I know Angular is an easy framework to crap on for frontend developers, but I love Angular. Im a Python/Java developer and much prefer all inclusive frameworks like Django/Flask/Dropwizard over the micro frameworks like Flask/Spring that have great ecosystems but need to be pieced together. I realize I never use "Best in Breed" libraries and am usually forced to use whatever is built in but I don't mind because I get shit done. I really love the fact that I install Angular and BOOM I have everything I need to build an amazing application. Even better, with Angular CLI I can quickly bootstrap a frontend. If I use NGPrime, which is an open source component library, I can even quicker build an MVP. That combined with Django feels like super powers for building applications.
I'm in the same boat. I get that it's "cool" to crap on Angular here on HN, but I find it to be a great framework that you only need to learn by itself (unlike React where you also need 10 other things). Angular CLI makes it easy to get started and examples / help are easy to find.
But you don't have to import something if you don't intend on using it. They're baked in conceptually, so there's more coherence, but the deployment payload doesn't have to be unnecessarily large.
My takeaway is that somebody who is confused about library design is more likely to enjoy a heavy framework, but that their choice of framework is mostly arbitrary.
Spring is as micro as Java gets. Probably not a great example but its the best one I could think of at the time of the comment. Flask is a singular framework that has an ecosystem around it with plugins/extensions.
While I think Trump is a bad choice, I think comparing him to Hitler is overzealous and irresponsible. There are no doubt similarities between the two but Hitler wrote an entire book about the "Jewish Peril" and how it was destroying society and needed to be dealt with. It was clear that Hitler had an agenda that was anti-semetic, and the charisma/ability to execute on it. Trump is a racist and a bigot, but he is far from someone that would be able to implement a "Final Solution". By drawing the comparisons to Hitler, we oversell Trump and what he is and at the same time bring Hitler and his actions to a lower level which they never be at. We should sell Trump for what he is: someone who uses the racism and ignorance of the American people to cover up the fact that he has no idea what he is doing.
There really aren't. In any case, the same was said about George W. Bush during both his runs for the Oval Office, and while I don't say he was a particularly worthwhile president, in hindsight the Hitler comparison was every bit as erroneous as even an elementary knowledge of 20th century history would suggest.
so wanting ur borders secured is now literally Hitler. Okay. Well you should talk to Clinton because building a wall was her position a few years ago until her party forced her further far left.
What exactly makes him racist? What exactly makes him a misogynist? I never got an answer for that.
Among the very few specific policy proposals Trump has put forward, these are the most prominent:
* Building a giant wall along the U.S.'s southern border to keep Mexicans out
* Rounding up and deporting Hispanics currently in the U.S. on a mass scale never before seen in history
I mean, yes, he's not proposing herding Hispanics into gas chambers, but he absolutely is talking about making American policy tilt harder against one particular race than it ever has in the past. Maybe that doesn't make him Hitler, but it definitely makes him something.
Although I don't want to turn this into oppression olympics, and at the risk of getting downvoted heavily, I want to point out that mass deportation of Hispanics wouldn't compare against hundreds of years of slavery of African Americans, forced mass migration and slaughter of Native Americans and the placing Japanese Americans in internment camps.
This is in no way saying "its not that bad of a policy" its still a horrible thing to propose, but saying "American policy tilt harder against one particular race than it ever has in the past" is ignoring a lot of history, unless you're talking about very recent events.
No, he proposed deporting illegal immigrants, which happen to be predominantly from Mexico. Many people of other backgrounds who are in the US illegally will be deported as well.
It's interesting that a presidential candidate can differentiate themselves from other candidates (and receive so much hatred) by stating that they will enforce the law when elected.
Making everyone obey the law is not tilting policy against one group just because that group has abused it disproportionately.
Crippled America, Time To Get Tough, The Art of the Deal, The Art of the Comeback, The America We Deserve
The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life by Ivanka Trump, The Way to the Top, How to Get Rich, Think Like a Billionaire, The Best Golf Advice I Ever Received, Why We Want You To Be Rich, The Best Real Estate Advice I Ever Received, Think Big and Kick Ass, Never Give Up, Think Like a Champion, Midas Touch
By my reading he wasn't attempting to set up Trump in direct comparison to Hitler. His focus was more on comparing the their manipulative rhetorical styles and negative psychological tactics. And on the need for people in his "camp" to stop pretending that they can be silent in the face of what Trump is doing -- without being effectively complicit in it.
