Why assume he's rich? Maybe living in the mountains is cheap. Maybe he saved before moving there. There is some choice between working/consuming less and working/consuming more. He's advocating the former.
I don't assume he's rich. I assume he is a decent financial investor living in Delhi where a 3-bd apartment in the city is ~$700/mo. His reported annual compensation on Bloomberg is $105,000. While he may not be Warren Buffett rich, it's still substantial in India. I do assume that if he were living in the US at the same rate, he'd probably be working more than 3 days a week.
I understand he's advocating for less work. Why do you assume he's advocating for consuming less? He could be buying new Jordans for every run he goes on. His couch could be rhino leather for all we know. Personally, I doubt he's advocating for less consumption because he sits on boards of businesses who produce basic goods, like food, paper goods, and He also sits on a board for an event production and marketing company. It's hard for me to believe he's down with less consumption.
arduino.cc has stated that they're not fans of spawn-offs with that suffix:
>Note that while we don't attempt to restrict uses of the "duino" suffix, its use causes the Italians on the team to cringe (apparently it sounds terrible); you might want to avoid it. (It's also trademarked by a Hungarian company.)
Moving sewer, water & gas lines? Burying electrical & telecom? I don't know without running the numbers, but that is hugely expensive and disruptive in exchange for a relatively small amount of low-rise development. Just the planning process alone... (shudder). Whereas building up would increase property taxes at basically no cost to the city.
I'm concerned about what Even's actual business model might be. It's hard to imagine that it doesn't involve somehow skimming a portion of the salaries they manage. Even if it's a tiny percentage, it seems like it would be an incredibly difficult tightrope walk to keep the portion "fair" and not veer off into taking advantage of the very people the app is purported to aid.
I think we all use code to make things. However, not caring about the code can spell disaster for the thing we're making. In the case of Minecraft it appears the code is good enough but I wonder how many more features would exist if it wasn't for the poor design.
worth noting that games have a fairly short half-life normally, so dev's are writing a new game rather than adding features to an existing legacy game (unlike mainstream software development). You also get to vary the scope of the game as the time budget runs out.
Minecraft is fun. However I'd clearly state that Minecraft, especially the early multi-player stuff that Notch worked on, /was/ a disaster.
Only now, three numbering schemes later (alpha, beta, release), in release version 1.8, does the core game actually have features such as abstracting implementation IDs from object types (EG: now there is minecraft:glass to resolve instead of remembering decimal value 20. Though mods for r1.8 are only just beginning, so that scoping might not yet exist.)
> I am proud of this educational system, teaching kids intellectual integrity and preventing them from accepting random statements as true facts just because someone repeats over and over again that they're true!
What about the teaching discussed in the article about there being no moral facts? Should kids accept this proposition just because the education system repeats it over and over again? The teaching itself is a statement with moral implications. Where is the proof for the statement itself?
> Welcome to reality, a place where we can't even be sure it exists!
This viewpoint also contains a truth claim. Taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no way to prove anything since it's all an illusion.
> Taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no way to prove anything since it's all an illusion.
Yep. And then you can either get to the island of the cogito and find you can't get off, or you end up shrugging and going with Shaw's great line about how skepticism is "logically impeccable, but psychologically impossible".