rgbgraph

I've worked on problems much harder than Reddit. Reddit is a trivial problem.

In applied maths, probably not.

In theoretical maths, yes.

“Show me.”

Path A: you’re shown the meme; “lmfao, nice” — now you’ve broken ice or strengthened a bond

Path B: “nah” — “whatever”

——

Don’t send your kids to a run of the mill public school — which is infested with children of asshats, jackasses, and assholes. Don’t live in in that sort of community. If you can help it, these will be some of the biggest factors in how your kid turns out.

I’ve been to a lot of schools. Kids from parents that just don’t give a shit will turn out like them: vampires, parasites, and people that generally drag others down for their own benefit (unless they’re lucky and get out).

Mean kids come from mean families. Usually people are mean because they don’t have the resources to fill whatever hole they have in them — and have to use maladaptions to get their fix. I.e. money problems and never taught the skills or given the resources to ease them.

I.e. send your kid to a private school that is recommended by people you trust. Just like you would a dentist, or a mechanic, and so on.

Easier said than done, but not an unsolvable problem.

- Java is majorly boilerplate.

- If you map out the entire system, and understand how all the pieces fit together, you can: make something simpler that fulfills reqs/does the same exact thing; use template metaprogramming to generate the source code for you, instead of writing it by hand

The only issue is very few people will have the skills or the patience to sit down and try to understand metaprogramming. So you won't be able to take advantage of it in most business use-cases (i.e. won't easily be able to find another cog to work on it), despite how powerful it is.

It's like why more people don't work with K (or functional langs, etc.): it's not a simple procedural or OO language, so it's harder to learn -- and harder to get started with.

Same reason we (SW engineers) think X field is easy and can be self-taught: the fundamentals are easy to learn, but figuring out where and how to deal with edge cases when they pop up is something that can only be learned with experience.

I see the same with a certain subset of finance people who learn Python, and start thinking coding is easy. Yeah, fair you can whip some simple Jupyter notebook using Pandas to analyze time-series. Now build out a distributed, fault-tolerant ETL (CRUD++) system that follows all business rules, is maintainable/readable, and can scale to atleast 100 "servers."

Perhaps not the most apt comparison -- but the fundamentals in every field are easy to learn; but working at the edge is something you have no experience in until you do.

It helps that the “upper class” is mostly faux, and driven by fashion more than anything innate.

Zuckerberg is not upper class in the classical sense. He doesn’t have the resources or molding to truly be able to fuck off, live in the woods in a centuries-old mansion, rolling in debauchery and in complete disassociation from humanity.

I.e. if you know about them, they’re not upper class, but very high upper middle class (they still “work” and participate in vulgar activities like business, rather than utterly “worthless” activities that are driven by innate desire, not glorified peer pressure).

Mitt Romney is upper middle class. The Bushes are upper middle class. The Sacklers, the Clintons, the Kochs, Buffett, Gates, the Siemens, the Onassis’, the Waltons — all relatively new players, and haven’t yet been aged by centuries of absolute apathy and detachment. Ellison is definitely getting there.

I think the biggest difference between him and the rest are upbringing. Ellison was not raised upper middle class, and had little regard for his family and circle. He did not have countless other upper middle class people around him in his formative years to mold his soul into conforming with upper middle class sensibilities (make money, gain influence, be interesting, important, play the image game, etc.). And now he’s fucked off to Lanai.

The only thing that man values is himself and his capricious desires — that is what the upper class is. There is no internal need within him to conform to external pressures. The man is a cunt.

What about the rest of the list? They grew up in relative affluence, and the upper middle class sensibilities have been imprinted onto them. To use a pop-culture example, none of them are Logan Roys. They care how people view them — especially their intimates. They might feign thoughtless excellence, but deep down they’re driven by the external forces that molded them.

If there’s any amusing note it’s that the true upper class has more in common with the lower class than it does with the middle. The middle lives on lies and self-deceptions, while the upper and lower only care about themselves and their authentic desires.

For example, compare Roedean to Philips Exeter. The people are utterly different — and the wealth and money is but a surface measure.

* Well-rounded in the context of a specific sub-culture, and such

The flip side being, a father is not an absolute necessity, so long as there are adults with testosterone-correlated traits (actual; not stereotypical) in the life of the child.

This could be one of the mothers, or it could be male figures in other areas.

Perhaps it shouldn’t stand the test of time — it should be a reflection if its time, and change with them.

Here’s the one, let’s see if it renders:

If this were another venue, I would reply to this post with a single, solitary nerd emoji.

The constitution should be ripped apart and rewritten — if it requires hordes of over-educated lawyers to faff about on what it actually means.

The supreme court was a mistake. Congress was a mistake. The executive office was a mistake.

The only thing all of these organizations do is further their own interests.

Ironically, you’re doing exactly what the parent is describing: being pedantic to prove a point/win an argument because the OP was too hasty and forgot to append “pseudo” to his “intellectual.”

I’m certain most of us know what the parent is talking about on an intuitive, vs verbal level (i.e. the idea was communicated, even if the words used to communicate it were not 100% on point)

Did the joke go over my head?

That would require for you to be a well-rounded person that hasn’t optimized for only one facet of the job (e.g. money, technical skill, etc.) — at that point might as well be an entrepreneur.

It would also require that your interviewees are not comprised of psychos willing to take whatever measure necessary to get what they want (i.e. play the game/talk the talk) — which usually does not happen when a lot of money or power is being offered.

> what the hell is the rest of the world thinking?

— “Who wants to work that hard for nothing?”

— “We’re a tech company? What do we actually do? Something that: atomizes social relations; enables the violation of people’s privacy and rights; or simply plays hot-potato with funny money? Yeah, pass. My friends and family would think I’m a chancer.”

— “What you’re doing goes against local laws and ethics. You can’t do that here.”

— “A business should help the country and its people; not the people that built it.”

— “Spending all my free time to become marginally more knowledgeable and skilled than my coworkers/‘competition’? I’d rather spend time with my friends and family — or a hobby.”

— “Money? What am I gonna do with money — buy a house? Then what.”

The money means very little in actuality.

Most CEOs are doing it for other reasons besides money (personal enjoyment, thrill, respectability, “duty,” etc.).