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.