While I think Trump is a bad choice, I think comparing him to Hitler is overzealous and irresponsible.
I think it's just plain lazy.
In Presidential elections, we generally have terrible choices (even if this doesn't become obvious until much later). This year is particularly noteworthy.
Painting one side as evil incarnate is neither insightful nor productive, and the type of fodder easily available on hundreds of other sites.
Trump isn't planning industrialized murder but he's certainly fine with deportation on a never before scale. Apart from that both are strikingly similar.
In 1954 Eisenhower approved Operation Wetback, rounding up over 1 million Mexicans and forcefully deporting them to Mexico. I am not sure anything Trump has proposed thus far would approach that scale, although he did make reference to it during a debate.
I find the left is fairly hysterical when it sees itself potentially out of power. There is literally anti-Trump graffiti near my home, in a solid democratic state. Someone just defaced his Hollywood star. This is all accepted by lefties as justifiable. I think the left is more accepting of hysterics and hyperbole because it gets results with the rank and file. Romney was painted as this wall street shark that would destroy America during the election when he was a pretty much middle of the road guy who probably would have been a better steward of the economy than Obama. Obama just middle-of-the-road'd him out with the 'why change horses midstream' narrative. Trump is, of course, Hitler to them. Its all so tiresome and the kind of narratives adults should grow out of, but seemingly never do.
Here in Chicago we had Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders tell us that if Rahm gets re-elected his billionare friends will take over and destroy the city. Warren and Sanders never once mentioned their friends, the Daley family, and how the Daley dynasty left Chicago with debt it cannot ever pay off. Meanwhile, Rahm is raising taxes for pension perks for public sector unions and other lefty causes. More welfare, more section 8 housing, more tax raises on business, more anti-business legislation, more police in poor areas, etc. He did literally the opposite of what they claimed. Why do we let Warren and Sanders hysterically lie to us like this? Why do we let the left dominate this angry narrative and excuse them for it when its discovered to be a falsehood? The billionaires taking over narrative works, that's why, even when its clearly bullshit.
No idea about what a Trump presidency would be like, he clearly is playing the Tea party playbook here to get motivated GOP primary voters out there, but I imagine he'd be a milquetoast president probably unable to do much unless he maintains GOP majority in congress, and even then in-fighting in the GOP would be pretty rough on him. Honestly, a gridlocked congress that is ineffective would probably be best. There's a lot of federal meddling that is questionable to me that we've accepted as the status quo. Stopping that could only help.
I also think we also over-value what the presidency is. Its not a dictator. Without the support of congress, the president is fairly powerless outside of war powers and even those are limited without congress post-Nixon/Johnson. One of the wonders of the US is how well the founders got the balance of power right from early on. These decisions still pay dividends today.
That said, Clinton with a GOP majority congress is ideal to me. This scenario has enough gridlock to keep big government away a bit, enough gridlock to get good compromises, and Clinton's left-leaning stance on social issues are better, to me at least, than strict right-wing nonsense about alienating certain ethnic or religious groups. I also think SCOTUS has a strong right-wing advantage and it would be nice for Clinton to even that out.
The question asked was, "What did he do that proves he is racist or bigoted?" If you want to be pedantic and say that Trump is bigoted against an ethnicity instead of a race, then fine.
Why, pray tell, should I find ethnic bigotry less repugnant than racism?
This seems like the same advice YC has been giving for years minus the fact that the market seems to restricting based on the unicorn mess happening which is ultimately probably a good thing in the long term to avoid a bubble and a later collapse. Maybe I've missed the difference between this and the message they had been saying for years now. Though this does seem very solid and something not just YC companies should aim to do. Picking good investors is much more valuable than having a lot of money. Bad investors will give you a lot of money to spend on whatever they tell you spend it on, sometimes good sometimes bad, whereas good investors will give you a little less money and give you the freedom as the founder who may know best to spend it on what you think is best in the long run with some guidance.
I lived this first hand. I grew up in extreme poverty (by the US standards anyways) where my electricity/water were cut off occasionally and occasionally would have to wonder if I was going to eat that night. Though this is still better than most of the world, it sucked. a lot. No christmas, no birthdays. The most interesting part is now im software engineer making really good money, I can still see the rest of my family with the same mindset that enabled that kind of poverty. While I live below my means, they regularly live above it. They lack the self control to regulate their spending, if they get money they spend it like it might go away if they don't. Its institutional in ways because their parents were poor. Although I broke the cycle, my brother didnt and shows a lot of the same patterns. This article hits the point head on. I wonder if there is a way to hack the cycle and reduce the institutional aspect of poverty.
