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).
Part of the problem is that markets don't distinguish between "screw the little guy (or the clueless VC) and make a quick buck" returns, and "have customers flocking to you because your product is awesome and it makes them awesome too" returns.
As far as markets are concerned, there's only money. Accountants and auditors know nothing about social value, and care less.
How can you measure social value when there are no accepted metrics?
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 :(
Industry leading premium heaters/friers, maybe :-D Those early Envys were hot as hell and the processor was right under the palm rest. Quite an idiotic design...
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.
Honestly, the "freedom to move" thing is a red herring in these discussions. There is a whole lot of friction to moving that is not tied up in how you pay for your residence. For most people, loss of social networks, loss of nearby family, and disruption to children are much bigger barriers to moving than owning their residence.
That said, the other features you mention are much better examples of limits that come from buying. It really depends on how stable real estate pricing is and what direction the market is trending.
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."
Not really. And it's not a translation error. Here's the original:
"Velocissimum omnium animalium, non solum marinorum, est delphinus, ocior volucre, acrior telo, ac nisi multum infra rostrum os illi foret medio paene in ventre, nullus piscium celeritatem eius evaderet."
Looking at pictures of dolphins, I guess he's referring to the fact that they have a very long beak ("rostrum") and therefore the mouth cavity ("os") is tucked in a lot more than other fish-like creatures. So much, indeed, that it might look like its mouth orifice is almost close to its belly.
He could have explained that a bit better, I guess, but something might be lost in the different nuances of meanings we give to "muzzle" and "mouth".
Let's cut him some slack, though. The guy was able to identify a singular dolphin thanks to the cuts made (by sailors, I guess) on its dorsal fin. That's a technique researchers are basically still using today in the photo-identification of sea mammals.
Maybe there are other animals mixed in there too. This seemed odd to me (although I'm far from a marine biologist):
"...would present his back for him to mount, taking care to conceal the spiny projection of his fins in their sheath..."
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.
> (Google and Apple specifically) aggressively optimized their business around labor and tax laws to the point of conflict with the spirit of those laws.
This is pretty forgiving language to describe two companies that actively (illegally) colluded to depress the market value of their senior employees.
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.
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?
You have to make a distinction between someone who's writing a research paper, and therefore constantly checking sources, and someone who's writing fiction. For the latter, a single monitor is less distracting, but for the former, a second monitor for the sources can be beneficial.
I disagree. Maybe because I don't exclusively do web development, but I find I'm significantly more productive with on monitor than two.
I switched from a 15" thinkpad to a 13" mackbook pro about a year ago, and even just that screen size and small resolution switch makes me feel more productive. They're comparatively speced, the only real difference is size and bulk, and that the macbook has significantly worse graphics capabilities, but in the grand scheme of things, they're basically the same underlying specs for development, just with a different screen.
Yeah, it is a bit of a pain to have to switch workspaces, or just rotate through windows to recompile something, or check a modification made to a web page compared to just turning your head a little, but because I'm forced to pay attention to one main thing at a time, I feel significantly more productive at that one thing.
It's mostly like the author said, removing additional distractions from the screen.
It would depend on what and how you are writing. A user manual could be much easier to write with the program on a second monitor and I have considered moving in a second monitor for sources when I am blogging, but if I was writing a novel I doubt it would make much of a difference - in that case I would want to have any notes on piece of paper.
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 :)
Startups a great! I worked in few and learned a lot. I just tried to address op's pretty direct question on how to make money as a dev. Startups are a very bad odds lottery for devs in the end. Even if you are amazing it does not make the startup fail or work. You might save it for aquihire though :)
I agree that in many startups their technological prowess plays a very large part in their success. However, most startups (as far as I am aware) do not actually "replace an incumbent". Usually it's more a case of "hey, I got this great new idea that no one has seriously approached before". They develop that idea, create a new niche-market and then get bought up by an incumbent of the main market.
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.
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).