I know this comment will sound a bit unrelated to the main topic but reading this made this thought pop up in my mind and I thought it would make sense to share it. This comment is, however, related to the sub topic of the quoted sentence:
> It literally can’t exist without broad support from many countries.
This is the same constraint for the, let's call it, "peace on Earth" problem, or just "peace".
If only more of us could realize this is what it takes to solve that problem... which itself is part of the puzzle, i.e. how to increase awareness about the need to solve this.
While there are a number of people and organizations trying to do this, I see that there seems to be more possible fronts that could be used to tackle this and accelerating the reach for stability and sustainability of the state of peace.
One example of a possible front (and I honestly don't know if those already exist) is: through marketing it would be possible to influence people enough to be interested in the outcome of "peace on Earth" and pay some money for that, in a way that it doesn't feel like a donation, and more like an investment or maybe acquiring a service that would be hopefully realized in the coming years (hence the importance of the marketing capacity of that entity, as this mindset needs to be set in the consumers in order to make them buy the good).
Of course, the reporting to the consumers on the use of the invested money toward that effort has to be as transparent and honest as possible, as those approaches are arguably required for a sustainable state of peace. And hopefully it would make enough sense for an entity to operate in the way of the outcome it is seeking. Even though we are moving from a state of no-peace, which is hopefully unsustainable. In other words the effort could be be defined as "safely and confidently accelerating the maximum point of unsustainability of the no-peace state such that it inevitably transitions to a sustainable state of peace".
That's then possibly a private endeavor (not that it could not be a public one as well, but you need to raise enough money to pay for the possibly expensive marketing and then pay all of its employees), because there is now an identifiable market willing to pay some amount in exchange for obtaining the "product" of peace, which in other words just mean the modulation of humanity and its mindset in order for it to operate in such a way that it is always aligned to its own common good, or maximum known state of well-being, sustainably.
We already know that groups and individuals are not great at doing that, on average. So if an individual is not always able to operate towards its own good, or maybe some are but don't have access to the resources that would allow them to do so, how could then a group of individuals be able to do so? Unlikely.
And yes, exploring the universe and finding more about its mysteries and teaching humanity about them is a valid and great approach and a subset of all the possible approaches.
It is a subset because in order for an individual to be interested in knowing more about the mysteries of the universe, or consciousness and other topics, they have to have this mindset, well, set in the mind.
Therefore there are many more fronts that could be, and to many extents currently are, covered. So all I'm arguing here is we are not doing enough to reach the tipping point before possible big catastrophes happen, therefore we should do a lot more than what we're currently doing. There are many entity/company/organization models to explore that could benefit us in a spectrum of possibilities ranging from private to public.
Google Closure Library does this in goog.structs.Set with an interesting generic solution.
A string key for the underlying map is generated based on the data type of the element being added in the set. If you're adding an object into the set, the object is mutated so that it stores a unique ID. The object's unique ID is used to form the string key that will identify this object in the set.
I wonder if that's a problem with stuff like immutibleJS since the object itself is permanently mutated as part of being added to the set.
Also, if this was being done for ES5+ code, then either setting that property to non-enumerable or using something like Symbols would be cool since it would hopefully have a reduced impact on other code.
Depending on the implementation, yup. Since both of the most popular Immutable libraries that I know of (Immutable.js, mori) have their own API for setting properties via a `.set` method, it would not be unreasonable for them to use `Object.freeze` in order to make raw mutations throw an error.
Both libraries provide their own implementation of a Set though, so in practice you would just use the library provided one.
"... but instead are able to write code that modifies code and generates code as easily as if you were writing the original code in the first place: the comparison to Ruby is therefore fundamentally flawed."
This. The ability to easily reason about the code and manipulate it because its syntax is simple and predictable is the big deal to me.
I think this is analog to switching from Roman to Arabic numerals. The syntax is regular. No matter how big the number is the rules are the same. There are no exceptions. Hence doing calculations with the former is a lot clumsier than with the latter.
