As an individual, I almost always would choose a language I already know comfortably, and every other factor would come after that - unless I were setting out to learn something new.
Other factors:
- is there tooling that will help me be productive with this language?
- is there a broad enough community of users such that finding helpful resources will be straightforward?
- how likely is it that the language I choose will be well-supported by its owners (or community) in 5-10 years?
- is the language expressive? can it be made to be efficient?
- does it appeal to me aesthetically?
- does it have good cross-platform support? (Windows, macOS, Linux)
- is it supported by build systems and/or CI products?
Through the filter of "stuff I know", my choice for most things at this point is F# on .NET Core/.NET 5. (and/or Fable).
For learning something new, I'd probably choose elixir with elm, or maybe Rust, depending on the application.
ASP.NET is pretty bare bones, all by itself. It's pretty much just a simple pipeline of request handlers with DI support (which is also optional). MVC, routing, Razor - all unnecessary if you don't want to use them.
I agree that the ASP.NET documentation is lacking in F# code samples (although the example you picked is a bad one as Razor doesn't support F#, and so naturally wouldn't have F# code samples). You might find that Giraffe is a more comfortable framework, as it's essentially an F#-ified shim on top of ASP.NET.
Not at all. Keep in mind that YC startups are birthed from a very narrow slice of the tech world. .NET Core is very, very good tech and unless you need something super niche, there's no reason to doubt your choice. Press on.
This would be more interesting if YC didn't have a strong inherent bias toward these particular languages. In other words: these are the results because this is what YC picks and filters for, not because of any inherent meaningfulness about choosing these languages, or qualities of the languages.
This is incorrect. Firstly, it's 10 per second. Secondly, it shouldn't be all that hard to imagine "side chains" or even "local-party networks" being built to handle transactions and use the underlying blockchain as a settlement mechanism. This is, as I understand it, how the lightning network works/will work, and I see no reason to think it wouldn't improve Bitcoin's adoption, which is already orders of magnitude better than other cryptos.
I've seen some employers keep an "unlimited vacation" policy with strongly-suggested (i.e., mandatory?) minimums like 3 weeks a year. Having minimums would probably help with this trap, although I can't really speak from experience on the matter.
They appear to only publish it by ISP. Part of my problem is not knowing comprehensively what ISPs serve my area, so I need to look it up by zip code or city.
1. When will someone build a tool like this and then open up the measurements data? A speed-measuring tool would be infinitely more useful if we could investigate the results beyond just our one device for one test. A question I really want to be able to answer: which ISP offers the fastest service in my area? fast.com and speedtest.net could easily answer this question if they made the data available.
2. I think tests like this that rely on a built-out network and well-placed CDNs and such are probably junk. A more useful test would be against a handful of download targets that aren't optimized, and then average the results. This is particularly true for Netflix. Case in point: fast.com says I download at 78Mbps, but speedtest.net has me down around 57. I'm only paying for 30.
I find exactly the opposite in my circle of influence: my conservative friends are actually more open to arguments from people who disagree with them, and are more likely to _understand_ the opposing viewpoint than are the people I know who are liberal.
Conservatives are actually more aligned with "classical liberalism", though, so maybe the generalization is kinda right, but not like you intended.