In general, I agree with that principle. However, egregiously stupid downmodding is damaging to the discussion. I wouldn't have started this thread over a post that clearly deserved to be downmodded; I'd just be embarrassing myself by drawing more attention to the post.
The YouTube link comment deserved the downvotes. You meant "as a renter I'm very happy about the lower rents". But directing people to listen to videogame music, at another site, to get your meaning adds a level of frivolous, time-wasting indirection. It's understandable people didn't appreciate it.
I think resilience is the most important trait; a resilient introvert can do fine.
A high-IQ person is going to have difficult socialization early in life, and be behind the curve on a lot of social milestones. However, this becomes less important as a person gets older; most people would consider it a good thing for a 40-year-old to be mistaken for someone in his mid-30s.
My IQ's about 150 and I've definitely had a problem with girls I've dated not taking me seriously (to the point where I've had to dump them) because I'm 25 and my "number" is in (gasp!) the low single digits, as if not having done a Sherman's march in my 20s were something to be embarrassed about. I'm sure that a significantly more insecure version of myself would internalize this and have problems, but actually I just look at these sorts of experiences as incredibly funny.
From an evolutionary POV, the number of past sexual partners is the number of women who 'voted' you to have mating potential. Women grant more weight to other women's evaluation of you than they do to what you think about yourself.
1. More women should be thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. Are they that unsure of their own judgment that they need to evaluate a man based on the imputed opinions of people they've never met, many of whom are in his distant past? I, for one, like finding a great girl who men have underrated in the past.
2. A low or high number of sexual partners has, in general, a lot more to do with lifestyle and values than ability.
You will not be happy with a woman who does not think for herself. Most people would. It will take you more effort to find someone you'll be happy with, but it will likely be a higher-quality relationship when you do.
"Should"? Evolution laughs at should. Lemmings follow each other because 99% or more of the time that is EXACTLY the right thing to do, and 99% is more than enough to win in evolution.
And what we learn from evolution is we should laugh at should too. My theory: should is a gambit to control you on the part of other people trying to win in the game of evolution.
A person's reproductive goal, both in evolutionary times as well as by modern standards, is to raise successful offspring. Parental investment is a strong predictor of this.
Thus, a woman benefits by selecting a loyal man rather than a promiscuous one. For her to marry a loyal man with strong genetics (e.g. an attractive man with a limited sexual history, indicating a low disposition toward promiscuity) is optimal. A woman who disqualifies men because they've had a low number of sexual partners is never going to accomplish this.
Anyway, the obsession over the number of past sexual partners means nothing in an evolutionary context, since the whole concept is a social construct. Pre-numerate cave dwellers would have lost count pretty quickly.
Your post reads like a red herring (in the stock sense). A "story stock" has to have a good story, it doesn't have to have numbers behind it.
Anything's reproductive "goal", in any times, is to show up a lot in later generations. Promiscuity and particularity both show up as strategies in humans and broadly beyond. Anybody studying reporductive strategies many generations later will have a strong survivorship bias in their results.
A woman who selects a man who isn't very promiscuous is unlikely to get her genes spread very far by her son(s). This trades off against the part of the story you tell.
Please take my comment as a truism about evolution rather than women in particular. The extremely superficial explanation is my view of one strategy among many.
Primitive strategies are none the worse for being primitive: though no guarantor of success, they're often adequate. thus the number of citations of a science paper is not a direct reflection of its quality, but not irrelevant either. I was surprised to discover that market traders, far from being tight-lipped about their strategic overview, spend a lot of time calling each other up when things were slow to ask what their competitors thought of the day's financial 'weather'. Google's Pageranks are similar. And so on.
It is true that a fairly non-promiscuous person will likely be a better parent and thus a desirable match. Nevertheless, some competitive genes don't hurt. Also commitment after experience is more interesting than commitment by default (see daily YC thread on how 'Windows users only like it because it came with the computer they bought').
This sort of "freedom" has more to do with upbringing than IQ. A 115 IQ is more than enough brainpower to become a doctor or attorney and a person born in that range in a family with high expectations will be expected to perform at that level. Conversely, there are people with 140+ IQs whose families expect little or nothing of them, although that sort of "freedom" isn't desirable either.
For maximizing life success, I'd say that an IQ in the low 130s is optimal, but anything above 140 is dangerous and rather useless unless you want to "swing for the fences" and achieve something that will be remembered after you die (something that, in my mind, is overrated). People selected as leaders are usually 75-90th percentile (intellectually) within their reference frame, and almost never 95+. The upshot is that the frame of reference gets smarter as one gets older; people with 130 IQs are virtually never popular in high school, but can do well in adulthood. In general, the smarter you are, the later in life you hit your stride, socially speaking.
