I think it has to be much cheaper than that, or there has to be a use case substantially better than "monitor replacement".
If I had the choice between a VR headset and three monitors, I'd take the three monitors. They are more generally useful and don't require me to wear any gear.
But it is more than just persistence, it is improving with each failure.
I wish I had thought to include this, it's spot on. Suffering a defeat is just a loss. Extracting lessons from that defeat to improve future behavior transforms it into something better.
Yes, one of my pet peeves is when people use "successful" as a synonym for "monetarily profitable".
Certainly, for some people, the two are the same. But that's not true for everybody. There are lots of people who don't earn much, but who are successful by their own measure -- and that's the only measure that really counts.
A huge part of luck is not having your life turned on it's head by some event outside of your control.
Hmm. This may depend on your personality and the nature of the disaster. Disaster and opportunity often go hand in hand, and I've seen more than one person who suffered true disaster manage to leverage that into bettering their situation in the long run.
The argument can be made that you should have been prepared for whatever it was but it is impossible to be prepared for everything.
I would say that's the wrong approach to "being prepared". You can't plan out everything that might happen and set up contingencies for it all! But you can be more generally prepared, mentally, emotionally, and physically, to be able to continue to function (or even advance) through disaster.
One of our societal flaws seems to be that there will always be a sizable portion of the population living in poverty.
You'll get no argument from me!
Then, days before I started terminal leave someone contacted me out of the blue to essentially offer a job.
But that wasn't blind luck. That was the result of things that you said and did earlier in your life. After all, the person who contacted you had to both know who you were and at least have some indication that you would be good in the position.
Have you considered that there might be plenty of people out there who fail, don't give up, try again, fail again, and just never hit the point of success? Maybe you don't know them, or maybe you attribute their failure to something else, but I don't think it's true that everyone who keeps trying will necessarily succeed eventually.
This is correct. I never meant to imply that persistence guarantees success. It most certainly does not. However, lack of persistence pretty much guarantees failure.
Still, some people get better opportunities than others, so... luck is still a part of it.
Yes, this is true. The world is not fair, and the playing field (whichever one you're playing on) is not level. I wasn't addressing that. I was really trying to point out that lots of people ascribe other people's success to random chance when, in fact, those people learned how to load the dice.
Of your examples, though, the only one that really seems like it adds value is the equipment maintenance one -- and that's pretty niche (and would not be that useful to engineers who are already familiar with the equipment).
In any case, I'm not going to say it can't happen! Tech advances in unpredictable ways, and it's possible that something will happen that will overcome the problems with VR as it exists right now. I doubt that will happen in my lifetime, but you never know.
One thing that I do know is that VR comes around on a regular basis, and every time it does there are people proclaiming that it's an inevitable future. So far, they've been wrong every time. That doesn't mean that they will always be wrong, of course.
All that said, there's a huge problem with the notion that it will "be everywhere and in everything": price. In order for that to happen, VR has to be straight-up cheap. I don't think this tech is likely to become cheap any time soon. It's more realistic to think that it will become a tool that most people will use in certain situations, but won't be ubiquitous.
I don't use Facebook or Twitter either, so I don't know why the article keeps bringing those programs up.
I'm guessing it's because someone has determined that the sort of people who are likely to be interested in buying one of those things are also the sort of people who use Facebook and Twitter a lot? Otherwise, you're right -- bringing that up makes no sense.
I could see VR becoming a solid high-end gaming accessory, but if it's to achieve anything like mass acceptance, it needs to be useful for something other than games (or become really, really inexpensive).
For a startup founder, your company is ALWAYS in crisis.
Truer words were never spoken! A corollary to that is if the founder isn't aware that the startup is in crisis, that startup is doomed.
This, by the way, is one of the reasons I consider a large amount of funding for a startup to be toxic. It can encourage the illusion that the startup is on its feet, and can cause a startup to be operated as if it were actually an established business -- which is one of the quicker ways to kill a startup.
They tried to make money on a 400$ juicer and not the juice
I don't think that's accurate. They were selling the juicer at a clear loss. Yes, it was expensive -- but the thing was unbelievably overengineered and cost them a lot more to build than they were asking.
The juice was the most massively overpriced part of the whole thing, and that you had to subscribe to regular deliveries of the stuff. They were clearly aiming to make their money on the juice.
Their problem was that they wanted to get sillicon valley VC money -- and there's no way those VCs were going to fund a food company. So they had to overengineer the juicer to make it "high tech" and sell that to the VCs.
The breach Equifax reported Thursday is very possibly is the most severe of all for a simple reason: the breath-taking amount of highly sensitive data it handed over to criminals.
