This is not about evaluating what is objectively better for the consumer. There is much less tolerance for the "ask for forgiveness, not permission" mentality in Germany than America, and this ruling proves that. If a competitor like Lyft goes into Germany now, plays by the rules, and shows respect to the existing order, I would not be surprised to see them welcomed and take a huge lead in Europe.
They will gladly shut the service down once someone offers them enough money in aqui-hire.
It's a bummer this is the status quo with startups. To me, it's the most disappointing thing about the tech world. I actually interviewed at other companies first, and only cofounded Inbox when I couldn't find anywhere else to solve this problem.
Probably the only convincing thing I can say is that if you wanted to build a company to flip quickly, an email infrastructure startup is certainly the most painful, masochistic way you could go about it. We spent the better part of last year reading RFCs and fixing tons of obscure bugs to get this far.
Disagree. It's harsh to make a point that there is no evidence they're telling the truth, not to be edgy or get attention. It would be better without the 'shut up' but a bit of an 'angry' tone is fitting.
Really, I'm more uncomfortable with a link to a webcomic joke as an argument point...
I'm just citing where I got the 'theory.' The OP of the comment could have made their point just fine without being confrontational or 'angry' as you put it. I don't see why people are defending someone's rudeness, you can get your point across without being a jerk about it.
The 'shut up' detracts from the comment. Being a jerk is bad.
But being confrontational is in this case a benefit. The first line is "Your claim that your product will not be discontinued is worthless." This is confrontational in a good way, and this line is not being a jerk. It's pointing out a serious flaw without attacking anyone.
It could be phrased differently still without insinuating that what they say is worthless.
Something like,
"How will you back up your claim of the product not being discontinued?" or "What will prevent your product from being discontinued?" Gets the same point across without coming off rude (it may just be me but saying "your claim ... is worthless" seems rude.) The OP of the comment definitely has a good point but it's said in a way that isn't constructive.
No it isn't. If I want to call the poster a fuckwad, I'll call him one. The only reason I linked the comic is because it may not be common knowledge to everyone where the 'theory' is from.
Then you're just poisoning the well with a bit of ad hominem (in a pretty stupid way), saying that someone else's opinion is wrong because they're anonymous when you're anonymous yourself.
That's the name of the 'theory' while it does imply that they're a 'fuckwad' (whatever that may be) it's not my chosen word to call them, I'm just citing it. But go ahead and defend the unnecessary rudeness and hide behind your throwaway account. I'll make it clear: The OP of the comment is being an asshole/fuckwad/douchebag/<insert word conveying sentiment here> by being needlessly rude due to the anonymity provided by having an online pseudonym.
there are 4400 software engineers, but only 285 senior software engineers that shared their salaries. Not sure if that's the actual ratio, but I'm sure it's not too far off.
The fundamental problem is actually the arbitrary separation of the practical and theoretical. They should be informing one another.
Consider this: many great "theoretical" discoveries in history, including those in CS, were not theoretical at their inception. They were the result of people trying to solve practical problems -- not the product of a bunch of debt-ridden students trying to maximize GPA in an ivory tower. This cannot be overstated.
At the end of the day, the distinction between academic and practical is largely self-imposed, at least partially ego-driven, and probably highly inefficient for society as a whole. If you want "practical" people to engage "theoretical" problems, then make it practical for them.
On the other hand, the Turing machine (a machine capable of universal computation.. ie a computer) was invented as a method of solving a highly theoretical, seemingly useless mathematics problem called the Entscheidungsproblem, in Hilbert's list:
10. Determination of the solvability of a Diophantine equation. Given a Diophantine equation with any number of unknown quantities and with rational integral coefficients: To devise a process according to which it can be determined in a finite number of operations whether the equation is solvable in rational integers. The Entscheidungsproblem is solved when we know a procedure that allows for any given logical expression to decide by finitely many operations its validity or satisfiability ... The Entscheidungsproblem must be considered the main problem of mathematical logic.
Computers may seem obvious in hindsight but it was formally defined to solve a theoretical mathematics problem by the mathematician Alan Turing.
The article's title is quite link-baity. That being said, it is obvious that technology will displace more and more traditional human labor. Of course, unlike in the past, human labor becomes increasingly unnecessary to sustain said humans on a biological level. It's a trade-off, and the cognitive dissonance is the "traditional" (20th century, Agent Smith) model of human worth being rendered invalid by the realities of technological progress.
The article seems to subtly suggest that if you do not have an advanced degree [1], you do not have "brains." As someone who has "brains" but has chosen not to pursue and advanced degree, if I were working for the author, my reaction would be to question this person's judgment on several levels:
1) Implicitly putting down those who work with him who don't have advanced degrees.
2) Susceptibility to autobiographically-based irrationality, aka too much Koolaid.
Why is this an irrational viewpoint? Sure, someone who has an advanced degree is unlikely to be dumb. But as any remotely educated person should know, it does not follow that someone who does not have an advanced degree is not smart.
I think the obsession with advanced degrees is fascinating though. Do people really believe that getting an advanced degree will make one a more productive web developer? Are the years spent getting that advanced degree remotely comparable to years of meaningful industry experience? Or comparable to using the countless online resources to educate oneself in topics that are directly applicable to web development?? Hint: no.
[1] "Brains don’t matter as much as resilience in your first couple of years as a startup. I borrowed a lot of money to put myself through one undergraduate and two masters programs so, yes, it hurts to write that."