The risk is that not everyone recovers, although most do, from the negative experiences earlier on. A 30-year-old with a 145 IQ has probably recovered from any innate social problems and become socially normal, neurologically speaking, but in the corporate world he's going to be competing against people in the 120-130 range who have the advantage of positive past experiences.
The answer to this question depends on how you define OOP and FP. I think the answer is "sort of".
The problem with OOP is that it encourages the proliferation of mutable state. If each object has mutable state, then a large object-oriented program has distributed mutable state, potentially in hundreds of different silos. Problems like concurrency become impossible to reason about.
FP encourages the careful sequestration of mutable state. It's false to say that FP outlaws it entirely, since it's hard to do anything useful without side effects. However, functional style limits and sequesters mutable state to such a degree that it's usually easy to reason about what side effects are happening.
"The problem with OOP is that it encourages the proliferation of mutable state."
It should be pointed out that this is a characteristic of the languages and not actually OOP. The original insight, something like "Hey, let's bundle together data structures and their methods into one unit, and communicate with them via messages!" (which got turned into "method calls") actually has nothing to say about mutability. You can and people have build object systems based on immutable objects.
The implications of doing that are deep and profound and color the rest of the system and are beyond the scope of this posting, but it can be done.
This is a great point. Given how I tend to get annoyed when people reflexively associate static typing with Java, I shouldn't be so quick to make the leap from OOP to mutable state. Many OOP concents (e.g. inheritance) are mutability-agnostic.
I've always thought it to be the exact opposite. Experience for a child is intermingled because children can often only perceive one plot-line. I remember that, when I was 5, I would watch reruns of various TV shows and think that prior episodes had been taken apart and combined. In fact, they hadn't been, but in my mind the 2 or 3 plots in each episode were stored as separate entities.
When you're older, you're more able to process concurrency and your sense of self is more compartmentalized. You have a work-line consisting of your career and job life, a family-line, a vacation-line that emerges when one travels and is otherwise ignored, and probably several friends-lines (college friends, work friends, friends of the families) corresponding to various distinct social groups. Each plot-line is allocated only a fraction of the time given to the single plot-line a young child has, and thus each progresses much slower per year.
For a child, a year is an eternity. For an adult, it can be very short, because many plot-lines advance very little in this time. If you have a vacation spot you visit every year, every time you go you are bringing up year-old memories that seem as if they occurred yesterday, so time seems to be going extremely fast.
The issue with Wall Street overcompensation has more to do with what has happened to nearly every other profession in the past 3 decades: utter fucking meltdown. Academia: the job market for PhDs is so terrible as to constitute a glaring and likely mortal embarrassment to the profession. Law: big-firm ("biglaw") attorneys now face a single-digit percent chance of making partnership, but are still expected to work hours that would be reasonable only if eventual partnership were guaranteed. Medicine: doctors' standards of living are being continually eroded by the scumbag bureaucrats who staff the health insurance companies. Manufacturing: in the Midwest, the recession began in 1980 and hasn't stopped yet. Infrastructure: falling apart due to low investment. At the same time, housing costs, medical bills, and tuitions have skyrocketed while commodities like food and gas have been more expensive. Enough numerical gymnastics are employed to make inflation appear low (and, thus, real GDP growth seem high) but if the numbers were accurately reflected, inflation would be closer to 5-7% and real GDP growth would be flat or slightly negative; the entire 2000s decade would appear to be a recession, which is what it has been for most Americans. What changed in 2008, for most Americans, is that the rich fell down too, and quite visibly; thus, people became less embarrassed to talk about it. It's no longer an admission of personal failure to talk about how bad things are.
The result is an economy that shows a lack of pluralism: finance dominates, all other professions suffer. Most Americans don't understand the complexities of the situation and liken Wall Street to a cancer responsible for the atrophy of the real economy.
I don't want to see finance get destroyed, but a return to a pluralistic economy where people assume roles appropriate to their abilities and behaviors. The perverse irony here is that capital markets are supposed to efficiently allocate resources, yet the era of the market-state has utterly misallocated the nation's talent, strangling academia while directing a disproportionate share of talented people to finance, one of the industries in which they're least useful.