There was a really good article a while ago (this one, I think [1]), about why the poor make bad choices. Basically, the gist of it is that long-term, it doesn't matter - even if they made "good" choices, they would still remain poor. So they make "bad" choices (unprotected sex, pregnancy, smoking, impulse buying) that give them short-term pleasure, and hope they will get by somehow.
Do you think this would be possible for your family as well? For example, maybe your mindset is "save" because you earn a good salary and you know that if you save, in a few years you'll be well-off and will be able to afford exponentially more, whereas the rest of your family objectively has no way out of poverty, so they don't even try.
I agree that savings and restraint in spending are not the main issue. But on the other hand, if you:
1) Graduate high school,
2) Wait until age 21 to get married, and wait until marriage to have children; and
3) Have a full time job (any full time job),
then you have a 2% chance of living in poverty, and a 75% chance to be middle class. So in order to argue that bad choices don't matter, you need to make the case that one of these three steps is impossible for most people who are poor. I think your best bet is #3.
It's not clear from the article if those percentages include all of the society or just those that started out poor. If it's the former, it might be just correlation, not causation.
I'm pretty sure it's the former. I don't find it plausible that these three things wouldn't have a causal effect on income, but it's a fair point that it would be more useful to see those percentages broken down by starting income level.
I think maybe its subconscious but they view getting rich as a singular event like winning the lottery, gambling or a lawsuit (I wish I was kidding on the second one) and not an long term compounding effect using money as your leverage. That article is really good and I think sums that mindset up really well: if getting rich was a singular event then I will spend everything I have until the event happens to me.
I think this is a pretty basic and important point. Even though money "doesn't by happiness" it can buy escape, even for short periods of time. That escape is as powerful as any drug when your day-to-day life is significantly depressed, with no foreseeable exit.
So for some people, there's not much difference in $100 and $100,000 without education and impulse control.
Thats brilliant, seems well founded in research and well implemented. I really hope that it can continue to scale to more and more places. 445 communities is a smashing success already!
> I wonder if there is a way to hack the cycle and reduce the institutional aspect of poverty.
Countries with lower poverty rates have traditionally done this with welfare, free healthcare and social programs all funded by high tax rates. It works, but it doesn't fit well with the American ethos of every man to himself, where "redistribution of wealth" is seen as an encroachment on liberty rather than its biggest facilitator (as it's seen in other countries).
Some people remain poor even with very high effective interest rates. Here is quote about poor fruit vendors in Chennai, India, who have an effective interest rate of 4.69% per day (from an excellent book about poverty called 'Poor Economics' [1])
----------------------------
We have already seen, in the previous chapter, another example of people who had lucrative opportunities to save but did not use them: the fruit vendors from Chennai, who borrowed about 1,000 rupees ($45.75 USD PPP) each morning at the rate of 4.69 percent per day. Suppose that the vendors decided to drink two fewer cups of tea for three days. This would save them 5 rupees a day, which could be used to cut down on the amount they would have to borrow. After the first day with less tea, they would have to borrow 5 rupees less. This means that at the end of the second day, they would have to repay 5.23 rupees less (the 5 rupees they did not borrow, plus 23 paisas in interest), which, when added to the 5 rupees they saved that second day by again drinking less tea, would allow them to borrow 10.23 rupees less. By the same logic, by the fourth day, they would have 15.71 rupees that they could use for buying fruit instead of borrowing. Now, say they go back to drinking their two cups more tea but continue to plough the 15.71 rupees they had saved from three days of not drinking so much tea back into the business (that is, borrowing that much less). That accumulated amount continues to grow (just as the 10 rupees had turned into 10.71 after two days) and after exactly ninety days, they would be completely debt-free. They would save 40 rupees a day, which is the equivalent of about half a day's wages. All just for the price of six cups of tea!
As much as I think that government is partly to blame for a lot of systemic poverty problems, I'm going to have to agree with you. I think it's fairly obvious that the poor make bad "loans" even when the interest rates are higher.
At the end, it's all about moderation and planning. One can plan for a high-interest loan, heck I've had one (14%) until recently. It's definitely been an incentive to save, and work on getting it re-financed on better terms.
