I think you're missing the point, that perhaps we need to examine the culture we're creating. The benefit of discussing the matter is that we may be able to prevent future tragedies from occurring if we find thing we can do differently to relieve the pressure of being a founder.
according to the actual report
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl302015v
Two-dimensional (2D) materials, such as molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), have been shown to exhibit excellent electrical and optical properties.
While I have no specialization in the area, I gather that the scientist are suggesting it may be useful as a sort of screen technology, from the article
"For example, MoS2 could be applied to glass, producing displays built into a pair of eyeglasses or the window of a house or office."
Any idea as to which one is actually harder, the new material, or Lonsdaleite?
I see from this journal that Lonsdaleite has 58% higher indentation strength than diamond:
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i5/e055503
but I couldn't find figures for the new material.
In light of some controversy over the title of this article I have taken the liberty of removing what I see as being some of the more potentially misleading terms.
The word "create" is rather obviously a misnomer based on Newtons laws, but I'm trying to stay true to the text of the original article, while keeping the discussion on the scientific merit of the subject.
I can totally relate to the point, and know exactly how it feels. But I also feel like 'that one thing' is often a motivator and gives you something to focus on, it also helps bring the team together to focus on doing that "massive amount of work," by giving a clean and easily digestible direction for your efforts.
You could pretty easily title this "writing code right the first time" and some adjustments to tense, I don't think anyone would know the difference. Great article.
I think the idea he's trying to convey is that rewrites are a bad idea IF you already have a nice clean, simple product that works, with a large code base. I've been on projects where the entire code base was essentially trashed, except for some specific reference materials, but the code was terrible, and that was actually a pleasant experience.
That said, this kind of corporate innovation is pretty broken, too. The way I interpret this document is not "how can we make a great product?" but rather: "How can we emulate a great product?"
Almost ironic, now that the iPhone app store is almost entirely comprised of mine craft rip offs.
Great points! It comes down to how deep you want to go, too. Programmers are still finding jobs, and it seems like our market is better than most hiring markets, at least in the United States. So if you just want a job programming: they're out there.
If you want to be a real hacker, though, (Why else would you be here?) you need to be a little crazy, and obsess over the deep details of your specialty.
One man iOS dev here, not really by choice, I live in a mildly remote part of Alaska, which is not what I'd call a "technology hotbed" so finding co-devs is tough, unless you count my roommate who mostly just orders the pizzas. I'm not getting rich, but I'm allowed total creative freedom, and live simply so don't need to make much. Strange to think one can pull it off at all, but that's the internet for you.