ifearthenight's comments

Glad to see someone writing about this. Touches on the (sensitive) issue that "tech" people don't often value what "business" people can do (and they can't). Vice versa is obviously true as well but an already commonly discussed topic on HN.

One of my hobbies is going through LinkedIn and getting a chuckle out of all the "CEOs". I get the idea that people want to make their company sound bigger than it is but think in reality it's too see through. Go for something that says what you do right now. "Developer" or "Manager" or something relatively simple.

Thanks for the long but interesting comment. Are you able to share a little about the db setup you are using?

Agreed, but seeing as it is Forbes then not so surprising

I tried not to sensationalize too much :)

Actually, wasn't sure they had strictly been ranked within the top 10

Now I feel a bit of a loser for only having visited one so far.

Would be interested to hear how you (and others) handle the transition from salaried work to startup life...

Didn't mean to question your understanding of intelligence but of the intelligence of the people your post was commenting on

Smart stuff.

Sound advice. Often if I am bored with my job I search for jobs online. Not necessarily thinking of finding a new one but just helps get the feeling of control back.

Oops, right about the US Army Air Force mistake. My bad.

Also, agree it might be nitpicking but for me the dropping of the A-bombs and associated killing of a crap load of civillians is one of last centuries most conveniently forgotten topics. So treatment of the subject has a tendency to get me riled up!

One last question though...Can inanimate objects really be responsible of anything?

Idiot! NB: ironic insult :)

I'd love to say I agree totally with the article because it does raise some really good points and it is an extremely interesting topic. I'd also like to give the average (talking a mean average here not some kind of "norm") man, and cisgender males more specifically, the benefit of the doubt. Agree there are some intellectuals (read nerds) who are acting in the way the article suggests but personally I think the main cause of the "egg-shells" treatment is a basic view of women as being, again on average, inferior. Or, that all women are essentially the same (as the article hinted at with the "my girlfriend" comment).

I thought the use of the word "intelligence" in the post was an interesting choice too. By the description can only assume this is referring to IQ. What about EI? Surely we’ve progressed beyond the stage of thinking of IQ, which is essentially just processing patterns, as the be-all and end-all of intelligence!

In both sentences Hiroshima is the object. The subject in the original sentence is the bomb but in my edited sentence the subject is the U.S. Army.

Talking of partiality (and the sentences use of passive voice)

"Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) recommends the passive voice when identifying the object (receiver) of the action is more important than the subject (agent), and when the agent is unknown, unimportant, or not worth mentioning"

"Hiroshima was destroyed in a flash by a bomb dropped from a propeller-driven B-29 of the U.S. Army Air Force, on the warm morning of Monday, August 6, 1945."

Nice use of subtle patriotism here. Wouldn't it have been a little more impartial to write it as below?

"Hiroshima was destroyed in a flash by the U.S. Army with a bomb which was dropped from a propeller-driven B-29, on the warm morning of Monday, August 6, 1945."

Agree 100% with the sentiment, although what you are asking for is really up to the display and battery manufacturers. Alternatively if any smart hacker can come up with some power consumption reduction algorithms then they are more than welcome to do so and then proceed laughing all the way to the bank.

I first saw this and was pretty impressed.

Then I saw this and was less so.

http://www.youmobile.org/blogs/entry/Huawei-Reveals-the-Worl...

Fun and interesting read. Personally though I think by only examining mortality rates then half the story has been missed. ie. life expectancy.

While intuitively we can see that the probability of dying in any given year increases with the more years you live, perhaps slightly more counter intuitively the longer you live then the longer your life expectancy is (rolling average obviously).

Would love to see the two put together somehow and charted.

Thank you for not getting evolution theory backwards like the majority of journalists/scientists/people in general do.

We evolve because we don't die...we don't evolve so that we may live.

Thanks for sharing. Always interesting to read through challenges others have faced/are facing.

Just allow me to free up a few assets so I can afford to apply :)

Doesn't the whole concept of having to pay large amounts of money just to apply to maybe register a new TLD feel a little bit against some of the original ideas behind the "World Wide Web"?