I learned once (on npr when i used to listen to it) that when you hear some new information, you should immediately think the opposite. This gives you the ability to not subconsciously weight the idea you heard higher than you should. After all, for every point in life a reasonable counter point exists.
I've done this for many years and I do believe the practice has helped me not blindly believe things.
You can be right and still go broke shorting something. "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." And shorting crypto has additional challenges beyond shorting traditional securities.
By six, you're usually at something like "because that makes me happy". By seven, you're into metaphysics and cognitive science.
Of course, some issues are genuinely simple, and you're off in unhelpful territory halfway through. I suspect five why's is a decent estimate, but not necessarily more accurate than four.
American government was intended to be limited. That would limit the number of people, and the power that they have in government.
Today, our government is huge, and has a lot of power. This means that often times the people that get into government aren't doing it as a servant to the people, but instead as a service to themselves.
We need more servants. Viewing this reality and calling it Apathy or not Apathy is a perspective. We are all free to our perspective, and I think the wider variety, the better.
When you decide to start a business, often times, you'll be doing lots of things you don't really want to be doing for that business. Like filing paperwork with the state or making sure your taxes are done on time. This stuff adds up and there is a lot of it.
To start a business, you really have to enjoy the product you are building enough to cover the work you don't want to do and enough to no longer do some things you enjoy doing in your life, as you may no longer have time for it.
Starting a real business is a challenge. I would suggest, if you do have an idea, try to build it. If you can build the idea, you might want to consider starting a business around it.
Starting by building is a great way to waste a huge amount of time on solving a problem no one has. Start by talking to potential customers and growing an email list, not building. Aside from being less risky, it's way more fun to work on something that you know people want and are waiting for.
It also conditions you for the fact that you'll need to spend at least 50% of your time on squishy marketing stuff to get anywhere. You can't just code your way to getting customers.
Building a product is easy. Especially if you are an engineer. Getting people to pay for a product now that's where a business sprouts from. Just because you built a product doesn't mean you have a company/business. You need users and those willing to pay for it. Most realize this when it comes to raising Series A.
We create organizations because even for their bloat, they make things more efficient than having individuals doing their individual, uncoordinated things. So no. Also, Japan railways were in fact privatized and so the heroes of this story are actually people working for private companies. I'm not sure if tax money is even used here, and if so, then probably not much of it.
For the record, I don't think your stupid if you have a child accidentally.
However, once you do accidentally have a child, the results are often not pretty, and I will feel bad watching as you deal with the consequences of your poorly thought out decision.
Regarding programming, I can't see the relationship you make at all.
If you write a good program, well good job. If you write a bad program, you are probably going to write a better one next time. (Ever look back at your old code?)
It takes practice to get good, and the more we work at it, the better we'll get. Just keep trying.
I think defen's point was that if a team produces truly high-quality C code, it's similar to a couple that both abstain until marriage. Yes, it's technically possible, but it's rare, and it's not something that should be the expected outcome (that is, most C code will have some problems, and most couples will have at least a little bit of regrettable sexual history before they're married).
It's as if I say: "Step 1 of writing good code: Don't make mistakes. If you make mistakes, you deserve what's coming to you!" Some mistakes are expected, and essentially inevitable; they're the default, not the exception. Blaming the programmer might seem like the right thing to do, but there's more practical benefit to improving the tools and teaching programmers how to handle errors, so that we can decrease the negative impact that bugs will have.
The point of the analogy is that it is very easy to prescribe behavior that is guaranteed to work if followed 100% to the letter, but fails catastrophically if there is even 1 mistake. There are two responses to this - you can either design systems that are easier to follow & fail less catastrophically in the real world (don't use C for new code if you don't need it; teach people about safe sex practices), OR you can double down on the sermonizing about how if people had just been smarter / had more willpower, they wouldn't be in this bad situation.
> However, once you do accidentally have a child, the results are often not pretty... Regarding programming, I can't see the relationship you make at all.
It's either that or the life of the grasshopper ;)
Now that I think of it, there's another parallel with unwanted pregnancies. There are men that stick around, and there are boys who run and let others clean up after their mess.
For what it's worth, as a white male, I've never had a bad experience opting out. At the very worst, they're curt and overly professional. Most of the time they make small chat.
I have had bad experiences twice. I am polite but refuse to answer questions or make small talk. Twice the man moved his hand "upwards until resistance" very fast and into my testicle. I complained and the managers response was "he has to go up until he feels resistance." TSA Complaint made, response was "no substantiating evidence." Shades of a police state.
