> Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble? -- SICP
That was written what, 40 years ago? Fast forward today now computer hardware is meant to be discarded! protocols change, batteries and disks are sealed inside cases, driver software is abandoned to cloud-disabled... a piece of hardware 3 years old is ancient, unsupported, trash.
This is incorrect. Old works are not copyright-locked because the owner can charge for access. Old works are copyright-locked because they compete with new marketable products. If we could watch classic films/music/etc for free, we'd spend less on new films/music/etc
As I said in my comment, "That is, living with parents after graduation is done to just survive, rather than to save more and pay off student loans faster."
My problem is that the advantages/payoffs (more savings, faster student loan payoffs, etc) of sensible/smart behavior are removed, while the misery/discomfort/etc (living with parents, being looked at funny, not being able to be alone) remain (or are made worse).
It's even worse if the idiots then repeatedly bring up the advantages (to excuse themselves of what they did and to make it seem there's nothing wrong with what they are doing), as though they still exist.
You seem to have strongly internalized the notion that only 'losers' live with their parents, and hence it's inherently wrong to do so. I would question that assumption.
It's the US that's the outlier here -- in most countries, living with parents at least for some points in time is the normal thing to do, for the simple reason that it's more economical.
In China it is normal to live with your parents (and even grandparents) all your life -- even after marriage and kids -- so that you can take care of your elders.
What makes you think I've internalized such a thing?
The stereotype is that losers live with their parents. It was fairly common for smarter new grads to live with their parents (to save more money). These days, it seems almost mandatory in many cases, especially if they can't find a job.
That said, even with it being obvious what's going on, the idiots can't resist saying the dumbest thing. But that's them in general: no matter what's going, they are always looking for a way to say something stupid.
As for me, I'm 30 and living with my mother, but I'd definitely rather not be. I'm not living with her to be smarter, it's because I'm unemployed and unable to function due to mental illness (though as I said above, I think someone is did this to me).
Unless you would happen to qualify for public assistance, you'd be nearly starving and exposed to the elements. You simply can't meet basic needs on your own with that without outside support. There are a few exceptions for temporary circumstances (You might be able to farm and live in your paid-off house, for example, but without utilities - and you'd be out of luck when your first property tax bill arrives).
All of our data is actually hidden inside a mountain carved to look like Travis's head, a la Mt. Richmore from the hit 90s movie Richie Rich. There are many layers of security, including a voice recognition algorithm that only responds to Ryan Graves singing Never Gonna Give You Up.
But in all seriousness, I'd imagine the execs need to go through the same process an engineer would.
> But in all seriousness, I'd imagine the execs need to go through the same process an engineer would.
You see. You imagine. You believe. You are told. You do not know. And even if it were so today it would not have to be that way tomorrow. So even todays security isn't enough of a reassurance.
The only secure data is data never collected in the first place. And until the friggin disruptive startups start to recognize this I will try to not support them in making my data more insecure.
Hindsight bias. It's very easy to look at the 3 winners over a long time horizon and say, "Look, they keep on going up and up." If this were a real trading strategy, then Momentum would sustain itself over a longer time, but the empirical academic evidence is that it's short term.
Over long time horizons, this tends to reverse itself. (Both companies and markets with unusually high PE ratios underperform low PEs over long time horizons) This is well accepted in finance. [0] [1]
