pie42000

"Just because a parent wants their child to be able to play the piano with great skill doesn't mean they'll take to it"

And yet the beast, vast majority of kids who were forced to learn to play a musical instrument are grateful that their parents forced them to do it, even if they do not "take to it" i.e. 99.9% of kids. The ones who didn't get forced to learn an instrument regret missing out.

As a parent you are building a human being in your child. You can force them to play sports, play instruments, travel, go to museums, and study hard and learn useful skills. When they are 15 they will complain and wish you would be easier on them. When they are 30, they will thank you and pass on these gifts to their children.

If you let your kids laze around and do whatever, they will ignore you when they are 15, and wish they had stricter parents that forced them to do more things growing up when they are 30.

Obviously there is a balance and a right amount to push kids, but like most things in life, it's better to do too much than too little.

Yes it does. Modern humans have so many more things to do than hunter gatherers or monkeys. Monkeys can't engage in cocaine fueled raves til 6am, work the night shift at a nuclear plant, or pull an all-nighter to pass their organic chemistry mid term. They can't stay awake till 4am watching anime.

This figure is useless without context. What was this number for previous generations? I suspect it's always super high because a huge demographic for mac's is college students buying their first laptop, obviously it's gonna be their first Mac. Same with software devs. Tons of Macs are used by software devs getting their work computer.

It's actually almost identical, if not worse.

Guaranteed 15%+ ROI. Really makes you wonder why more people aren't investing in solar

"The score, made up of audience ratings on a scale of 100, is calculated by taking the percentage of people who rated it at least 60 out of 100 (or 6 out 10) and multiplying it by 100%."

The critics score is calculated with a different formula. Do you discuss this with candidates?

Maybe research your interview questions a bit more before using them.

"A very small minority of UX Researchers come to the correct conclusion, which is that most professional critics have to review every single movie"

Could you provide your sources? This seems like it could be very incorrect, or only partially correct. Keep in mind rottentomatoes is owned by movie studios so they have a vested interest in changing the formula for disregarding audience ratings. I think they already disregard ratings below a certain threshold and other weird shit.

Yeah, this was my impression as well. In Chicago you have police actively pulling people over all the time. In SF i have literally not seen a single person pulled over in the year I've been here. For context, in Chicago i would see about 1 per day, and double that in Wisconsin.

Ah yes, "one time in Arkansas" is now applicable to the situation at large. You'd think the HN crowd would be intelligent enough to not do this. This is akin to saying "this website doesn't load on the Nintendo DS web browser therefore..."

Not a bad way to go

Really surprised that a journalist like you doesn't understand the need for brevity. 98% of this "how to work with me" is actually "i like talking about myself". There is like half a sentence of semi-useful (probably aspirational) info on you and then paragraphs of philosophical meandering.

At least Patrick Bateman stuck with a single business card, you had to go and write a whole life story and print it on your digital business card that you presumably shove down everyone's throats.

Consider deleting immediately, i would never work with someone who wrote something like this. Cheers.

Comes off as very silly and insecure. It seems like it's written purely for you to curate your professional persona and to give people a good impression of yourself. A corporate kool-aid drinking work-a-holics version of a Twitter bio, just needlessly long and self-indulgent. At least Twitter bios are limited in length.

If you actually cared about the recipients of this document it would be half a page or shorter and have bullet points of your biggest weaknesses or eccentricities and other actionable info. You aren't Napoleon, nobody needs to read more than a half page about you, especially when most of what you have to say is meaningless corporate jargon.

Uhhh, what part of "customer-obsessed" implies anything positive to you? Drug dealers are also "customer-obsessed". Notice how Amazon is customer-obsessed and not "obsessed with providing a great, ethical, and non-addictive experience for our customers". They are upfront that they will do anything and everything to acquire more customers and extract as much from each customer as possible. This has been clear to anyone for at least half of a decade

When was the last time a sovereign, democratic, western nation invaded?

You realize there was also a massive coordinated effort by the media to defeat Nazi Germany, right?

I know it's rare nowadays, but sometimes, gasp, large groups of people across organizations and industries can coordinate for a mutually beneficial and morally virtuous cause. At this point, I'm sure someone could start another massive genocide with HD livestreams of the gas chambers and some people would still be like "hmmm, this coordinated effort to stop Hitler 2.0 sure seems fishy".

I've lost all hope.