I disagree. I think that the federal domestic data collection programs constitute the worst leak of personal information ever.
My success is 80% sweat, 1% connection and 19% luck.
While I agree with this, I'd like to make two observations:
First, the difference between someone who succeeds and someone who fails is that the one who succeeds doesn't give up after each failure. I've known quite a lot of very successful people, but I've never met a single one who hasn't left a string of failures behind them on the way.
Second, what people call "luck" isn't. One thing that stands out to me about people who are "lucky" is that they have a skill that can be somewhat subtle. All of us are surrounded by opportunities of all sorts, every day. We don't notice or recognize the majority of them (and, truthfully, most of them aren't of interest to us).
People who are "lucky" are people who are better at noticing these opportunities and taking advantage of them.
A fundamental rule about businesses is: you should never have anyone who is actually indispensable. If that person gets hit by a bus, the business is toast -- so a company with one of more indispensable people in it is a company in a weak or precarious position.
If the company really can't do without an exec for a week or so, I take that as a big red flag that the company is, at best, teetering. So let them have their vacation, it's probably not making anything worse.
It depends. Obviously, these changes come with a cost, so it's not an unambiguous win.
If cross-browser compatibility for extensions is important for you, then yes -- it's a step forward. If it's not important for you, then it's more of a step backward.
My recommendation is to try out the various alternatives yourself and see which ones fit your needs the best. There may be differences that are important to you, but you don't know are important until you encounter them.
they'll be left maintaining a parallel branch that will continue to diverge as time goes by
This is my hope. As you say, the other option is to eventually rebase from 57 or later. If that happens, then there won't be any reason to use Pale Moon.
I've been using CTR since it was first released, and have never noticed a performance impact. I wonder why it affects your installations (or, conversely, why it doesn't affect mine)?
Slashdot Mirror
In my case, the issue was basically that I didn't have enough credit cards.
That sentence right there is a perfect distillation of the insanity that is credit scores.
If you're actually financially responsible, which includes minimizing the amount of debt you have, your credit score takes a hit.
I think it has to be much cheaper than that, or there has to be a use case substantially better than "monitor replacement".
If I had the choice between a VR headset and three monitors, I'd take the three monitors. They are more generally useful and don't require me to wear any gear.
You can't judge a technology by trying out the worst instantiation of that technology.
But it is more than just persistence, it is improving with each failure.
I wish I had thought to include this, it's spot on. Suffering a defeat is just a loss. Extracting lessons from that defeat to improve future behavior transforms it into something better.
Yes, one of my pet peeves is when people use "successful" as a synonym for "monetarily profitable".
Certainly, for some people, the two are the same. But that's not true for everybody. There are lots of people who don't earn much, but who are successful by their own measure -- and that's the only measure that really counts.
A huge part of luck is not having your life turned on it's head by some event outside of your control.
Hmm. This may depend on your personality and the nature of the disaster. Disaster and opportunity often go hand in hand, and I've seen more than one person who suffered true disaster manage to leverage that into bettering their situation in the long run.
The argument can be made that you should have been prepared for whatever it was but it is impossible to be prepared for everything.
I would say that's the wrong approach to "being prepared". You can't plan out everything that might happen and set up contingencies for it all! But you can be more generally prepared, mentally, emotionally, and physically, to be able to continue to function (or even advance) through disaster.
One of our societal flaws seems to be that there will always be a sizable portion of the population living in poverty.
You'll get no argument from me!
Then, days before I started terminal leave someone contacted me out of the blue to essentially offer a job.
But that wasn't blind luck. That was the result of things that you said and did earlier in your life. After all, the person who contacted you had to both know who you were and at least have some indication that you would be good in the position.
Have you considered that there might be plenty of people out there who fail, don't give up, try again, fail again, and just never hit the point of success? Maybe you don't know them, or maybe you attribute their failure to something else, but I don't think it's true that everyone who keeps trying will necessarily succeed eventually.
This is correct. I never meant to imply that persistence guarantees success. It most certainly does not. However, lack of persistence pretty much guarantees failure.
Still, some people get better opportunities than others, so... luck is still a part of it.
Yes, this is true. The world is not fair, and the playing field (whichever one you're playing on) is not level. I wasn't addressing that. I was really trying to point out that lots of people ascribe other people's success to random chance when, in fact, those people learned how to load the dice.
Maybe.
Of your examples, though, the only one that really seems like it adds value is the equipment maintenance one -- and that's pretty niche (and would not be that useful to engineers who are already familiar with the equipment).
In any case, I'm not going to say it can't happen! Tech advances in unpredictable ways, and it's possible that something will happen that will overcome the problems with VR as it exists right now. I doubt that will happen in my lifetime, but you never know.
