lmao, so I just ran this idea by my girlfriend and she said "yeah its good but there would be trolls, I would just put hideous women with hot guys, and vice versa" - so, not so easy to succeed at (also, what a catch my girl is :P)
Make it based on reputation for the matchmakers as well. So if you purposefully do bad matches, you'll eventually not be able to do any more matchmaking.
maybe its cuz i live in the country and not silicon valley, but my last date was a walk which cost nothing :) our second date we made a dinner together which also cost roughly nothing. we just like each other's company <3
That doesn't mean they're not expensive in other ways - It's enjoyable, but actively dating can be both emotionally taxing and just time-consuming, especially in the initial stages when you're working out if you like someone, or just looking for someone at all.
Not always. People find inventive ways of going on interesting dates. It will certainly put off those who are looking for someone who likes to spend money on them, but that’s an additional benefit.
Im surprised at peoples comments like "its not organic growth" and "they'll never be profitable" - how is TikTok different to snap/insta/fb in the early years? The thing that matters in that biz is hitting critical mass of users. Then they can spend the next 10 yrs bleeding their users in long tail of platform stickyness.
Chinese money wants in instead of the usual way where it’s western money trying to pick China. Not sure about censorship, always a possibility when Chinese money is involved.
He uses multiple dice a few times, but its more that he refers to "the dice" as some kind of god of chance, like "I shall let the dice decide my fate".
Am I out of the loop, what have Microsoft done to support open-source? Made linux containers easy to use on Azure? Wrote a code editor so that they extend and extinguish developer mindshare and get them onto Azure? Im being serious, what have MS actually done to claim they have supported open-source (and of course, open-source != free software)
They are one of the largest contributors to linux, donate $500k annually to Linux foundation (since 2016. Google joined in 2018), VS code, .net is open source to large degree, typescript is open source.
The Linux kernel contributions link doesen't have a year, so I don't know if something changed. But the last time I checked this, they were "top" contributor for one quarter/some time because they basicly dumped all of their HyperV support into the kernel and after that they disappeared from the kernel contributors lists almost compleately.
A quick google shows the latest Linux Kernel report by Linux Foundation from 2017[1] with the numbers, and they are not even there. It could be that some Microsoft employees are doing work on the kernel without attribution back to Microsoft, but generally speaking I think it's safe to say that the only contribution to the Linux Kernel from Microsoft was HyperV support quite some time ago.
Not saying that they didn't change their ways, but they are a long way from proving that this is not another EEE cycle. Not to even mention "breaking even" on the damage they did directly (and deliberately) to open source effort.
You ignored the 500k per year contribution to linux, VS code, the ongoing effort to fully open source dot net, them dumping Edge for chromium, their contributions to chromium especially on efficiency for battery is non trivial.
Microsoft could open source Windows and people will still mention EEE. Impossible right? But, open sourcing dot net was inconceivable just a few years ago.
You're talking about EEE. In fact, the organization that's actively performing the EEE strategy is Google. It's quite easy to spot if one isn't blinded by fandom.
E.g. webkit -> blink, rss, bundling of apps on android prevent manufacturers from using forked android, chrome OS has only one browser - MS didn't even do this to get in trouble, AMP project, and then experimenting with removing urls from the search page.
The lack of appreciation of pure knowledge in this thread is truly saddening. If all you care about is getting a job, this question boils down to simple finance. If you want to truly learn, understand and engage in a topic, what can possibly be better than emmersing oneself in an environment of learning, inquisitive students and knowledgable professors full-time?
> The lack of appreciation of pure knowledge in this thread is truly saddening. If all you care about is getting a job, this question boils down to simple finance. If you want to truly learn, understand and engage in a topic, what can possibly be better than emmersing oneself in an environment of learning, inquisitive students and knowledgable professors full-time?
It's sad, but inevitable with tuition and living fees as they are set now. I do some contracting for a university in the UK, and I honestly don't blame the students who treat the university as a service provider and the degree as a financial investment. They're paying customers and deserve a high quality service with good teaching and good facilities. There's no room for variability here, the CMA will rightly fine universities who have misled students or failed to fulfill their obligations.
If the degrees were free at the point of use (as used to be the case here), I'd totally be behind the idea of studying for the sake of broadening one's horizons.
Fact is, they've gotten increasingly more expensive and the students with sense are going to make sure they get a return on what will (for some) likely be a working lifetime of additional tax or a huge upfront cost.
You need to be in a privileged position to suggest that dropping probably around £45k on 3 years of a degree should solely come down to a desire of "immersing oneself in an environment of learning, inquisitive students and knowledgable professors full-time". The "simple financials" are a barrier to today's students - even with the UK's maintenance and tuition loans.