That's the ideal scenario at least. I do realize that math might not be as simple as it could be, but I'm not really qualified to argue about that. But what if we were still using Roman numerals today? Would we be at the level of understanding we are at right now? It seems to me that it's more or less the same thing when you start understanding Lisp and why it is the way it is.
This is just too big of a tradeoff to be ignored. In my experience choosing the simple and regular solutions paves the way to progress, in which useful things that look trivial now would be rightly discarded or would be viewed as too complex if our mental model were grounded on the previous clumsy framework.
Now, I'm not saying "just drop all your clumsy languages right now, because today we have a better idea, and start using Lisp". I certainly don't do that. I don't even work with Lisp. But my point is that not realizing that Lisp has some properties that make it special is perhaps hindering yourself of being able to see that some things can be a lot simpler than you thought they could be.
> Simple test: if there were more comments like this, would HN be a better place? If yes, upvote. If no, downvote. If indifferent/not sure, move on to next comment.
I agree with you here. The problem is that this is not directly obvious by only observing the upvote arrow. It might communicate more things than this, like "I agree with this comment." So, unless you tell them (and keep reinforcing this meaning), different people will read it differently.
I would even argue that it would be a good idea replacing the upvote arrow with a link named "I want to see more comments like this". That would stimulate more well thought, relevant comments, while agreeable/funny comments would still be there, but at the bottom of the page. These might be harmless, but they don't deserve lots of upvotes.
In Brazil, the word we commonly use to refer to the native inhabitants is "índio". When we refer to someone who is born in India, the word is "indiano".
Both words translate to "Indian" in English. Maybe that is why the article calls him an Indian. What word would you use instead, "native", maybe?
There is no real authority on whom should call whom by what name except for the one that has to wear said name. The term Indian for a native to the amaerican continents has carried a lot of derogatory meaning. Notwithstanding it is just plain inaccurate.
So I do think we (all of us) can do better than following a 500 year old misconception, if nothing else
Thats not at all what I was pointing out. This story actually takes place in Brazil. He should be referred to by the name his people would use for themselves, for God's sake people, have some respect.
And if it is the case that you do not know a person's heritage use a term that is reflective of that (your lack of knowledge) instead of using some archaic misconception just because it has become the status quo.
THIS MAN does not live like any person today. He is not even an "American Indian". Your "American Indians" all speak english, or another modern language, and they are integrated with society (hence they could be interviewed in the first place) and they are not this man and they do not speak for this man or his people.
Hell, it's 2010 and with a story like this we actually had the chance to get the "discovery of a new peoples" thing down right this time with respect. The gov't of Brazil realizes this and the steps they have taken to insure this mans safety back that up. This story completely blows the humanitarian aspect though, rather than preserving it.
Why? Because he is way more native than any of the "American Indians" that you are referring to but you just completely don't get it. He is unique. He is an authentic native to his territory. He should be called by his tribal name, failing that he is a native or indigenous person and that is all that we really know.
There is at least one person today he lives exactly like.
He is not even an "American Indian". Your "American Indians" all speak english[sic], or another modern language,
I guess all the Quiché speakers I met in Guatemala and the Tzeltal speakers in México who didn't speak Spanish just don't count for you. There are millions of people in the Americas who don't speak any of the Indo-European languages that dominate modern politics and commerce in the hemisphere.
they are integrated with society (hence they could be interviewed in the first place)
So Lacandons and Raramuri who don't speak Spanish and still live traditional lifestyles without European culture contact far in the backwoods don't exist? They're well documented.
they are not this man and they do not speak for this man or his people.
As far as he cares we can probably just call him Brazilian Bob. He's living out the rest of his days in complete solitary isolation from the rest of the world--I don't think he even cares exactly which term for "indigenous person of the Americas" Slate uses to describe him.
frankly screw being fair...this is business...you have to want it.
It's simple market research. Would you rather spend 6 months hacking together a product just so you don't offend 10 people?
if you always play by the rules you'll never make it. While you spend 6 months to try one idea, and another 6 months for another. Your competitor is going to run 10 tests in 1 week to find the idea that is the most profitable for him.
