Focus on making products/services for people that actually do have money to spend then.
A dimension people hate looking at is credit is far too easy in the US, which means too many companies are heavily optimized for extracting that money from people that didn’t really earn it in the first place. This means a lot of the smartest workers are preoccupied on the wrong things instead of helping advance society.
> Most AML courses Ive done have emphisized that the people behind high level money laundering can be too dangerous to take down
This is how they deliberately miss the point. They are not taken down not because they are dangerous but because they align with us, and will buy tat from our buddies in Mayfair and Knightsbridge at inflated prices with some of the proceeds.
British high society is completely rotten by this stuff. They are still amazed that Al Fayed was’t nearly as grimy as many had assumed.
Our money laundering supports freedom, while theirs supports tyranny etc.
I love the whole “unexplained wealth” concept the UK developed, curiously enough after Abramovich had been running around buying Chelsea etc. If you are friend to MI6 this week you are allowed to do anything, but if you get on their wrong side you will be Berezhovskied.
At some point people are going to start asking awkward questions going all the way back to the PayPal mafia and everything that has subsequently happened. Thiel landing on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group just looks too ridiculous, but is a thing, and now this guy goes off ranting about the Antichrist?
I am actually sympathetic to much of what Thiel has done, but the current arc makes the supposed Howard Hughes oddities look positively reasonable.
This whole episode is a charade to do exactly that while claiming they are morally superior to China because the UK does it “for the children” while China does it because they are just evil authoritarians.
Often significant improvements to every aspect of a system that interacts with a database can be made by proper design of the primary keys, instead of the generic id way too many people jump to.
The key difficulty is identifying what these are is far from obvious upfront, and so often an index appears adjacent to a table that represents what the table should have been in the first place.
Promoting the idea of one data structure with many functions contradicts:
“If you've chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident.”
And:
“Use simple algorithms as well as simple data structures.”
A data structure general enough to solve enough problems to be meaningful will either be poorly suited to some problems or have complex algorithms for those problems, or both.
There are reasons we don’t all use graph databases or triple stores, and rely on abstractions over our byte arrays.
> If want to solve a problem - it's natural to think about logic flow and the code that implements that first and the data structures are an after thought, whereas Rule 5 is spot on.
It is?
How can you conceive of a precise idea of how to solve a problem without a similarly precise idea of how you intend to represent the information fundamental to it? They are inseparable.
The market simply doesn’t have enough people actively investing because it rewards mass stupidity over generating meaningful returns.