The last time I heard doctors and lawyers were pretty well off, the roads seem quite good, the trains still operate, there is still bus services, telly still gives news and my lecturer still lectures while doing research also. Until recently plenty of jobs were out there and people were really quite well off so well off in fact that they were willing to spend billions in a pointless war and still continue to spend billion in some other war. And dude if you do not think that in the past 10 years we have had a lot of growth then I do not quite see how you explain the bust?
Sure, I get it. To become a rich lawyer, yano in the 7 figures level you have to work real hard and be well smart and have loads of connections, same for doctors, same for academia, intelligence is not everything you know nor does everyone posses the qualities to go up to the cream of the cream. So you see it as the fault of government I personally would like to narrow the fault of government to failing to keep an eye on the bank, as for the lawyers they really are able to look after themselves, after all the president is a former one. If you think finances are dominant then well yeah that's true but if you think that is to the detriment of other fields I think you are a bit wrong. There is no lack of eminent research being conducted, nor any lack of entrepreneurs being made out of such research. There is no lack of doctors, lawyers, academia. Is there a lack of positions? I do not know, these people are sort of self employed, the academia, well the phd researchers get grants, the barristers here are self employed, the solicitors have plenty of positions and so do the doctors, so really I know it is fun to take it all out of proportion and picture a country in doom and gloom, but really we are all humans, as are the bankers, they experimented with something, they failed, that's how life works, if you fail to experiment, you failed again. Hopefully they learned their lesson. No one got hurt and that is because your country is a rich country and was able to recuperate the bankers losses. Lessons were learned and we move forward, perhaps that is what some people would call progress. Next year we good again and the news will be dominated by who knows, war, climate change, terrorist, bullshit in other words just so as to make people like you see this world and this country as doomed and full of gloom. Nothing personal btw. :)
The comment you responded to was actually quite accurate in it's description of what's been happening in the United States for quite some time. Each industry has taken it's turn at the chopping block and been hollowed out to a shell of it's former self, with the exception of a few "safe" industries -- until now.
The "safe" industries have appeared so due to their proximity to "The Bezzle". Go look that up. Finance, Health Care, Law, Defense, Government; I think those are the major ones. The point being that the outsized flows of capital through these industries has been a direct result of a feedback loop between government-induced market distortion and kickbacks. The large percentage of revenue in these industries which is rarely paid out of pocket (insurance, defense budget, malpractice settlements, etc.) has acted as the veil behind which a culture of flagrant embezzlement and bribery has been easily concealed. Now that the tap is running dry and the wheels are coming off of the lie we've been told for 20 years, us hoi polloi are perceiving The Bezzle for what it really is.
No one got hurt and that is because your country is a rich country and was able to recuperate the bankers losses.
I have an idea for a novel that is truly earth-shattering. It might be described as "fucking brilliant". I'm very busy and therefore don't have time to write it myself, and I obviously can't discuss the concept here; I have to safeguard this earth-shattering idea so it isn't stolen. But if you've scored at least 700 on your verbal SAT-- formal score reports, please-- and can pass a 4-hour writing test I will administer on-site in New York, you can ghost-write my novel. You'll be expected to fill out at least 900 pages, because my idea is just too epic to implemented in fewer. You'll have 2 months to complete the task, revisions and editing included, and you'll be expected to live in New York during that period, with full responsibility for accommodations being yours. If you're successful and on time, I'll offer you a full 12.5 percent of the proceeds between publication and April 20, 2011.
Your name will not appear on the novel, though mine will. However, I'll forward your name to a couple of literary agents and, without getting specific, tell them that I know you to "generally do very good work".
It sounds like a labored metaphor that's way off base.
We're not secretive; our software is already built, live and proven; we'll absolutely tell everyone who will listen about the folks who work with us; it's an internship, man.
I'm obviously joking, but those kinds of "offers" have been given (and presumably accepted) in the writing world. A common scenario is an offer (usually given by scummy, second-rate magazines) where the writer is required to use a pseudonym and forbidden by contract to disclose her relationship to that name. They don't want the writer to develop a reputation and suddenly demand a salary.
For a more serious analysis, here goes: a person who works for deferred or no salary is a founder and should be paid with some equity (a percentage of the whole company, not just a small percentage of what he produces) in the venture. Understandably, you don't want to give equity to interns. So you probably shouldn't have interns until you can pay wages.
In general, if you develop a platform and someone develops an app on it, the application writer gets more than a 50% share of the proceeds. I believe iPhone and Kindle developers get 70%.
Looking at it as a platform is interesting - we could end up paying more, and are in no way adverse to discussing it. We could also use the help and think it's a pretty sweet opportunity for the right folks, and I don't see the "shouldn't have interns" as a or the only logical answer here.
