Also a funny side note: Why do people who seemingly care about public opinion so much always screw up their public opinion? I'd argue torturing people is more in their interest than actual public opinion. With the latter they just try to stay above zero as long as possible to continue with their actual addiction, getting hard-ons from watching people suffer.
That's also why such people can under no circumstances really succeed with businesses. It's not the same kind of personality as Steve Jobs for instance. Jobs also hurt people, but the goal was always to increase public opinion and make money.
The differences between a sociopath (Jobs) and a parasite (this dude here).
And knowing that he's a parasite and not a sociopath, why keep him on as a CEO? The secretary or toilet cleaning person would have a lower chance to screw everything up.
> Also a funny side note: Why do people who seemingly care about public opinion so much always screw up their public opinion?
Its more common than you imagine.
Its incredibly clear that the CEO dude is super insecure person who feels some kind of inadequacy and a constant need to control everything. If you read the daily beast article showing the actual interaction, it shows. If he stopped thinking all about himself for a little while he could have done a much better job. But he has so far not faced consequences for his toxic behavior (his co-founder sounds shady af too and that person actually died of a drug overdose... what a mess).
And on top of that, he probably thinks that thing that what got him "here" will also get him "there".
Maybe being vocal made it to the first mile so if he continues his act (and get louder) he believed it would get him to the finish line (the one he has in his mind).
One f-bomb makes a comedy. A thousand make zero ratings and lawsuits. He didn't realize he crossed the line being a sociopath and making is increasingly difficult to receive the messaging.
Huh? There's a political battle for CEO in a multi million dollar startup and then the very new CEO dies on a drug overdose and nobody talks about possible murder?
Because the police have already examined his death and concluded it was not suspicious. Ignoring that and posting speculation would be pretty reckless.
I don't really understand why they don't "teleport". There are additional ways to get to a point ahead of a slowed down train with a replacement train, right? When you see one is dragged down too much and starts clogging, introduce a new train in front that jumps in at an expected schedule, then slowly empty the old train and take it out of the loop when its empty.
I haven't seen that but I'm not sure why its not done. I don#t think it will be more expensive in the long run than increasing slack. And the service experience and maintenance level is increased drastically.
Problem with that is user experience, even for hardcore terminal users like me. So I doubt anybody would really develop it in a DF level of indepth-ness.
And they fail so much it is painful to watch. Strangely in capitalism the fit will sell themselves when able to get a really sweet deal. But the unfit will "survive" in some sense as "independent" units.
Most people probably forget how you could use a "stalk my ex" russian bulletin board service for $50 to stalk yourself. Russian script kiddies are probably happy to comply since the FBI can't really harm them.
But I think in most countries you would still be liable to Google/FB etc if the attack gets detected and linked to you.
I have a friend in China who's trying to learn software development by himself. It's ridiculously hard compared to the west. It shouldn't be underestimated how Wikipedia, Stackoverflow and Github can increase your learning speed.
Sounds strange. Programming resources usually aren't blocked here - even when they're on Wikipedia. StackOverflow isn't blocked, and GitHub hasn't been blocked either.
E: Excluding Google search I've only encountered one blocked programming resource when sporadically programming on my spare time here:
golang.org - which I'm guessing is because it's on hosted on Google's servers.
Yeah but how do you search for stuff there if google doesn't work? I.e. you try to learn "udp hole punching" how do you get the relevant wikipedia, stackoverflow etc pages?
Chinese Bing has an interesting feature where it pop ups a dictionary definition when you hover over any English word in the search results. Even with that, not everyone's English is good enough to understand Wikipedia/StackOverflow/... so they use Baidu Baike/Zhihu/... as alternatives.
Chinese Wikipedia is blocked. I thought parts of English Wikipedia was blocked somehow as well, but seems like that's outdated information (after they started enforcing https in June 2015[0]). You'll find a list of the blocking methods on the Great Firewall wiki article[1].
Is it logical that your long term goal of "getting something productive done" is really more important than your short term goal of "having fun with video games now"?
Who knows if you run into a car accident 2 hours later and die? In that case it would've been better to play video games, right? Or maybe it would have been better to call your mom instead and tell her you didn't mean what you said last Thanks Giving?
The thing about life is: It has no meaning besides the meaning you assign to it. It might be okay to prioritize short term goals. It might be okay to suffer for long term goals. It might be more important even to do something completely different. Nobody can tell you.
Therefore I would argue that instead of evaluating things on artificial scales, to simply be aware of the trade-offs, make choices according to the circumstances you encounter and the stuff that you can know (e.g. you can't know if you die in 2 hours in most cases), and be confident due to your awareness that you made the best possible choice for yourself and you might be able to learn something to make an even better choice next time.
I.e. start making sounds by clapping with just one hand.
Also, this kind of stuff of course can only be profitable in the long tail. So what means failed to reach any expectations? If it gets a reasonable price it will probably constantly sell in low amounts for 10+ years.
That's also why such people can under no circumstances really succeed with businesses. It's not the same kind of personality as Steve Jobs for instance. Jobs also hurt people, but the goal was always to increase public opinion and make money.
The differences between a sociopath (Jobs) and a parasite (this dude here).
And knowing that he's a parasite and not a sociopath, why keep him on as a CEO? The secretary or toilet cleaning person would have a lower chance to screw everything up.