I've read to my kid since forever, my wife as well. We have a library that rivals most school's and we read to him 2-3 books (at least) a day. He is 3.5 years old and can't read at all (heck, I think he recognises some words but I'm not even sure of that).
At 3 I was able to do math (addition, subtraction and basic multiplication) quite easily but basic reading only came to me at around 5 years old.
Kids are different, some learn to read earlier, others later, same with math, same with diapers, same with everything really. My 3.5 year old can climb trees like a 7 year old (better even if the kids around here are any indication). Do basic math (he has the concept of multiplication and can do most numbers times 2 or times 10). Recognises flowers and various different birds. He knows most traffic signs. He can almost cook his breakfast with just a bit of help with the oven. He does physics experiments (with our help). Are we worried that his peers at school know more letters? No. Kids develop at different speeds, but unfortunately, schools/kindergartens/parents expect their little treasures to be the smartest, brightest unique snowflakes and push them to it.
It's great that you think this way. I see too much of this pressure with my friends who have kids. They want to see them do math and read before they're x years old, with x being one or two less than what the cheaper schools are doing. My 3.5 says more elaborate sentences than the older kids, but never showed any special interest in math, and I never felt that he was ready to learn to read. It's completely normal for a 3.5 kid to not be ready to learn these things.
Most likely, when HN started, you had the YC groups and a few others. This meant Ivy League educated ($$$$) or related to VC/Investors ($$$$). Now you hear comments from plumbers, doctors, fast food employees so you get more perspective from the other side
Just as a counter point, for me was the opposite. Skipping breakfast was what made me be more focused.
I remember since I was a kid, I hated eating breakfast (no matter which type: eggs or sugar ridden cereals, it was the same) and growing up, I always had trouble focusing in the morning. It was only when I started to skip breakfast and have lunch at around 1-2pm did my focus and attention improved.
Long story short, different strokes for different folks ;)
Well, there is the fact that is US (and other) corporations that sell products in the US market, but are able to skirt US rules by offloading those costs to other countries without contributing much to the US wellbeing. It is not about being more deserving, is about taking advantage of 'loopholes' in the whole process. For example, in Europe, it is quite common for employers pay on top of the salary 20-40% extra in taxes and social security for a local employee. Even if they pay the same salary to an offshore person, and skirt those 20-40% of taxes, the company wins, the offshore person may win, but the company that uses the country it is doing business in isn't paying it's fair share.
Think of this differently. Imagine a company that offshores all costs (employees, manufacturing, etc) and just has a director/owner in the US. They also use creative accounting so their tax rate is very low. Lets ignore the costs of using the infrastructure as well. Now, this seems like an amazing deal for the owner + their non-us suppliers right? IS it fair for the citizens? What would the owner ask the gov. to do if the citizens then just decided to rob the owner blind? Or destroy the cargo ships as soon as they entered the US? Would he just say "well, tough luck" or they would fight tooth and nail to get the gov/police involved?
I'm fairly liberal, but more and more believe there has to be a balance of responsibilities between corporations and the citizens, because if not, there will be a point where something will change, and most likely by force (check European countries history in the last decade for example)
Apart from that, maybe join some kind of regular group that is more oriented for social than physical? Toastmasters or something like that or even board game groups (most games have some social aspects to them). Wine tastings also come to mind. Just choose activities where you know you will have to speak with people.
I've got both of those books and even took a DC communications course (for which I paid out of pocket). They got me into some paralysis by analysis. Every interaction becomes a frantic tree search through the set of conversational rules I learned from those and other advice books. Win Friends in particular seemed very glib and sales/business oriented, rather than aimed at connecting on a sincere level.
Different approach then, have you tried having one or two beers (wine/scotch whatever) before? Not enough to get drunk, but enough for some of that paralysis by analysis to fade?
This is not bad advice. I'm naturally a bit reticent, but a beer or two and I'm chatty and can break through some social barriers. (There's a limit of course, moderation is best.) People call drinking a "crutch" but it's no more so than any other self help advice; alcohol can break down some inhibitions and lead to interesting conversations. (I've heard pot works similarly though I've never used it for social disinhibition myself.)
Practice doesn't help if you're brain is literally wired differently. Practice can only cover up with intellect a deficiency in behavior that others do automatically and unconsciously, which means no matter how good you get at faking it, it's still going to be exhausting and aggravating because you lack the underlying natural behaviors.
One one hand, I'm a bit worried as I know various folks that are dependent on the oil industry and this will probably mean more layoffs/companies closing, on the other hand, I'm really happy to see this (helps many economies as well as ordinary folks) and it seems some of the changes from oil to other sources of energy are finally showing some results (I hope)
OPEC is trying to destroy the American shale businesses by making them unprofitable. There was huge investment in shale based on higher oil prices and if they can't recoup that investment OPEC stands to keep their monopoly.
That isn't going to happen. Fracking isn't going away, it's a technology. The Saudis are openly acknowledging their misjudgement of the situation at this point. The fracking technology shift is permanent, so long as regulations don't stop it. And it's going to spread across the globe with a little bit of time. What has been done in Texas, can be done in Mexico, for example.