So by the time you get done with your 2nd test, the other guy has already been in a profitable business for a year.
> if you always play by the rules you'll never make it.
I suspect many people reading this very forum are living proof that you are wrong. Indeed, two of the most popular themes in the experience of successful founders seem to be building mutually beneficial relationships with business contacts and building a trustworthy brand in your market.
In any case, "this is business" is not an excuse for antisocial or unethical behaviour, and a cheap throwaway line is not justification for deliberately messing other people around.
And I'll bet every single one of these bootstrapped entrepreneurs stretched the truth a little to get customers, coverage or funding. Or maybe they spammed a little to get ranked in Google, or maybe they scraped another website for info.
1. where you stretch the rules a little, break the whole "please respect our TOS" thing. Might include spamming a few blogs to get backlinks. Might include posting on HN with 2 accounts. Might include creating a back story to make your startup a lot more interesting. "No really...we wanted to save the world...we didn't even think about the money"
2. white collar crime...telling investors that you have 50,000 users...when in reality you only have 5,000
3. killing people.
If you want to get a bootstrapped startup off the ground...somewhere in the early days...you'll have to break #1.
Frankly I feel like the whole make them fill out an order form to see how many actually want to buy, falls under 0 or .5. Yes it's a dick move...but that's the only way you'll get real market research, instead of getting 100 people to say "yes I'd buy it"...only to find out a year later that when the time comes to pulling out their credit card all of them say "no thanks"
"If you want to get a bootstrapped startup off the ground...somewhere in the early days...you'll have to break #1."
This is baloney and has a higher chance of making great cofounders and hackers (like, for example, Marc Andreessen: http://pmarca-archive.posterous.com/how-to-hire-the-best-peo...) run for the hills rather than work with you. If investors or business partners catch you seriously lying once you are basically permanently blacklisted. You might be able to eke out some kind of business from that black hole, but it is not easy.
"Third and final criterion: ethics.
Ethics are hard to test for.
But watch for any whiff of less than stellar ethics in any candidate's background or references.
is this the same Marc Andreessen that has invested in Digg, where Kevin Rose reported on a site without saying that he actually owns it?
Or maybe it's the same Marc Andreessen that sits on the board of Facebook which did a ton of unethical things to get off the ground?
The bottom line is that if you can think of a successful business...somewhere in it's early days they've done something that would be considered unethical in order to gain traction. The guys who played by the rules when they had nothing are no longer around.
Granted there are probably a few companies that actually survived...but chances are they got extremely lucky.
"Would you rather spend 6 months hacking together a product just so you don't offend 10 people?"
Probably not, if by "offend" you mean "market research", but that is not what I'm talking about. I'm specifically talking about the method you proposed, which I don't find to be fair.
In your question, you seem to imply that "market research" as a whole is offensive, which is not what it seems to me. Look at the Dry Test (the method Tim Ferris wrote about) mentioned up in this thread. It seems fair enough to me, and you still get the email of the people who are interested in your product.
"if you always play by the rules you'll never make it."
I simply don't buy that. Do you really mean never?
I'd rather be not fair to 10 people, than waste 6 months chasing an idea that doesn't work.
Except the dry test won't tell you anything. Cart abandonment rate means that the numbers you get don't mean anything. Your actual sales maybe 10 times less.
If you are bootstrapping then yes...I do mean never. Well there are probably a few exceptions...but that's just pure luck.
"... but anyone ever leave the software world to do something unrelated?"
Yes, however I don't know how large the number of people who leave programming related jobs is. It would be interesting to know some numbers about this topic.
Anyway, I don't think these numbers really matter for your decision. What matters is how you feel about that. I think the best thing you can do is talking to people who were in a similar situation before deciding what you're going to do next.
Some time ago I posted a quite interesting story here on HN of a game programmer at Electronic Arts who left his job to be a coffee farmer:
[1] https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_colectivo [2] https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantivo_coletivo