Work, save up, start a business of your own choosing. So many excuses for those unable to achieve this simple formula that our forefathers fought and died for us to have the right to.
> Work, save up, start a business of your own choosing. So many excuses for those unable to achieve this simple formula that our forefathers fought and died for us to have the right to.
That dream is only viable for a very, very small population.
see: Those who have to work multiple jobs to support family, those saddled with crushing loans, those with ailing family while being the sole provider, those who are denied loans because the happen to be born in a zip code a biased algorithm deemed as more risky, etc. etc.
Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is a great move when your privilege and opportunities align well.
At that time, financial security did not exist at all (or almost). There was no social safety net, no food stamps, no tax to redistribute. There was no reason to envision there will ever be different.
It's incredibly delusional and illogical to think that everyone can start and run successfully their own business, and especially so to claim that this was the founding fathers' vision. If that was the case, where would the workers come from? The founding fathers had slaves. Where do I sign up to receive the slaves for my business? Because anyone can build a business on slavery and any society can be successful on the back of slaves.
What about the slaves themselves? What did the founding fathers say about them? Obviously, they cannot start their own business as that would be illegal. What do you suggest for them in your great wisdom? They are not allowed by law to start a business, yet according to you, that's just an "excuse."
What you're advocating also wasn't possible for women until the last few decades. Or Chinese. Or Mexicans. Etc. So why should they work to compete with the established businesses/family wealth that had hundreds of years to grow and slaves to work. All of a sudden, everyone should just compete with them and somehow be on equal footing despite them getting hundreds of years of head start, capital, and free labor?
But yeah, so many excuses for being unable to achieve this almost unachievable formula. Slavery. Oppression. Racism. Violence. Etc. Not to mention the sheer insanity of expecting everyone to be a business owner and therefore none to be a worker. Yup. So simple. Only people deserving of death through destitution couldn't follow such a simple formula.
This is insane. The rise in wages for the bottom half are higher than they have ever been and it is solely because of low unemployment. How in the world do some people become economists and not understand supply and demand?
Linear algebra, discrete math, calculus. The mathematical underpinnings of algorithms and data structures. Turing machines will be a lot more useful once you actually know how to use properties to prove more things. A kindergartner can recite the layman description of an infinitely long tape with ones and zeroes but such simplistic understanding has very little practical use if you don't understand how it fits into the context of CS in general. Machines improve, architectures evolve, frameworks change. But math doesn't. Every few days there is a new "linear algebra for machine learning" guide that pops up on HN and every now and then there will be a "how to learn math" question on HN. The lack of mathematical maturity among software devs and engineers is not a good thing and reflects poorly upon the industry. Too many universities these days focus mostly on practical leet coding rather than the theoretical underpinnings of CS. An in-depth study of the finer aspects of a networking protocol would become outdated the moment the next iteration comes out, but a close examination of Shannon and information theory will serve you well for life. There seems to be a continuous myth that undergraduates cannot code a FizzBuzz to save their lives and thus all focus should be placed on testing that specific skill. This mentality of being dismissive towards math is pernicious to computing as a science and relegating theory as "stuff I never ever needed in my n years in industry" creates a harmful echo chamber for software engineering.
I'm not saying these aren't important but for most developers this stuff is rarely going to be used. Most "developer" jobs are not math heavy. I'd rather push someone to learn how to write clean code and focus more on the engineering aspect.
Yes, this is what I'm referring to. Math and algorithms rarely, if every, show up in my work beyond basics that don't require more than a week or two of information.
Not OP, and not necessarily endorsing these specific topics as most fundamental to a CS education (I've more often drawn on discrete math/symbolic logic) but 3Blue1Brown has great series on introductory linear algebra and calculus. And Symbols, Signals, and Noise: An Introduction to Information Theory by John Pierce is also good.
My own view echoes this (https://meaningness.com/metablog/how-to-think), which is that it's often useful to know a little about a lot of different kinds of math. That way you'll set yourself up to notice when and where some specific discipline might apply, then you can go back and learn the details if you need to.
This. People miss the broader picture when they support “safety” regulations. Politicians will often amplify the outliers in order to gain public support to enact regulations that further monopolize returns for their buddies.
Cronyism. Outlawing building types like these hurts middle and low class individuals. They take advantage of the public by citing “safety” reasons but really this just lines up the pockets of larger real estate developers and their political cronies. I imagine it is more correlated with left-leaning cities but wouldn’t be surprised to see cronies on the right too
This. An ad-free, recommendations-free, comment-free, subscription-free YouTube. Just a search bar with an advanced search feature. That way I can just watch what I need to, not what I want to.
Boomers grew up in a generation of less regulated markets. Less regulated markets allowed for greater wealth creation. Easier to build wealth when there's more money to go around.
