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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
It is not. I worked in 3 people startups, 15 people web shops, 50 people IoT shops, and very very big enterprise software corps in Germany and I can tell you what you say can be copy&pasted into any of them. The only advantage of smaller companies is that they can't afford to have as much middle management. Therefore the "visionaries" are forced to live closer to reality and work with small teams. But they certainly don't like it and move to your model as soon as possible.
Oh... I thought you talk about real hidden interview questions. Like the ones they use to figure out how you got the recommendation letter to this job (i.e. if it wasn't one of their faction who they must be careful about). Or when you get a referral at a competitor and in the interview they try to get your insider info without making you an offer (i.e. "tell me about the last interesting project you worked on"). Or when they try to figure out in your first tasks after hiring how far they can let you in to the actual decision making process without shocking you. Or when in the interview there are different factions present and each tries to see how much they can pull you to their side.
It is actually quite stupid to get a unicorn valuation if you are not a really good fit for world conquering business. In all other regards it is people gambling using other people's money and using your time&health. Most ideas simply aren't that kind of idea. And if you don't get other investors with your idea think about simply doing a full time job and considering your project a hobby. It can still turn to make you a tidy profit. And I can promise you that if you are talented you can also work for big corps and enjoy a good life there. Sure the tasks don't seem to be very meaningful, but if you fake a new chat app as a unicorn startup it's not that much more meaningful either.
In my country you are by law required to be loyal to your company even if its doing illegal or unfair things, even after you quit. So if you just get fired and not get sued for damages that would be considered a good result here. And I live in a country with relatively good employee laws.
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.