ThrowMeDown01

> here everyone calls you a physician even though you only work with animals

Just an aside, but that is a gigantic undersell of veterinarians. The difficulties of becoming one aside, just seeing that "humans-only" doctors only work on one kind of ape, compared to the many very different kinds of life forms a veterinarian has to deal with (of course they specialize too), I don't understand why one would think a veterinarian would deserve the word "only".

What a strange reply.

Your 1) Please read again, this does not fit to anything I wrote. Especially the main point, that inconvenient "anybody" vs. "everybody" thing that you completely ignore.

Your 2) This too has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. You respond to whatever strange visions appear in your own mind. I'm very sorry for you if you find the idea that people who are down and/or out are getting help so frightening, that non-rich people don't have to live in fear. And if you want to point to the "overachievers" - again see my main point and answer those points (first you have to actually notice and acknowledge them, of which there is no sign even though it was the main point of my post, "anybody" vs. "everybody").

A concrete location is something very specific, and the number of newspapers per town is very small.

The term "Facebook" is not nearly as generic as "hackernews".

> This name confusion seems intentional

Do you have proof, or do you just happen to feel this way without actually knowing any background story? If you make such an accusation you should state your reasons, preferably observable facts. Both "hacker" and "news" are generic terms after all.

In addition, even if they did mimic the name, I would not see a problem. It's very descriptive, unlike a completely made-up word that someone spent a lot of effort on to establish as a brand.

Also, another confusion of "anyone" vs. "everyone". The English language has those two distinct words, unlike my own native language, so English speakers should actually be at an advantage here. Any time someone comes up with an example that (in an idealized universe, but let's grant them the unrealistic assumption because it does not even affect the final result) would work for anyone, make a check if it works for everyone, meaning what would happen if everyone actually did just that.

I think such huge levels of new "entrepreneurs" just means you get something like "Uber jobs". All the risk of being on your own but none of the benefits of being part of a large organization. Even if every single new entrepreneur were to cure one kind of cancer - how many such people are needed before the ROI on a cure for a cancer form is down to pennies? Just to use an extreme example where every single person actually is a genius. Now imagine what happens when most people are ordinary. Not to mention that actual monetization of cures for forms of cancer can only be handled by - large companies! It seems to me to be quite clear, given the complexity of what needs to be done in today's world economy (vs. shoe makers or smiths or XYZ makers in centuries past who could happily work alone or with just family) that most people in the economy should be employed and part of large(r) organizations. If everybody is an individual (entrepreneur) this would not fit into how modern society works, solving complex tasks in a tight network of people.

To me it's like propagating a mostly bacteria world because multicellular organisms, where individuals give up most of their autonomy and prefer to be part of a big organization, are somehow "bad" (and cancer cells, breaking out of the organization to follow their own path, are somehow rebels fighting for freedom?). To me, people giving up many of their freedoms to work in a higher-level form of organization is something positive, and I think we actually need more of it. The problem is that, following the multicellular organism analogy, today's organisms (firms) are quite hostile towards their own cells (workers). Too narrow-minded. They could (allowed to) be that way - if the parent organization, the state, would jump in and provide the safety instead, on the (even) higher level. For the unbelievable wealth (in tools, knowledge, infrastructure, processes, networks) that at least part of humanity has accumulated and achieved I think we have waaayyyyy too much risk completely unnecessarily put on individuals, for no good reason. We could easily give everyone food and shelter and some basics. To me, much of that pressure on people is completely artificial. "Sure, we could feed you, but we won't because you are unworthy."

> What's your definition of huge?

Quoting myself:

> unless you were huge enough to have your own locations

Those locations are millions, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars investments with backup power generators large enough to provide power to a comfortably sized village. So, "large enough to a) need and b) able to afford owning such a location just for your own needs", e.g. Google, Amazon. Even companies like large banks have their servers co-hosted in a separate section but in the location owned by a 3rd party co-hosting provider. To own one you either are one of those providers or you are in the "Google tier". For the purposes of the current context, the linked article, one would even need to have multiple such locations all over the world. I think that qualifies as "huge" (the company owning such infrastructure just to run their own servers, co-hosting firms do it for others).

So what is the alternative? Maintaining your own infrastructure like we did before "cloud" providers, i.e. your own dedicated servers in managed locations unless you were huge enough to have your own locations? Or just a different cloud provider? It is hard to check if your suggestion is any better since you only say "don't do that", but not what else to do instead...