OnShift | Downtown Cleveland OH | Python Full Stack Software Engineer | All experience (and pay) levels | ONSITE
OnShift helps post acute care facilities (e.g. nursing homes) schedule and manage their hourly employees. We are a SAAS company using Python (Flask/SQL Alchemy), Postgres and other open source projects to solve real problems that prevent individuals from receiving the optimal care that they deserve. We are a truly Agile/Lean software shop that is growing extremely fast with ambitious goals. We have no expectations of Python experience, we are willing to teach the right candidates.
If this sounds interesting, shoot an email to awolfe (at) onshift (dot) com
I usually don't comment on immigration policies because I'm a US citizen and have never been an immigrant worker, however I dont believe this affects the long term success or failure of the H1B visa program and nor should it. We do exist in a global economy and you must therefore compete globally. If a company feels that they can get equal talent to mine in another country for cheaper costs then so be it; I didn't do a good enough job selling my talent or showing why Im worth my rate. Its also the company's loss if they chose to lay me off; I know what Im worth and Ill go find what Im worth. Even without the H1B visa program, companies will still do this; whether or not the company can employ the employee on US soil or not. This is in no way threatening to my way of life or makes me fear for my future career prospects. It sucks that Disney did this to their employees, but companies are no longer loyal to their people and haven't been for a long time; you should act accordingly and not show any loyalty to a company that shows you none.
> We do exist in a global economy and you must therefore compete globally.
I completely agree, but that's not what the H1-B visa program does. It allows companies to lock in immigrant workers at a lower rate and little to no job mobility. From a companies standpoint it is obviously what they want - pay less, and job lock in!
The fix for the H1-B is true immigration reform. We need to make it easy for people to come to the US and enter the job market just like anyone else.
Who's "us"? I don't know you, and I have friends who aren't Americans who have been prevented by immigration policy from taking jobs here that I know they'd have been great at. Why should I care more about you keeping your job--just because we were born in the same politically defined geographic area?
But if you need a self-interested explanation: because you don't want to be competing with people who have artificially-restricted bargaining power and so have to take lower wages. The H1B program as-is, like the old bracero program for farmworkers, is a "compromise" that benefits corporations at the expense of both native-born U.S. citizens and immigrants.
Why should you care? Possibly because you realize that undercutting your countrymen, the people you have to live with now regardless of whether they are employed or not, is something that makes your actual community now a worse place.
Call it self interest, but I want to live in a society that is functional and with neighbors that are happy. The alternative is to retreat further and further into an affluent bubble. Then, I admit, you don't have to care.
As soon as someone immigrates and becomes a citizen they are also your fellow countrymen.
Where the next huge industry starts, wherever that happens to be, will define the next super power. Having the US be attractive for foreigners to immigrate to and become citizens raises the odds the US will be that place. I don't want access to the Chinese or Indian stock markets, I want the best of their citizens to want to immigrate to the US and start companies here because the US is the best place for company formation (not arguing either way atm, just saying what I want). This type of environment raises all boats.
Instead we teach other countries best, send them home, and yield few of the benefits as they go on to start companies.
By that argument, it seems like you would be in favor of being extremely selective about who becomes your next fellow countryman. If he turns out to be a liability, you're just that little bit further away from being the next superpower. He may well not, but what if he does?
Could there be social welfare costs? Rising income inequality? Unemployment of current citizens?
If you want to frame the problem in economic terms, a frank discussion of the risks is mandatory. Right now we usually talk about it like a ca. 2008 banker might have talked about naked credit default swaps. Sure, there might be a risk. But think of how much money we can make!
"Community" is loose term - choosing to limit the boundaries to "your country" is arbitrary. There is an argument to be made that having the people best suited for a job work on it will improve long term economic viability of the product itself and in turn availability of the product to the "community". There is also the risk of losing the best talent to an entity outside this arbitrary definition of community and then get crushed by a superior, competing product/service - where is the economic sense in that?
Borders are another way of saying "local control". If, all things being equal, you would rather that political decisions happen closer to you than further away, then you are in favor of (arbitrary) borders.
I think it's an error to view concepts such as "community" and "your country" as quaint abstractions while putting full faith in "the product" and "economic viability". Economic arguments are important, but not comprehensive to the human experience. All things being equal, I'd rather live in a decent place with a decent economy, than a terrible place with great economy, or the reverse.
So I am skeptical of arguments that demand economic optimality over all other competing concerns such as culture, "community", happiness, etc. Perhaps economic optimality has diminishing marginal returns?
Economic optimality, in this case, is merely one of any number of quantifiable measures you can use to define what is decent vs terrible.