One thing that I do know is that VR comes around on a regular basis, and every time it does there are people proclaiming that it's an inevitable future. So far, they've been wrong every time. That doesn't mean that they will always be wrong, of course.
All that said, there's a huge problem with the notion that it will "be everywhere and in everything": price. In order for that to happen, VR has to be straight-up cheap. I don't think this tech is likely to become cheap any time soon. It's more realistic to think that it will become a tool that most people will use in certain situations, but won't be ubiquitous.
I don't use Facebook or Twitter either, so I don't know why the article keeps bringing those programs up.
I'm guessing it's because someone has determined that the sort of people who are likely to be interested in buying one of those things are also the sort of people who use Facebook and Twitter a lot? Otherwise, you're right -- bringing that up makes no sense.
I could see VR becoming a solid high-end gaming accessory, but if it's to achieve anything like mass acceptance, it needs to be useful for something other than games (or become really, really inexpensive).
Smartphones have nothing to do with it. I see three things impeding the mass acceptance of VR:
1) It's expensive
2) You have to wear it
3) There's no use case compelling enough to overcome 1 and 2 (unless, perhaps, you're a hardcore gamer)
Fake Facebook 'Like' Networks Render Meaningless 'Likes' Even More Meaningless.
For a startup founder, your company is ALWAYS in crisis.
Truer words were never spoken! A corollary to that is if the founder isn't aware that the startup is in crisis, that startup is doomed.
This, by the way, is one of the reasons I consider a large amount of funding for a startup to be toxic. It can encourage the illusion that the startup is on its feet, and can cause a startup to be operated as if it were actually an established business -- which is one of the quicker ways to kill a startup.
They tried to make money on a 400$ juicer and not the juice
I don't think that's accurate. They were selling the juicer at a clear loss. Yes, it was expensive -- but the thing was unbelievably overengineered and cost them a lot more to build than they were asking.
The juice was the most massively overpriced part of the whole thing, and that you had to subscribe to regular deliveries of the stuff. They were clearly aiming to make their money on the juice.
Their problem was that they wanted to get sillicon valley VC money -- and there's no way those VCs were going to fund a food company. So they had to overengineer the juicer to make it "high tech" and sell that to the VCs.
Absolutely true -- improvement only comes with practice! Also, each failure teaches you how to leverage "failure" to make future success more likely.
In that sense, I dislike the term "failure". Properly viewed, business failures are more like "continuing education".
This is an incredibly astute observation. There are many valid definitions of "success". When I use the term, I mean "achieved the intended goal".
I disagree. I think that the federal domestic data collection programs constitute the worst leak of personal information ever.
My success is 80% sweat, 1% connection and 19% luck.
While I agree with this, I'd like to make two observations:
First, the difference between someone who succeeds and someone who fails is that the one who succeeds doesn't give up after each failure. I've known quite a lot of very successful people, but I've never met a single one who hasn't left a string of failures behind them on the way.
Second, what people call "luck" isn't. One thing that stands out to me about people who are "lucky" is that they have a skill that can be somewhat subtle. All of us are surrounded by opportunities of all sorts, every day. We don't notice or recognize the majority of them (and, truthfully, most of them aren't of interest to us).
People who are "lucky" are people who are better at noticing these opportunities and taking advantage of them.
A fundamental rule about businesses is: you should never have anyone who is actually indispensable. If that person gets hit by a bus, the business is toast -- so a company with one of more indispensable people in it is a company in a weak or precarious position.
If the company really can't do without an exec for a week or so, I take that as a big red flag that the company is, at best, teetering. So let them have their vacation, it's probably not making anything worse.
I have a serious issue with the Brave browser: the ad swapping. That seems dishonest to me, and I can't support that behavior.
It depends. Obviously, these changes come with a cost, so it's not an unambiguous win.
If cross-browser compatibility for extensions is important for you, then yes -- it's a step forward. If it's not important for you, then it's more of a step backward.
My recommendation is to try out the various alternatives yourself and see which ones fit your needs the best. There may be differences that are important to you, but you don't know are important until you encounter them.
they'll be left maintaining a parallel branch that will continue to diverge as time goes by
This is my hope. As you say, the other option is to eventually rebase from 57 or later. If that happens, then there won't be any reason to use Pale Moon.
I've been using CTR since it was first released, and have never noticed a performance impact. I wonder why it affects your installations (or, conversely, why it doesn't affect mine)?
I guess it's a moot point, though.
last time I checked, NoScript for Chromedidn't have the full set of capabilities found in the Mozilla-based version.
There's a NoScript for Chrome?