I haven't feel any of that among the companies I've contacted. I've been pretty selective about whom I've contacted, so there may be some selection bias there. But my choice has always been based on product/position fit, not on employee age. And HN has by far been the best source for things I'm interested in.
I'll admit I often consciously choose to wear my XKCD hoodie when I meet people for the first time. Not that I don't wear it a lot anyway, but ...
I kind of feel like Steve was sort of an existence proof that age no longer represents the cultural divide it might have at another time.
Actually, my comments were towards what Steve said, not what you said. Sorry that that wasn't clear.
Steve says biotech is data mining, and it's not. It's a physics problem. A lot of very, very hard physics problems. On systems that are hard to observe, since observing them tends to kill them and/or otherwise change the way they function.
Andy Grove made an even more egregious example of this a few years ago. In a talk he gave, he spoke at length about how biotech needed to learn from tech. Anybody that knows anything about the complexity of biology would find his comments ... well, calling it naive would be very kind.
Most people, including tech people, don't understand how vastly more complex biology is than tech.
It's not actually clear how tech can help biotech. There was a rush of work in the 90s related to sequence reconstruction that has been very useful in reducing a lot drudgery. But not necessarily much that has been able to move higher up the stack, stuff like systems biology. These systems are so complex and non-linear that analytical tools often get overwhelmed or don't produce meaningful results because the models and observable data are so radically simplified.
It's not that it shouldn't be worked on. It's just that indications of the likelihood of a singularity/inflection point aren't so high as seem to be often spoken of.
Steve was very mercurial: at one point, he would think someone a saint and at another a devil, and visa versa. I could see that pattern be very explosive in dealing with someone like himself.
I find it a little disconcerting that the two primary things CL makes money from, housing and jobs, don't (obviously) fit for OfferUp, Grabio or HipSwap. Plus it looks like OfferUp only does posting from iOS for now. CL notwithstanding, seems like a lack of ubiquity is a show-stopper for adoption.
Suppose it's a bit off-topic, but would Steve have fired Steve? I suppose the less interesting but more likely answer is he wouldn't have worked for himself.
They get paid. Dan talks about it occasionally, around talking about FreshBooks, I think.
No idea how much, but I think it was David Smith of Developing Perspective that said a week of DF sponsorship was $7K and 5by5 $5K? Sure at least the latter must depend on the show. Plus I'm probably mixing things up. Episode 42?
I wonder how big a deal this will be. Relying on GC feels like it goes hand in hand with dynamic languages. I'm used to not having to worry about cycles.
Of course, I guess I'm use to not having to worry too much about memory, either ...
Weak references aren't a panacea. It's not that uncommon to have cycles where all edges are equally strong. Any social graph ...
I use use counts to collect those cycles. ARC doesn't let you use use counts, but you don't have to use ARC everywhere. You do have to access to the underlying use counts ... MacRuby should allow access to that (it's just a standard Cocoa call) as long as it doesn't keep stray retains around that screw up my count balances ...