But did they actually mean literally to use ][ as square brackets. Or is it merely an approximation that is meant to be read as Roman numeral two. And then people in that time writing it as ][ because Unicode didn't even exist yet. And then people stuck with that.
I don't know what the confusion could be. That's the name of the product. It's '][' because that's a creative way to write 'II' which is a fun way of writing '2.'
Just like the Apple //c
So true. In the end, any truth is anchored in a beliefs system and you have to chose yours (or ignore that you've chosen one). Better chose one that helps you live a good and happy life...
If I invest pocket money (the same amount as you, or even more) into founding a startup with you and it fails, I lose pocket money. The engineer we hired together to help build the company loses his job and may find himself with serious problems because of that. Risk is in the eye of the beholder...
There is usually another reason (and I share it) : they don't have enough money to start their own company without it being too big a risk. It is an order of magnitude easier to take risks when you already have enough money so that your family is not at stake...
I don't see how.
You said that engineers can take risks if they want. I say that:
1. a lot can't take any risk at all, even if they'd be willing to, since they have no money.
2. the level of the risk you take depends enormously on your initial wealth. Wealthy founders take a lot less risk than founders who invest their life savings.
And when you get to the other side of the investment, when you win, the money you earn does not depend at all on the level of risk you took. But when you lose, it totally depends on it. the risk is not the same for everybody.
What you're saying effectively boils down to "being rich is better than being poor". Risk is still risk, and it has a market value, whether or not you want to acknowledge it.
He helped me understand what money really is. He explains pretty complex things that most people have a hard time understanding, in a very simple way. I got the recommandation from another similar thread here on Hacker News.
+1 to this. I came across this course in a past thread in HN and worked my way through the lectures around end-2020. Took me 3 months but I really enjoyed this series.
Rails + Phoenix dev here who loves both. Elixir is far from having the conciseness of Ruby and Phoenix is super far from having the tooling of Rails (and Rails from having the tooling of Beam and OTP). From my point of view they are two very different beasts, each one being great in its own domain. The similarities are mostly syntactic and superficial.
> Have you ever outcompeted a cartel that has 100 years and billions of dollars on you? Me neither. Maybe it's possible, but it's certainly neither easy nor as simple as you suggest.
Been there, done that! In the 90s, very few believed that Free Software / Open Source could ever become what it is today. I was (a super tiny) part of it. It was hard and took long, for sure. But possible it was.
I'd love to see a similar movement in the academic world.
While this is cool and sort of topical, in the 90s there for sure was not a software cartel that had existed for hundreds of years. We can know this because it simply wasn't a thing for that long at that time :)
Strictly speaking you’re right. I mostly intended to highlight the idea that making huge social changes was possible with a lot of collective determination; but still : IBM is only 31 years younger than Elsevier...
> I'd love to see a similar movement in the academic world.
but computer science is an academic discipline, and FOSS didn't emerge from the academy. in fact, inasmuch as Stallman started it, though he could be said to have been in the academy, his actions were somewhat anti the academy.