How does the place of birth of people working jobs (that they are good at) change what you call decent or terrible - what is your measure?
Because if you don't let them come in and compete fairly, your employer is going to bring them anyways, at half of your salary, and let you go with a kick in the ass.
Those are not your jobs, those are jobs for the take. If you don't like the situation maybe you should consider aligning your interest with the people that is in the same boat with you, not necessarily with the ones who happen to share your nationality.
I suppose the logic is that with the same bargaining power as domestic workers, there would be a lot less exploitation. By extension, "job taking" by underpaid foreigners would decrease but competition for jobs would increase.
Exactly. I have worked with many new/aspiring Americans and have no problem with them and welcome the competition. The problem is that they have much more to lose, so they are open to abuse. If I don't like a job, I can quit, but they can be deported. Current immigration policy treats foreign workers like crap and nobody should have to compete with another worker with the same skills but with a government stamp that allows them to be treated like garbage.
Who is _us_? As soon as someone immigrates here and becomes a citizen they are us. Way more dangerous than losing your job today is losing the next silicon valley because we refuse to let people who want to come here, work, and become citizens actually come here, work and become citizens.
If a country like the US were to open its floodgates to foreign workers most jobs, top to bottom, will be displaced by cheaper labor and wages would fall precipitously in the course of only a few years. Prices for durable goods, housing and land generally would not. The only question to ask is who exactly is served by this kind of policy? Rest assured not you, the worker.
> If a company feels that they can get equal talent to mine in another country for cheaper costs then so be it; I didn't do a good enough job selling my talent or showing why Im worth my rate. Its also the company's loss if they chose to lay me off; I know what Im worth and Ill go find what Im worth.
This is a very common line of thinking among the younger crowd. And especially in IT, since we all think we're brilliant ("I work at Google, I'm a pretty big deal"). The thing is though, one day in your 50s you ARE going to get replaced and it probably won't be because you suck, just that you're too expensive to keep around. And you may never get hired again. It DOES happen, and while a protectionism policy seems, like, totally unfair to everyone else, at the end of the day you have to look out for yourself.
> I didn't do a good enough job selling my talent or showing why Im worth my rate.
Why would the company hire you, when they can get someone almost as good as you but ready to work for low salary because they dont want to live in India and are afraid to open their mouth because then the employer would send them back to India.
I hate to sound all conspiracy theorist crazy but this makes me scared of the fact that people may start to just up and disappear 1984 style. Covering up murders of people is not good on even a personal level as nobody gets closure, but on a wider societal scale its just frightening. It starts with takedowns on Facebook and moves into the larger media: whats next? CNN?
It's happened in the past, the same drives that motivate "disappearances" haven't gone anywhere and we're a country with a recent history of disappearing people to black sites to never be seen again.
Inconvenient content is buried or erased on the internet all the time. Entire events have been tried to be erased from the from the internet (think Great Wall).
Nothing is more inconvenient than Joe Citizen catching you red handed and making it public.
Monitoring or shutting down social media and chat services is one of the first thing that happens during a political upheaval. Violence and people dying in the streets is inconvenient.
It's too bad that you had to say that in a public venue, but at least it's a niche like HN - where it's all tech geeks, and virtually certain that no one here actually knows or interacts with you on any regular basis. Expect a knock at your door in 3... 2...
This won't end well for Zenefits. Its not quite a deathknell for them, but there is zero case where Zenefits doesn't settle outside of court or loses the case. They will need to spend time/resources to raise another round and fight the chance that ADP doesn't build a competitor them in the mean time. This is the kind of momentum shifter that kills startups.
Yeah I agree; even if Zenefits is 100% in the right here ADP has the resources to drag this out for quite some time and cost them a very large amount of money. If Zenefits is in the right I wonder if they can produce evidence and try to use SLAPP regulation (not sure if that works for companies but then again companies are people, right?). I'm obviously not a lawyer :)
> Barring some outliers, the difference between lawsuits that are dragged out and ones that aren't is not a factor of 10, it's probably a factor of 1.2.
That's crazy talk. You can double the length of a lawsuit in one simple stroke just by having your attorney say "Sorry that week is bad for me can we do [date]" every time there's a continuance or adjournment. You can set return dates for any motions you initiate to the last date permitted, you can meet every filing deadline in the last hour, etc.
