Your comment really resonated with me. It's like that person who attempts to beat procrastination in order to get things done by... reading books about procrastination.
In which case the fault shifts to media and schools for not explaining how things are.
In Linux distribution terms, OP and the public want the stable distribution while in fact due to the nature of the field you can only get rolling updates.
Can we stop with this argument? Every time a business makes a business-oriented decision someone will pop out to call them out for being acting for their own benefit, as if it's somehow bad.
Like every human exchange, you don't have to be an altruist for your deed to be good. It's alright to do "good" even if it derives some sort of benefit for yourself or your company.
I have no problems with mixed motives, it's a complicated world.
But a lot of people are saying 1) this doesn't offer anything educationally that wasn't already available and 2) introduces users to restrictions that will ultimately be costs to their educational development.
There is 3) teachers will be familiar with Windows and thus more able to offer computer education with it. You can do real stuff on a Windows machine, but most of what I see on Windows machines in schools is "here kids, this is how you work Excel / Word Powerpoint". Frankly I worry that inner city schools will be blanketed with these things, with token "computer education" offered on them, and everyone congratulating themselves on addressing the technology gap while the kids learn some Office and not much more.
Doesn't that say that the tools / model being offered here is fundamentally broken? If you can't give it away without slowing down the progress you're trying to help, that's a problem.
monopolistic and anti-competitive business practices-which Microsoft is well known for-have been significantly harmful to large numbers of people.
there are plenty of "business-oriented decisions" that are bad for others; being pro-competition or anti-monopoly is not the same thing as being anti-business in general, as you seem to be implying here.
the poster was talking about Microsoft's use of network effects as an anti-competitive strategy, not about criticizing a company attempting to make money.
I'm terrified to follow the start-up route as well, because I'm 34 and I know that
a) Silicon Valley is notorious for its implicit ageism
b) Once I'm 40 and have 4 years of experience working in start-ups I'll be dismissed from either getting hired or getting funded because I'm old.
The only thing that makes this topic worthy of upvoting is because people identify a company doing things an entire culture does. Sure you can bring a lawyer and pull a company to the court (good luck proving that they discriminated you based on age) but a culture? How do you even do that? You can't.
This is why I find it hypocritical that people act appalled on the idea that a company is doing what everyone admits a culture does but for the company is punishable and "well deserved" to be punished for it. In fact, I imagine there will be some sort of standing ovation somewhere in the world when an ageism case is won against ANY Microsoft, whereas for the culture is just "how things are" and it's your job to avoid it.
>In case this was on your radar at all: no, you should not found a startup. Most people who "should" found a startup can't imagine doing anything else. It drives everything they do.
So you're claiming that founding a startup can only be valid if it's a purely emotional urge rather than identifying a rational opportunity? That's black and white thinking.
Founding a startup is not rational. The vast majority of people lose a ton of money at it. It's not a good way to make any money.
There was an article a few years back that analyzed common traits among successful founders. There weren't many of them, but irrational optimism was one.
VCs are looking for people "with their hair on fire" for a reason. Starting a company is a painful, back-breaking, alienating grind, and if you don't have an intense emotional urge to get through it, you just won't.
It'd be nice if it weren't the case, but emotions are absolutely vital in understanding and making decisions.
I felt a headache/migraine coming up within a minute and immediately closed it. I can't afford to play Hotline Miami for the screen shaking effect that adds, either.
I know one more guy who complained about Hotline Miami's screen shake: Totalbiscuit. Maybe I should try and link it to him on Twitter in hopes that he'll give me feedback.
As a beginner I recall myself asking other programmers "is using pen and paper cool before writing any actual code?" and they giggled before nodding in agreement.
I had this false expectation in my head that when programmers tackle a new problem (be either writing a small program or solving a challenge) they're able to think about it for a few minutes then straight up write code and if I can't it's because I suck and this job isn't for me.
Then I realized that what I expected was unrealistic and the "no pen and paper" stage only occurs to people who already met the same or similar challenge before and can recall even the slightest hint of what they did back then.
I think spamming refresh happens not because you're narcissist but because you are eager to see if your opinion is well-received by others. That can be unhealthy. It's one thing to get feedback from multiple sources to notice things and behaviors that are harmful or unwanted (like being cocky or people feeling you're argumentative) and another if you're anxious to learn whether or not others will find value in what you said.
It's roughly like... The "nice guy syndrome", where a person is engaged with what others expect from him so much that he undermines what he personally wants. In online forum terms this might mean that you're commenting in favor of the popular opinion of the forum and not voicing your own opinion to see whether it has flaws or not. Naturally, this is one of the many reasons why a community becomes an "echo chamber".
I'll follow your advice.