£45k is for international (that is non-EU, for now, sigh) students, right? It’s £27k otherwise. Which is still a lot, but I think we shouldn’t complain: it’s much less than what top US schools charge, and the tuition loan conditions are extremely manageable. I.e. no job == no payments. So I would say it’s a safe investment, especially for a profession with so much demand in the foreseeable future.
>£45k is for international (that is non-EU, for now, sigh) students, right? It’s £27k otherwise.
You're quite right it's £27,750 for home/EU students currently, but I'm including maintenance/living costs in my figure too which realistically will probably be about 5-6k a year. Some universities make working part-time more feasible than others, which can help with this aspect.
If you're international, the total can be closer to £90k after three years (based on a band 2 UG course @ Warwick + £5k per year maintenance/living costs).
>I think we shouldn’t complain: it’s much less than what top US schools charge
I'd respectfully disagree - aiming to be better than the US sets an incredibly low bar. Just like their healthcare, US education is ridiculously expensive and some of the (private) loans seem almost predatory. We should be looking at Europe where in quite a few countries tuition is a few hundred euros a year. Or, thinking back a few years where tuition was £3k or free entirely.
>the tuition loan conditions are extremely manageable
It's definitely a forgiving loan in terms of repayments - but my loan accumulated interest at ~6.3% whilst I was still studying with no proper income. That interest rate is worse than a bank loan.
If you want to take advantage of not having to repay the loan, you're essentially betting against your future earnings potential.
It's a mistake to think that school is the best way to appreciate "pure knowledge" for all people. I "taught myself" a lot, and later had the opportunity to take CS classes in a highly ranked (for CS) university (I already had a college degree from another university in another subject). I was thoroughly underwhelmed by the classes. I took a number before eventually giving up (got good grades in all of the ones I took).
Further, the idea that not learning in school is "teaching yourself" is flawed. You're using books written by others (sometimes the same books that are being used in university. There are communities - online and in real life - that you have access too, often full of people much more dedicated and experienced in the field than university classmates. If you really want something that's similar to a university class, there are MOOCs, coursework, and lectures available.
Normal people appreciate pure knowledge about as much as I do team sports. I see no moral reason to privilege my enjoyment of literature, economics, sociology or physics over theirs of tv, the Super Bowl and other things I don’t really care about.
The education system gets 12 years to expose almost everyone to great art and science, some of them go onto further study and most people in both groups never engage in anything resembling pursuit of knowledge for its own sake once their studies are over.
Nothing wrong with that. My life would have been better if no one has tried to expose me to team sports when I didn’t care. I wouldn’t have been under the impression I hate exercise when I just find team sports grating.
People who love knowledge have their entire lives to pursue it. The people who want a job and to watch their three hours of TV a day out spend time with their children, friends or spouses have to endure 12 years of boredom in K-12 and then four more if they have to get a degree to get a job that’ll get them a job they want. They’re paying in time and suffering. They don’t deserve pity.
Most parents and students aren’t getting in 10s of thousands in debt to go to school for “pure knowledge”, they are going to school to get a job. Being able to get in debt for their child to be a better citizen of the world while they get a degree in “Ancient Chinese Art History” is not a luxury that most have.
Hmmm, I love pure knowledge, I love reading about everything, I am super curious about most of the things I find. And I hated when I was in college (this is from the perspective of two universities I have attended in the Barcelona area, it may be different in other places). Classes are uninteresting and slow. I love learning on my own, I hate to have a rigid curriculum.
I'd like to see us change our notions about what college means. There's this idea that college is extended school, and something that is done when you're young.
The reality is that we all learn continuously throughout our lives. A college should simply be a place that provides (a) low-cost temporary housing for those who need to devote more time to pursuing knowledge than to a job, (b) access to as many learning resources as possible, and (c) optional classes/mentorships/tutoring for additional cost.
Immersing yourself in a supportive environment for the sole purpose of education is an extraordinary experience, and it's sad that not everyone gets to experience it.
We should work to keep this idea alive, but in order for it to persist, the model has to change. The juxtaposition of that high-minded ideal with the harrowing reality of the financial cost is too jarring. We can give all the lip service to collegiate education that we want, but if we slap a 100K price tag on it, it's no longer an ideal.
I think you need to learn to appreciate that universities don't have a monopoly on pure knowledge. You can learn a lot on your own if you have the time and patience.
Furthermore, with new online courses you can learn more advanced topics in a far easier manner than every before.
