I may just be a biased engineer, but until you find a way to apply your theoretical maths, surely it doesn’t matter if there are theoretical differences between approaches?
In the same way some heterodox political philosophies may result in new moral systems, but it doesn’t really matter that these moral systems are different to the status quo, until someone uses it as an ideology for their revolution.
It’s probably good to have a variety of theory to choose from, except when your different theories result in different practical outcomes.
Path A: you’re shown the meme; “lmfao, nice” — now you’ve broken ice or strengthened a bond
Path B: “nah” — “whatever”
——
Don’t send your kids to a run of the mill public school — which is infested with children of asshats, jackasses, and assholes. Don’t live in in that sort of community. If you can help it, these will be some of the biggest factors in how your kid turns out.
I’ve been to a lot of schools. Kids from parents that just don’t give a shit will turn out like them: vampires, parasites, and people that generally drag others down for their own benefit (unless they’re lucky and get out).
Mean kids come from mean families. Usually people are mean because they don’t have the resources to fill whatever hole they have in them — and have to use maladaptions to get their fix. I.e. money problems and never taught the skills or given the resources to ease them.
I.e. send your kid to a private school that is recommended by people you trust. Just like you would a dentist, or a mechanic, and so on.
Easier said than done, but not an unsolvable problem.
> Don’t send your kids to a run of the mill public school — which is infested with children of asshats, jackasses, and assholes.
This is so obvious to me(from reading, observation and my own experience in public school) that I don't understand why smart, educated people don't realize this.
No way I'm going to send my kids to the cesspool that is public school if I can help it. People can call me and my family privileged all they want. What should I do, downgrade my child's education and life because it's not fair I have the resources others don't?
- If you map out the entire system, and understand how all the pieces fit together, you can: make something simpler that fulfills reqs/does the same exact thing; use template metaprogramming to generate the source code for you, instead of writing it by hand
The only issue is very few people will have the skills or the patience to sit down and try to understand metaprogramming. So you won't be able to take advantage of it in most business use-cases (i.e. won't easily be able to find another cog to work on it), despite how powerful it is.
It's like why more people don't work with K (or functional langs, etc.): it's not a simple procedural or OO language, so it's harder to learn -- and harder to get started with.
Same reason we (SW engineers) think X field is easy and can be self-taught: the fundamentals are easy to learn, but figuring out where and how to deal with edge cases when they pop up is something that can only be learned with experience.
I see the same with a certain subset of finance people who learn Python, and start thinking coding is easy. Yeah, fair you can whip some simple Jupyter notebook using Pandas to analyze time-series. Now build out a distributed, fault-tolerant ETL (CRUD++) system that follows all business rules, is maintainable/readable, and can scale to atleast 100 "servers."
Perhaps not the most apt comparison -- but the fundamentals in every field are easy to learn; but working at the edge is something you have no experience in until you do.
> Same reason we (SW engineers) think X field is easy and can be self-taught: the fundamentals are easy to learn, but figuring out where and how to deal with edge cases when they pop up is something that can only be learned with experience.
Ironic post from the person who thinks Reddit would be trivial to recreate. Your whole account reads like a parody.
In fairness, of all the long-winded, self-important, over-socialized drivel that New Yorker puts out, this is atleast somewhat focused on the “real world” (and not the latest hot topic for over-educated yuppies to have neurotic fits about).
People who have never worked hard labor/trades/“back-breaking work” have zero insight into what goes on in the jobs being discussed, aside from some misplaced abstract notion of “I spent my youth being educated in a school — so that is what’s good and right; and all children should have that life.”
I grew up in a blue collar, rural part of the country. Education sucked — it was a waste of time that wouldn’t help you much at all in life. You will sit in a classroom for hours every single day, and for what? So you can go to college? You’re a lower class white kid from bumfuck America, no way you’re getting in; and no way you’re not paying for it yourself if you do.
If you’re lucky, there’s a church around that has families that own construction companies attending. They’ll set you up with some work, take decent care of you, and now you’re part of a community.
Hell, maybe your family or friends own a trades biz, and will take you on as an apprentice.
If not, then you take up the shitwork (landscaping, concrete, roofing), start building your skillset, and start learning and earning. Once you have a little bit saved up and can prove you’re not a drugged up criminal, you might start shooting for better work. You’re 20 now, you’re still young, you have no debt, a little bit of cash, and you have some hard skills, the world is your oyster.
Instead of being 22-24 graduating into a tech recession, with zero real skills, a bunch of debt, and little hope of landing your first job unless you schmooze or play dirty.