If Pioneer or Apache implode, then Exxon will scoop them up at a big discount, and when oil rises back to $50+ or higher, Exxon starts the production back up. These wells are incredibly inexpensive now, they know where the oil is, and they're producing three times more oil per well than they were a few years ago.
Texas oil is now down to $10 to $20 / barrel cost wise, and the Bakken is down to closer to $40. The Saudis need $100 oil to balance their budget, they're currently vaporizing their reserves to play this game of chicken. Estimates are those reserves will be exhausted by the end of the decade if oil doesn't return to $80+.
OPEC is no longer a coordinated entity. For decades OPEC's member nations waged economic war on each other by cutting prices to increase marketshare, in violation of OPEC quotas. The Saudis acted as the swing producer, lowering their output to keep crude prices near the OPEC target. Last year the Saudis abandoned that roll and admitted that OPEC had become a a free-for-all.
Well, not all of OPEC, but the Saudi intent is to destroy the US shale business. While doing so, they seem to be hitting Russia and South America pretty damn hard. This is worrying since shale can go lower than Russia and Venezuela ($34 - $50 is the bottom depending on area of the balkans). Canada oil sands is higher since the oil is of lower quality.
You're kidding right? This is a move by oil capital to use the market to squash competitors in the short term, undermine their investments, and ensure a relative monopoly in the long term.
I'm glad to be out of the oil/gas industry. Got laid off from one of the largest energy services companies back in January, after more than twelve years. Got another sysadmin gig, and I've never been happier.
If you are in the UK, 50k a year (above average but honestly, if even remotely close to London, not that much) will bring you a tax bill of around 38% (19k) if you consider employee NHS contributions ( data from http://www.listentotaxman.com/50000? ). So you are already at 38% and you have council tax (probably another 2k or more a year) plus VAT (21% or something?) on stuff you buy. I don't remember other taxes I paid while in the UK but these were the big ones. It isn't hard to get to the end of the year and see that you(+ employer) paid around 50-60% in taxes.
I live in Portugal, and if I consider VAT+income tax+social security contributions (self employed so I pay both parts or approx. 33% in social security) and ignoring other extra taxes (property, road tax, etc) 62% or so of the money I earn goes to the government (this was for 2014, my accountant did the math). I could probably get this lower with some creative accounting I guess.
Yes. That was the point of the grandfather post. That on top of that you even have employers contributions. If you add all of that you will get a value that often reaches 50-60%. I've given the example of myself, since I'm self-employed I pay everything, my tax rate is around 60%.
Ah, if you can still edit it then you might want to change "employee" to "employer" then.
In which case your effective tax rate is ~35% rather than 38%, 36325 / 55780.
My council tax is under £1200/year (and that's for the house, so we should only count half of that for me and half for my wife) and VAT is 20% on some but not all items. Pension contributions bring the tax rate down too, so it gets a bit hard to compare.
It's not fantastic, it's just that the UK is a very unequal country with an expensive property market. 50k gives a comfortable middle-class lifestyle outside London.
If you weren't paying those taxes, how much would you have to pay simply for equivalent health/education/unemployment insurance/pensions cover?
I have no twitter, no fb, no reddit, no g+, Github, and my account here is a throwaway which I regularly abandon and create a new one.
I was never asked for any of this (well, except github on job applications in the past which never been a problem when I explain them I don't have one) and if in the future I am, I probably will drop the deal (whatever it is) on the spot.
If the only way your friends reach out to you is FB, then they're probably not so much of friends. My real friends know my email, phone, IM, etc. There're plenty of ways to get in touch, if you value the person you're trying to reach.
I use email/phone if I want to do something with someone (mostly phone). There may be events like a house warming party that only gets posted to FB, but somehow that tends to reach me through someone, and if they don't, well.. not much is lost to be honest.
To be fair, most of the people I hang out with aren't that into Facebook/other or even if they are, they know I'm not there so they reach out to me/my wife over the phone.
I'm in my early 30's if it it counts for anything.
Sorta me too, except I'm in my late 50s. I'm not really friends with "a group." I'm friends with individuals, many of whom know each other or don't, and they contact me.
It's a solved problem, since before the web, and even before the internet.
Yeah, I think that may be the main difference from folks that feel disconnected when they are off FB. I have relationships with individuals (or sometimes couples), but never with 'groups'. Probably the most group thing I do is people that play tennis where I do, but again, I have their phones and whenever I want a pick up game, I just do a few calls. I love leaving my laptop/smartphone behind and just go enjoy doing something without the fear of missing something.
At 3 I was able to do math (addition, subtraction and basic multiplication) quite easily but basic reading only came to me at around 5 years old.
Kids are different, some learn to read earlier, others later, same with math, same with diapers, same with everything really. My 3.5 year old can climb trees like a 7 year old (better even if the kids around here are any indication). Do basic math (he has the concept of multiplication and can do most numbers times 2 or times 10). Recognises flowers and various different birds. He knows most traffic signs. He can almost cook his breakfast with just a bit of help with the oven. He does physics experiments (with our help). Are we worried that his peers at school know more letters? No. Kids develop at different speeds, but unfortunately, schools/kindergartens/parents expect their little treasures to be the smartest, brightest unique snowflakes and push them to it.