sheepleherd

you are correct to point out the "flaw" in what s/he said.

I don't know the actual answer (and it would be difficult to convince me that anybody has all the data either) but many people "experienced" with startups believe that so many more options come out worthless that cash is strictly better, better expected return at lower risk.

however, in the same way that the freakonomics guys explain people playing state lotteries even thought they are "not worth it": state lotteries (and startups) offer some of the few chances that most people have to actually get rich, so even though they don't pay off on average, they are "the only way" and "worth it" to some people. Not claiming that these people have clear ideas about either expected values or risks involved, but they have clear ideas that "it's the only way". For workers at many skill levels, they may have a sense that in their industry they won't be too much worse off in the long run so why not take a shot.

ponzi's are illegal, and not for being misleading, for having the financial structure of a "pyramid scheme". "disclosing" the structure makes it easier to prove that they fit what has been made illegal.

These things have changed dramatically in the last couple generations, in Europe and in the US, and Asia. I would caution you against thinking that things will stay as they are. Hell, I'd caution you against thinking things actually are the way they seem to be.

Yeah but the world is not a pretty place, at home we have monopolistic unicorns, and abroad we have unfair business practices... I'm not shedding any tears for Apple, screw'em.

Even if the US is a relatively "clean" place to do business today, when we were the up and coming upstart, we stole plenty of ideas from abroad, and even within: the whole reason synecdotal Hollywood is in literal Hollywood is, movie producers snuck out there from the East Coast so they could infringe on Edison's film patents and get away with it.

Relatively poorer economies are never going to sit by and let large foreign industries dominate their economies if they can do anything about it. And we shouldn't expect relatively poorer economies to have deeply embedded free market economists explaining the theory of comparative advantage to every populist politician.

actually, i would say yours is the narrow point, and it's also a POV whose reach you are looking to broaden. The negative aspect of your POV is that some of us get tired of hearing it over and over (and I'm not picking on you, just explaining the different attitude) Labelling our worldview negative is also a negativity.

My goal in reading hacker news is not helping contribute blasts of cold air in order to preserve every little snowflake; but every little snowflake is welcome, nay, invited even, to read sober analysis of what processes are really going on. That's real math, science, and engineering.

I had to laugh the other day when I saw an effort to promote STEAM. STEAM? It's STEM, but including the Arts! OMG. Did we leave anybody out?

thanks, that's very good.

quick critique (wanted to contribute to this conversation while it's active rather than delve deeply into LLVM for the rest of the day :) it's (naturally and understandably) written from the perspective of "this is how it is, if you want to connect with what we do here's what you need to do".

As a pedagogical tool (that is still a compiling tool) it could use an intro of more "here is what a lexer needs to do, here's how/why we chose to do it, here is why what is downstream belongs downstream, here is an example using a language syntax that is extremely simple" (C is not), "here is an alternative way you could try to do it", etc.

But definitely you point up a good way to start toward [mystic music] "my dream goal" in this example.

Again tho, I'm wishing that there were tools and "a way" that ALL projects could be managed this way, not just one great complier, but the several great compilers and editors, and all-the-types-of-things-people-keep-having-the-urge-to-reinvent

like you are saying "it's a problem", and like I'm saying "that's the problem I'd like to see solved"

as an example, what they teach us in school, and what large projects like NASA have do do, is to first agree on a specification for interfaces, then to write code to the interface, then iron out the kinks. Working on a project like that, and the bigger the project, soon we discover that there are many local wins if we can only change the interface that we agreed on because "we didn't know enough when we agreed" etc. etc.

As an example of what I'm saying (as a thought experiment solution) is that if a real live compiler project was written to clean specs (even if the specs came after the code), then there'd be a lexer, parser, etc. and for a little homebrew project like this one, you could write your own lexer from scratch, testing it all the while against the rest of a functioning compiler. Probably, you would not finish it because you would learn in a series of "aha" moments what "the hard parts" are, and how they are solved.

So you could abandon your own piece, but at the same time you would be now equipped to contribute to the real project.

Or you could move on to working on the parser... lather, rinse, repeat.

No need to tell me what all "the reasons that doesn't work is"... I know the reasons, and it's useful to identify the laundry list of them, but the part I'm interested in is the attitude that "hey, this is worth solving" and "hey, this could be solved..."

more detailed question please? I'm happy to discuss but I'm not sure whether you are looking for bottom up nitty gritty details or more top down grounded philosophizing.

the computer science / computer programming problem I'd like to see solved is, keeping projects "fresh" and open/accessible enough that people like this could feel like they were learning in an unencumbered way, and at the same time contributing something useful to an existing project, while at the same time pushing the capabilities of what available open source projects can provide.

"Reinventing the wheel" projects absolutely litter public source nodes; believe me, I know why people do it; but my dream is the dream of software that most of us have given up on, code reuse, "reentrancy", shared libraries, etc.

Maybe something like a "wikipedia of source code".

I'm not discounting the benefit of doing a project to learn about it; what I'm saying is, too bad it's not code that will be useful for anything else without a lot more work; and too bad work is going into something that is not reuseful-able.

the language was already in the founding documents. yes, with hindsight, more language could have been added; but what I'm saying is, the language that was there is perfectly clear; it's lawyers and their bullshit who create the need for more language that needs to be written by lawyers and guess what, when that language is ignored, another lawsuit, and more lawyer bullshit. What I'm saying is, the system as practiced is completely broken, and it is the fault of the people who maintain the system, and they are called lawyers.

thanks for asking what does "constitutional right to petition" have to do with this, by thinking about how to explain it I figured out what I meant overall. I meant it in the sense that "rights to petition" and "rights to vote" are so fundamental they flow into documents such as the Constitution rather than flowing from it.

Rights to petition are, in a sense, even more fundamental than the right to vote, because historically speaking many undemocratic systems have been sustained because they listen to petitions. The worst dictators are the ones who kill you for petitioning.

This lawsuit I'm talking about was about both rights to vote and rights to petition and the lawsuit asked for nothing but rights to vote. They were gauranteed by the legal documents, ignored by the board, and only a lawyer would twist the very clear wording to say something else, based on standards that do not actually exist; and only a judge who was an attorney would listen to such crap.

I can see that in a messier case you might see a reason for seemingly nonsensical procedures, but this was so clean that all the worthlessness of our legal system was exposed. And I chose the Declaration not the Constitution because it also lays out "or you lose your claim to authority" which is pretty much how I feel to.

| Gawker wasn't guilty of either libel or slander because they didn't publish anything about Hogan that was false.

...not to mention, Hogan's public persona and living he has earned has been by posing as a larger than life clownish character; I don't even see that he was harmed. Ask yourself, do you think less of Hogan now? (and not because it turns out that he has less impressive sounding real name)

I'd have more sympathy for a "normal" person.

they took a gamble and lost, that's business != good riddance

I think they wanted you to notice the design and the thinking lines. They didn't set out to invent the world's best chess player.