The legal system has many built-in safeguards and protections for all parties but guaranteeing timeliness just isn't one of them.
no, actually you can't. It is not possible in ND Cal to "set return dates for any motions you initiate to the last date permitted." That's just not how motions work in ND Cal. And responding on the last hour of every filing deadline is what everybody does all the time. That's why most deadlines are fairly short (30 days, e.g.).
The real driver of court delay is the judge, not the litigants. I've had judges routinely sit on motions (fully briefed) for 9 months in ND Cal. Then one party or the other will move for reconsideration and it's another six month delay. It's just the nature of the beast; judges in the federal system carry very heavy caseloads, particularly ND Cal.
"The real driver of court delay is the judge, not the litigants. I've had judges routinely sit on motions (fully briefed) for 9 months in ND Cal. Then one party or the other will move for reconsideration and it's another six month delay. It's just the nature of the beast; judges in the federal system carry very heavy caseloads, particularly ND Cal.
"
This is precisely why i said why is said. Because the litigants are not often the cause/controllers of the delay, despite their best efforts :)
Now, certainly, if the judges/etc were more efficient, yeah, you could pull out a factor of 10x. But the way things are, for a simple defamation suit, i can't see you getting more than maybe a 2x factor through various tactics.
> Then one party or the other will move for reconsideration and it's another six month delay.
Exactly. The exact vagaries of how each clerk sets calendar dates and whatnot wasn't my point. My point was that I have never seen a civil litigation forum in the U.S. where either party doesn't have half a dozen methods that can effectively double the amount of time it takes to get through the same procedure.
Most defamation suits take around a year or so to get to trial. As a litmus test, the recent Jesse Ventura defamation suit took two years to conclude.
This doesn't include appeals either, which can drag the process out even further.
Depending on where the trial is set, and how expensive Zenefits legal counsel is, this could be a huge financial burden for them to undertake and quickly drain their resources.
I don't know: 55b is a huge number, not unfathomable of course but huge. Salesforce is a great company and a no doubt innovative and disruptive one, but they hold no talent that Microsoft doesn't have and they will hold very few businesses that are not already Microsoft customers in some regard. You might be able to argue that they have a lot of cloud expertise, but Microsoft has already built some incredible cloud offerings in Office365, Outlook and Onedrive that share a lot of the overlap with Salesforce. I have a hard time believing that Microsoft would even want any part of that, it just seems like a huge waste of cash for a very little upside. If they had mentioned Oracle, it might be a little more feasible.
The difference between Oracle and Microsoft is that Oracle has offerings in the majority of the places that Salesforce.com plays in. Oracle has a CRM, a Marketing Cloud, Analytics, and so on.
Microsoft has a CRM, but not one with a significant market share. They also have an analytics platform, but not one that is as clearly defined - there's SQL Server, Azure Analytics, BI for 365. They have no marketing management, no real helpdesk/support system, etc.
If anything I would say that there is much less overlap between MSFT and SFDC vs. Oracle and SFDC.
Plus Ellison is an investor in Netsuite - not that it precludes a SFDC acquisition, but it's yet another hurdle.
Very true. I work for SalesForce's only major competitor. We were acquired by Oracle as social marketing is a space that they had almost no understanding of but a strong desire to enter. Since our company was already researching social analytics, sentiment analysis and direct social marketing tools, I'm sure it was easier for them to acquire us than start R&D on their own tool suites. Not to mention our already installed client base. Salesforce is a hot commodity in our space. Were MS to acquire them they would have a foot in the social space with almost no time investment and little onboarding expenses. I'm kind of surprised this deal fell through.
Salesforce is also generating $6b of revenue per year, and is still growing really fast. It's an awesome business to own even if it didn't have the other benefits of improving Microsoft's capabilities/talent.
This is the coolest thing I've seen in a while when it comes to conference. As someone with a young family, I cringe when I have to think about going to another city for a conference, which is all the time because I live in Cleveland. Its not the travel, I rather like traveling: its leaving the wife with the kids and just up and going. This allows me to take the kids and wife, and not feel too bad about abandoning them to fend for themselves for a week.
This is exactly why I'm organizing it. I have two kids (and a husband who likes to have me around), and it's always a bit of chaos when I leave for a conference.
Thanks for organizing it! Ill get with my wife, but this seems very affordable and fun event in particular for a family of four its the same cost as a normal "large" conference ticket and those don't include all you can eat food and daycare.
My kids both love the programs available, and they go all the way up to 17. For the teens, the format is about hanging out, and for the older teens, they even have exclusive excursions.
