Yep. Perhaps I should write a long article about my 1 dollar notebook I bought at a subway station. And the 1 dollar pen. It came without a plastic wrapping and serves me well!
This point cannot be stressed enough. If you hide stuff from your spouse about money, you're going down a real bad road. If your life at home is shaky, there is no way you are going to be able to lift a business successfully. The two cannot be siloed off from one another.
That philosophy is also in The Richest Man in Babylon and every single book written on finances ever. If you can't pay yourself first, you will never save anything.
Finally...a rational statement about what is really going on. I do think Facebook will survive, as infrastructure for the internet, but the history of all social networks says they have a time limit before they are replaced by something cooler. Right now, there is nothing better, so no one is jumping ship en masse.
The anger has nothing to do with "nerdiness". It's economic. Since tech is the one job sector that is not suffering, wouldn't it be nice for some of them to volunteer something to help the community? Seeing as they have some to spare and others have very little?
Why are engineers who make 100-150k expected to give back to society because we percieve them to be so lucky but millionaire and billionaire bank executives see no pressure for this at all? What is the obsession with the idea that people making low six figures are somehow the richest people with the most free time. Hell I don't make a whole lot over 100k and work 60 hours a week. Why am I the audience that is picked on while the bank executive heads out at 4 and never gives anything back? Its a bit insane to me really.
Ya. People seem to think that every Googler, Twit and Facebooker is a millionaire. A friend of mine works at Google. He lives a little more comfortably now than before he started there... but he's certainly not snorting coke off of hookers with $100 bills.
Possibly. But I try to reconcile that idea with the far worse behavior of the financial and elite public sectors, which are far bigger in GDP terms and in total wealth terms, and which elicit nowhere near the same hand-wriging...
So my theory is that, at some level, people in the press and thought-leader elite have internalized that the bankers/politicos "look right" when it comes to obnoxious wealth and behavior.
Well... the street is a pretty drastic first move. My first suggestion would be "some place you can afford." I've known several people that left the Valley (actually, California entirely) because they were finding it hard to afford stuff.
I moved to Richmond. An engineer I'm friends with just moved to Pleasanton. Why should this well paid people be forced to move out of SF while we're creating low cost housing for artists? How does this make any sense?
Rattling off excuses for why "that will never work" and not even attempting will not solve anything either. Funny how design is all about problem solving until it forces people out of their comfort zone and challenges them to meet people who are not like them.
Sorry, right out of high school, I spent 3 years digging ditches, pouring concrete, and putting up drywall before getting into tech.
For me at least, this has nothing to do with "meeting people who are not like me". I have found the tech community to be very diverse and much more tolerant than my colleagues in the construction industry.
Anil Dash said that everyone should do more, and the only reason NYC tech workers don't get as much flack as SFbay tech workers is because Wall Street is right next door to look so much worse. Essentially: the upper middle class doesn't understand why the lower middle class is angry at them for catering to every whim of billionaires? "Don't be mad at us, be mad at our boss. No wait, don't be mad at our boss, blame our boss's landlord."
I believe when you said "votes" you meant to say "lobbies" because otherwise you're saying the real villain is democracy?
> I believe when you said "votes" you meant to say "lobbies" because otherwise you're saying the real villain is democracy?
No, I really did mean it's the voters. In the case of SF (and Berkeley, and NYC), the problem is democracy. Voters are economically ignorant and tend to vote for laws which screw up the housing market, then they gripe about it having been screwed up. I'm not sure how to fix this, but more democracy certainly isn't the solution. The problem is that good government is in the economic sense a public good, so it gets undersupplied. People vote from their gut and do so to broadcast their affiliations - to show that they care - not so much to solve real problems in ways that might plausibly work.
I have occasionally thought about other systems that might work better. The fundamental problem is that we pass laws that sound like they might help solve a problem but we never actually go back to check if they did solve the problem, so over time the legal code becomes an impenetrable thicket of things people have tried that didn't work, but which inadvertently created a new constituency that doesn't want to get rid of them. I'd like to see us treat new laws the way we treat new drugs: Specify in advance what specific problem each law is trying to solve and how we'll know if the solution is helping - what metric will be measured. Then try the law out in some small region, see if it substantially helps, and only expand it further if it turns out it does. First, do no harm.
Isn't Network Solutions the company that got caught buying up domains that users would search for, if they didn't buy them immediately? Thereby forcing users to backorder domains at an increased cost? This post does not surprise me. GoDaddy isn't close to this bad.
