"High Performance" anything tends to mean doesn't last too long and more expensive when it breaks. I'm sure the 19" standard tires are a little better on both counts.
I would imagine that there is always the chance of 'false negatives' (people you call as failures that eventually succeed), but they are probably pretty bang on with identifying positives.
As an investment first that pretty much the only statistic that matters.
That's not contradictory to what the quote says. In fact, "do it now" is pretty much exactly what he's saying when he says most men die with the song still in their heart.
Moot point however, the quote is a missed one. He never said this.
Actually, the advantage of science is that it can predict the future in an accurate fashion.
Ergo: I know x will happen because when all the variables are the same in the past, x has always happened.
The accuracy of the prediction is what changes in science, which is why it is a better system to use for predicting future events than other dogma based systems.
Ergo: Recently discovered factor y can be changed as a variable, and this accounts for x sometimes not happening the same way. We must account for this as a variable too.
You can go get another beer, as would be expected given you had three previously and chose to come to a bar, or you can choose to go home and sleep, or get in your car and drive, or swear off drinking forever.
The fact that options are present to you because of your previous choices (causality) is irrelevant to the fact that you still have full control over what option you select (free will).
Companies have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profits, but that doesn't directly translate into how they treat their employees. If company directors felt that hiring the 'best' employees at a premium was actually making them more efficient and thus in the best interests of shareholders, they could do exactly that.
You are speaking about company directors deliberately devaluing their company on purpose to serve some other end. Often this would be connected to fraud, or semi-fraudulent, hence the the case law behind your idea.
There is nothing stopping the union from re-negotiating the contract that exists today, the same way management wanted to re-negotiate the contract that previously existed.
The child needs to be at the right level to understand the concept before they can be coached to do it. The book is aimed for 6 year olds, so, I'm using that age. Teaching a corner kick to a 6 year old is a waste of time. (at least in North America) You are still teaching the basics of space, movement and ball control.
Ergo, playing a game is the best way for a 6 year old to learn. At this age, exposure is the key element.
>For example, when you build a bridge, there's a clear, objective line of quality somewhere above
She isn't building a bridge, she's writing a story for children. The failure point is that nobody likes her story and therefore it doesn't sell. That's the absolute worst thing that can happen. Not a single child will be so critically scarred from her story that they never learn programming. Yet it may resonate for some.
There is no point to critique when the downside is so unbelievably inconsequential and the plus side is beneficial to a person, other than simply being an ass.
Well, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that women are less tolerant of assholes, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Women (overall of course, individuals vary) and men in general have different social cues and expectations. That's why each gender will act differently in the locker room than they will around the boardroom table.
Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with suggesting that women in general are less tolerant of being directly criticized in a public forum than men are. I don't view it as a sign of weakness. Men are much less tolerant of the behind the back insults that happen in women's circles than women are. The genders (overall, again) relate differently.
Neither is a sign of weakness, although they are exactly that when one of the two methods is dominant. And that's where we are today - computer science is closer to a locker room in culture and behaviour in many ways than it is to a boardroom. I see no reason not to accept the fact that many women would not be comfortable given that.
It isn't the women that need to change, though.
(I also see your point. My first comment may not have been properly clear.)
It's not healthy to be permanently offended, but presenting an idea and being told that it isn't good (by someone presenting no alternative) or that you have ulterior motives (by readers of a website directed to startups of all things) isn't something someone should need to deal with.
A lot of women do. So do a lot of men. Computer science is filled with people on the poor side of "social skill set", and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. That's why there are less women in the field - they simply aren't going to tolerate a default reaction that is insulting first and helpful only if you ignore the attitude.
Don't get me wrong, we turn off a lot of people - men and women - because of this, but we lose a lot more women, percentage wise.
And just a note: The irony of you telling me to "please stop talking" is, well, perfectly suited to the topic of our conversation.