You go from one caricature to the next, trying to sound like you have it figured out. And yet, your inexperience shows from how you view the world.
I think you should self-reflect on whether you're projecting the same flaws you exhibit onto others, whose shoes you also haven't walked in. I think you're earlier on the Dunning-Kruger line than you believe.
It helps that the “upper class” is mostly faux, and driven by fashion more than anything innate.
Zuckerberg is not upper class in the classical sense. He doesn’t have the resources or molding to truly be able to fuck off, live in the woods in a centuries-old mansion, rolling in debauchery and in complete disassociation from humanity.
I.e. if you know about them, they’re not upper class, but very high upper middle class (they still “work” and participate in vulgar activities like business, rather than utterly “worthless” activities that are driven by innate desire, not glorified peer pressure).
Mitt Romney is upper middle class. The Bushes are upper middle class. The Sacklers, the Clintons, the Kochs, Buffett, Gates, the Siemens, the Onassis’, the Waltons — all relatively new players, and haven’t yet been aged by centuries of absolute apathy and detachment. Ellison is definitely getting there.
I think the biggest difference between him and the rest are upbringing. Ellison was not raised upper middle class, and had little regard for his family and circle. He did not have countless other upper middle class people around him in his formative years to mold his soul into conforming with upper middle class sensibilities (make money, gain influence, be interesting, important, play the image game, etc.). And now he’s fucked off to Lanai.
The only thing that man values is himself and his capricious desires — that is what the upper class is. There is no internal need within him to conform to external pressures. The man is a cunt.
What about the rest of the list? They grew up in relative affluence, and the upper middle class sensibilities have been imprinted onto them. To use a pop-culture example, none of them are Logan Roys. They care how people view them — especially their intimates. They might feign thoughtless excellence, but deep down they’re driven by the external forces that molded them.
If there’s any amusing note it’s that the true upper class has more in common with the lower class than it does with the middle. The middle lives on lies and self-deceptions, while the upper and lower only care about themselves and their authentic desires.
For example, compare Roedean to Philips Exeter. The people are utterly different — and the wealth and money is but a surface measure.
I basically agree, with defining upper class as able to live on interest on inherited income and not having to work. The super rich tech founders don’t neatly fit into this class system because they have sometimes even more money than the old rich, but worked and still work and don’t have the upper class cultural attitudes.
Isn’t your distinction just a choice though? You’re saying, if I am reading correctly, that the upper class is restricted to those who don’t work / care for external validation and instead choose to live a life of leisure.
I'd say there's nuance to be had here. They don't just choose leisure, they, through generational practice and upbringing, can do so without completely becoming undone in the process.
See: what happens to most people who win the lottery, not having been first acclimated to that sort of wealth and leisure.
Look at the sorts of things the Victorian aristocracy indulged in. It's not that they couldn't instead have been diving face first into mountains of cocaine and very top shelf booze. They just also had the ability to pace themselves and find forms of leisure that weren't debaucherous, but nor were they work.
New money typically goes one way or the other -- it's that middle path that the old upper class manages to find a way to travel.
* Well-rounded in the context of a specific sub-culture, and such
The flip side being, a father is not an absolute necessity, so long as there are adults with testosterone-correlated traits (actual; not stereotypical) in the life of the child.
This could be one of the mothers, or it could be male figures in other areas.
If such a constitution was written as you suggest, then it would have been outdated and torn up long ago. It would have been too rigid to stand the test of time. Also HN supports at least one emoji (囧).
There are several theories in designing constitutions. Many countries just give up and rely on common law instead. The more rigid constitutions tend to be ignored or the countries fall off into chaos, so America is somewhat successful in its implementation of constitutional law.
Chinese jiong should be the only emoji allowed on HN, since it is a valid Chinese character, but then so is a swastika (in both directions, non-nazi Buddhist meanings of course).
Ironically, you’re doing exactly what the parent is describing: being pedantic to prove a point/win an argument because the OP was too hasty and forgot to append “pseudo” to his “intellectual.”
I’m certain most of us know what the parent is talking about on an intuitive, vs verbal level (i.e. the idea was communicated, even if the words used to communicate it were not 100% on point)
That would require for you to be a well-rounded person that hasn’t optimized for only one facet of the job (e.g. money, technical skill, etc.) — at that point might as well be an entrepreneur.
It would also require that your interviewees are not comprised of psychos willing to take whatever measure necessary to get what they want (i.e. play the game/talk the talk) — which usually does not happen when a lot of money or power is being offered.
In theoretical maths, yes.