today, the same way management wanted to re-negotiate the contract that previously existed.

The child needs to be at the right level to understand the concept before they can be coached to do it. The book is aimed for 6 year olds, so, I'm using that age. Teaching a corner kick to a 6 year old is a waste of time. (at least in North America) You are still teaching the basics of space, movement and ball control.

Ergo, playing a game is the best way for a 6 year old to learn. At this age, exposure is the key element.

AR-2 Genie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie

For example, when you build a bridge, there's a clear, objective line of quality somewhere above

She isn't building a bridge, she's writing a story for children. The failure point is that nobody likes her story and therefore it doesn't sell. That's the absolute worst thing that can happen. Not a single child will be so critically scarred from her story that they never learn programming. Yet it may resonate for some.

There is no point to critique when the downside is so unbelievably inconsequential and the plus side is beneficial to a person, other than simply being an ass.

This could be the most important thing that YC ever does...

Well, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that women are less tolerant of assholes, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Women (overall of course, individuals vary) and men in general have different social cues and expectations. That's why each gender will act differently in the locker room than they will around the boardroom table.

Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with suggesting that women in general are less tolerant of being directly criticized in a public forum than men are. I don't view it as a sign of weakness. Men are much less tolerant of the behind the back insults that happen in women's circles than women are. The genders (overall, again) relate differently.

Neither is a sign of weakness, although they are exactly that when one of the two methods is dominant. And that's where we are today - computer science is closer to a locker room in culture and behaviour in many ways than it is to a boardroom. I see no reason not to accept the fact that many women would not be comfortable given that.

It isn't the women that need to change, though.

(I also see your point. My first comment may not have been properly clear.)

Agreed and disagreed.

It's not healthy to be permanently offended, but presenting an idea and being told that it isn't good (by someone presenting no alternative) or that you have ulterior motives (by readers of a website directed to startups of all things) isn't something someone should need to deal with.

Why? Do you find that uncomfortable?

A lot of women do. So do a lot of men. Computer science is filled with people on the poor side of "social skill set", and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. That's why there are less women in the field - they simply aren't going to tolerate a default reaction that is insulting first and helpful only if you ignore the attitude.

Don't get me wrong, we turn off a lot of people - men and women - because of this, but we lose a lot more women, percentage wise.

And just a note: The irony of you telling me to "please stop talking" is, well, perfectly suited to the topic of our conversation.

How would you explain a simple FOR loop to a child through a story?

You wouldn't.

The same way you don't explain how to take a corner kick to a child playing soccer. All you need to do is explain that they need to kick the ball into the net, and let them go.

The same way you don't teach multiplication to a child before you teach the concepts of grouping and sorting.

Everything else comes later. This is a good introduction, not something that will qualify them to work in the industry.

No, because the audience is clearly unsatisfied with only having those options.

What a bigoted comment. OP is praising diversity, and you are suggesting what, exactly? That there isn't an issue if everyone in a field approaches a problem in the exact same way? Are you really that small minded?

Thanks for this comment. I thought I was the only one feeling this.

I'd say this is a perfect example of why there aren't more women in computers. From what I've seen, a lot of women have a low tolerance for this level of overt critique, regardless of whether the critique is correct or not.

There is nothing horrible about this project that warrants a negative view, particularly one that doesn't present any alternative.

I don't think you are an "enemy" of anyone, however I do think that the Catholic church's position here isn't very logical.

The church does now support family planning by using a woman's cycle, which in doing so immediately counters the general idea that sex should "always be about procreation". This action renders the position on contraception completely illogical. There is no difference between using a condom to prevent conception and waiting until Tuesday to have sex. The church condemns one yet supports the other; completely inconsistent. The only way to have a consistent opinion on the topic is to decree that all forms of martial interaction approaching sex end with insemination - a completely ludicrous idea (regardless of whether or not you support that), to be honest.

The church is causing real damage with this doctrine, particularly with regards to AIDS in Africa. With Pope Francis reviewing and moderating a lot of traditional doctrine, and with a large group of those within the church opposed to it (particularity those from the first world), I could see this edict being "modified" going forward, to be honest. I was curious as to your reaction in that event.

Indeed, and I've found HN is (for the interwebs at least) pretty tolerant of unpopular opinions, provided there is substance behind them.

Regardless I hope you never feel burdened at sharing your opinions again. You and I are very different in our experiences and backgrounds, that much I can deduct easily. It's a respectful difference of opinion though that allows each of us to grow.

Well, I'll add this then to your experiences: Having my sons was the best thing that ever happened in my life, and I can think of no event in the future that could ever compare to the joy and pride that I feel every day that is a direct result of their existence. Children are life changing, that much is true; in every way. I wouldn't change a thing though.

They are a net benefit to the world already based on the feelings they've created in others alone, and they are only 6 and 4.

I do however recognize that I'm in a much better position for the most important role I'll ever have now than I would have been at any point in my life previously. That's why I support the inclusion of contraception in third world aid - the better parents we can create, the better children they will create. In fact, most of the time it is not that people have had children, it's when they've had children.

I'd suggest that your sample size is rather small and (perhaps, just guessing here obviously) skewed unequally to youth. Give it time. Overall I think you have extremely noble intentions, and I commend you for that. I disagree with your ideas regarding implementation though. Cheers. :-)

EDIT: I hope you see this. I saw above that your objection stems at least in part from the traditional Catholic doctrine. Personally I feel this position (of the church) is illogical and counter productive, however I completely understand the argument being made. You should not be afraid to state this immediately. Wikipedia has an excellent write up on this stance and it does make solid points, although I feel the deductive reasoning behind the argument is quite lacking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraceptio...)

That being said, It is highly likely this opinion will chance sooner rather than later. Would you be inclined to re-evaluate your opinion at that time? Why or why not?

Thanks for the conversation. I hope I encouraged you to not to be afraid of voicing the reasoning behind your opinion in the future.

Dialogue is the best way to learn and grow.

Better Income and/or Health begets better actions, generally. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a real thing.

It's rather difficult to be noble when you are starving. That isn't to say it's impossible, but if we are talking about increasing odds of success, it is true.

I'm concerned with enabling people to become better than what they are now. All people. Regardless of their mistakes, the mistakes of their great grandparents or their particular luck in the geography lottery. Can you say you are for the same? Because although you are presenting that outwardly, in detail it seems you are content with enforcing an unequal distribution of hardship based primarily on an ignorance of the human struggle outside of small town USA.

I'm always very wary of people and opinions that suggest suffering is beneficial, particularly when such suffering is notably absent from their own lives.

the bias in future generations against having children

You need to provide something that suggests this bias is prevalent in any society at all.

There is a bias against having many children (i.e. 2+), sure. I'm not seeing anything at all suggesting there is a prevalent bias against having any children at all, nor that one will develop over time.

That's an interesting stance that I see no evidence to support. The urge to procreate is tremendously powerful. In many cases it is even more powerful that the urge for sex, believe it or not. I think you are massively understating it.

Now, this may not seem likely when you look at those in their 20s, but it jumps out at you if you look at those in their 40s. It's so bad that it actually leads to all sorts of loveless marriages and bad situations - particularly for women worrying about "running out of time". These are first world problems though.

What the third world problems are is children being born far to soon for the parent to become established - financially, emotionally, and spiritually, if you will. This leads to less than ideal environments for children to be raised, and as a result a poorer 'end product', if you will.

You've got to remember that many third world countries do not have the options and environment we do in the first world. A "pro-contraception" message isn't needed here. When the default is switched however, and you have the procreation urge matched with little to no knowledge of contraception at all, you have a far greater negative effect than what you are concerned with.