I agree with his assessment. Any data representation can be construed as a graph - this is the basis of garbage collection. Besides the areas where graphs (or networks) are explicit in a problem, the most powerful use comes in analyzing a given model/algorithm. If you don't take that step to the meta-level, you might not see the use for graph theory.
The best opportunities aren't the ones being screened by HR. Most job postings look like someone got a description of the job from the manager, looked for the sentence fragments that could be classified as skills or experience, then put those in as the list of requirements.
LinkedIn is probably a closer approximation to what's needed, but as far as I can tell it's hard to get far out of your acquaintances with a basic account.
I expected an article decrying unions, but found one decrying the licensing of doctors and lawyers.
To use the case of florist licensing to condemn all licensing is an egregious leap. In general I believe it is sound policy to license professions where the ordinary consumer of their services cannot be expected to know how to judge their quality. Highly specialized professions dealing with the general public such as doctors and lawyers are obvious candidates. For the actuarial profession, you might argue that the hiring companies should be sufficiently sophisticated to judge their competence without formal credentialing. The hidden consumer in this case are the insurance regulators and the public relying on them. And, in fact, companies don't always require credentials in actuarial roles, but regulators won't accept annual statements without a supporting statement from a properly credentialed actuary.
I think lawyers are a problematic case. With most professions you can go to court if the designated gatekeepers are acting in an illegal or unethical fashion. The state Bar association, on the other hand, is going to be nearly impossible to fight for anyone who plans on making a living as an attorney. So, while I do support the goal of ensuring a base level of competence for a professional that may be the only thing standing between you and a jail cell, I am deeply concerned about the current mechanism for achieving that goal. The completely free market leaves too much blood on the floor for my taste to be worth considering as a solution.
This article isn't about sex, or even relationships per se, it's about evaluating the riskiness of a particular kind of venture, and how women evidently miscalculate the opportunity cost of finding "Mr Right".
Nonsense. It is very much about relationships. Read the title. Now, you can argue that it's metaphorically about or related to other things but the problem with that kind of mush-headed reasoning is then everything is about everything and everything is appropriate for any forum. It's the sort of dilution and loss of focus that that makes forums grow useless. When you fired up your browser and brought up HN today, were you really looking forward to reading one woman's soulsearching article about finding a mate? And some then some dude's bizarre rationalizations (see top comment on thread) why he won't date women older than 26 (28 if they're Asian!). This is plainly not 'Hacker News' unless you define 'Hacker News' so broadly that it includes what I had for lunch today.
You are confusing the pragmatics of the decision to take the plunge into marriage with the underlying relationship. I'm interested in entrepreneurial risk-taking, and the kinds of considerations and miscalculations discussed in the article are entirely relevant. There's nothing metaphoric about it, though you may find some of the obscuring detail extraneous or expressed in an insufficiently detached manner.
I'm confusing something? You just called an article about relationships an article not about relationships. And the risk taking described in the article is not 'entrepreneurial' except metaphorically. The article is about finding a husband. Sure, you can find some kind of business-related lesson in there but again, if you can do that you can find a business-related lesson in almost anything.
First, "settling" is a highly offensive term. Anyone using that term is living in a fantasy world. I read the author as using it facetiously, though, since that is pretty much the point of the article.
Second, she soundly observes that marriage is basically a business partnership, except she considers it nonprofit (I do not). Assuming you aren't somehow committed to the single life, you should evaluate marriage opportunity based on your appetite for risk and a frank assessment of the opportunity at hand. Just as you shouldn't base decisions on sunk costs, you should ignore illusory opportunity costs. Physical capital decays, if you want a return on it you'll have to take a risk before it loses all of its production capacity. Of course, the older you get without taking a plunge, the easier it becomes to see the illusory nature of the opportunity cost you might have been using.
This all assumes you have a marriage opportunity that you can see having a profitable return (profit measured in happiness here). I would go so far as to say that it's impossible to judge marriage as an institution to be inherently profitable for you personally; it will always depend on the particulars. You might think marriage sounds like the place you want to be, but if you don't find a good partner for yourself in particular, marriage isn't for you.
As long as you don't have kids and both spouses have careers, getting out of the marriage is relatively easy. On the other hand, you only get one life, don't waste it avoiding risks whose most catastrophic downsides are not that bad.
I have assumed you aren't marrying a black widow or having kids with an affinity for patricide/matricide. But worrying about the latter is like worrying about being hit by lightning while not batting an eyelash over driving a car regularly. Avoiding the former is a matter of due diligence.
I disagree, they're augmenting the current impact of a super-human level of concentration displayed by an "uberhacker" by giving the fruits of that capacity to everyone. Automating a super-human level of concentration in one part of the development process will free up brain cycles for use elsewhere. The best developers won't instantly cease to be the best developers because of a mind-mapping IDE.
It would certainly be nice for work supported by public funds, but that isn't the way it is now. I'm assuming the OP needs the information in the journals now or in the near future, so he has to operate under current conditions.
