"iOS6 is supported all the way back to the iPhone 3GS. How is this creating any fragmentation?"
He's talking about hardware fragmentation, the OS has nothing to do with it.
He's referring to the fact you have at least 5 different resolution/aspect ratio combinations to deal with now, and because iOS didn't plan for fragmentation from the outset, claiming it was a problem only for Android, it's more of a pain to deal with now.
In contrast, because Android planned for it from the outset, it's much more trivial to scale an Android app to different hardware configurations.
Also, whilst I understand you can have letterboxes on iOS to show original iPhone apps on the iPad, and existing iPhone apps on the new iPhone in their original display format, the point is that in existing apps this means you're getting no benefit from your new phone - in fact, you have a larger, more unweildy device and no benefit from it when using all these older apps. In contrast, because Android planned for exactly this, Android developers have written Android apps to cater to different screen sizes since release so you just about always get the benefit of your larger screen with Android and without any app recompiles.
This is being brought up because fragmentation was used to troll Android in the early days claiming it made Android more awkward to work with. Yet the thing is that fragmentation is essential to keep a product moving forward - you have to add new hardware, change screen resolutions and so forth to keep improving your device, it's a simple fact. People are bringing this up now because it's evidence of how stupid and lacking in foresight Apple's decision was to try and troll Android over fragmentation when Apple is now seeing fragmentation and in fact has to, if it wants to continue to move it's devices forward.
Fragmentation is a necessary evil and isn't a new problem. Any developer worth their salt should be able to deal with it as it's been a standard problem in desktop and web applications since their inception now. To not properly plan for it, as Apple didn't, was stupid and foolish, and Android's decision to plan for it despite early criticism is now coming into fruition because Android apps just keep on working and looking great on new devices, but many of the iPhone apps keep getting letterboxed, shrunk, or doubled in pixel size and so forth which makes them look shit.
If it sounds to you like the no true scotsman fallacy then that doesn't mean it is, it just means you've failed to logically comprehend the discussion at hand.
It's really quite simple, religious extremists have killed people stating they did so because the people they killed refuse to have the same beliefs as them.
Dictatorships have killed people because those people wanted to live their lives differently to how the state determined they should live their lives and because they refused to devote their lives to the will of the state and it's leadership.
What hasn't happened is atheists killing people because those people they would've killed refused to not believe in god.
No one's saying it's less evil, merely pointing out that it's a completely different issue such that it is not evidence that atheism is a driving force behind extremism, which it is completely true.
"lus you contradict yourself when you say that in one sentence, and then follow it with "they wanted them to worship the state not god"....that IS forced conversion."
Maybe, but the point is that it's not forced conversion to atheism, it's forced conversion adhering to the will of the state and it's leadership.
You've one off on a tangent, the argument was whether atheism has ever been a determining factor in committing an atrocity, not whether dictatorships have done things equally as bad as religious extremists. We all know the latter is true, but it has nothing to do with atheism being a driving force behind any kind of extremist ideologies like religion is, which was kind of the GP's point.
Actually, in a way there's a lot of evidence it is.
Many studies have concluded that the conflict between Israel, Jordan, Syria, and the Palestines over the years have been as much about raw resources like pure water in such a dry region as a decisive element in causing the conflict.
In Africa, much of the conflict surrounded the raw materials from mines - blood diamonds aren't merely a funding source for warring groups, but a cause as much as anything else as rivals decide to use violence to try and gain a greater share of said resource.
Resources - land, water, oil - are at the source of most conflicts.
"The odds start at close to 50% risk for divorce in the first place, for anyone."
This simply isn't true, if it were, then divorce rates would tend towards this value in every country, but they simply do not. Obviously many social factors come in to play. You're far less likely to get divorced if you're Italian for example.
You've not provided any source whatsoever for any of your claims either which makes your argument suspicious, and a quick Google has brought up some equally silly statistics:
One interesting key theme there though is those who are highly intelligent (which both Zuckerberg and his wife are) are the least likely groups to get a divorce which demonstrates my point that you can try and chip away at your 50% starting point (if even that was correct) with various stats here and there (even though combined with other factors they may have different outcomes) but the fact that they have already been a couple for quite some time, through some major upheavals in both their lives, coupled with the fact they're both smart, means that these combined things may mean they're a strong enough couple to drive a steamroller right through your other stats.
I'd wager people who are smart, and who have been able to get through such a major upheaval as these two went through without trouble have a far higher chance of staying together - and that's really the point here, if these two are a particularly unique subset, which, given their circumstances, they absolutely are (not many people make billions in their 20s) then the average becomes meaningless - these aren't average people, living a stereotypical lifestyle, by any measure.
The only statistic that would give a reasonable chance of determining the success of this particular marriage would be one that gives the average for their combined set of fairly unique circumstances, but you don't have that, so you've no idea. You can't simply choose an arbitrary starting point and take a number of disjoint statistics to arbitrarily chip away at that point and expect to come to any realistic or informed conclusion, it just doesn't work like that.
"but when was the last time you saw an angry mob of Christians storming a British embassy and murdering diplomats because Dawkins insulted them?"
The only reason for this is because said Christians that you're referring to live in a comfortably protected state.
But when you consider Christians who aren't, you see a different picture - in Africa many Christians have been equally guilty of slaughter of muslims and so forth, but more prominently you only have to look at what happened in Yugoslavia where the Christian Serbs literally commited one of the worst atrocitiesof the last 30 years against muslim civilians. The troubles in Ireland were as much about inter-Christian conflict as anything else and South America has seen much Christian conflict and terrorist groups to boot.
Which really goes to show it's much less about religion explicitly and more to do with political atmosphere and poverty. This is why your suggestion that Islam is somehow uniquely violent is utterly stupid, the only way you can make that correlation right now is because currently muslims are the ones living in political and economic environments where this sort of thing can thrive, in part, because largely Christian nations have been responsible somewhat for creating that atmosphere in some cases, the obvious one being Iraq, where Bush/Blair's Christian crusade stirred up a hornet's nest of Islamic terrorism.
Part the problem of the Western mindset and media is that it's quick to lump disparate Islamic terrorist groups together with Islamic extremists (but that do not resort to terrorism) and muslim civilians all in one basket creating the illusion of a grand Islamic problem. The issue is that it doesn't do the same when it comes to the IRA, Kony's LRA in Uganda, the KKK, Breivik in Norway, the NLFT in India, all committing terrorist acts in the name of Christianity yet it's really no different.
Islam isn't the problem (well, I say that, but personally I think all religion is a problem as it inherently requires a believer to be irrational, and to often reject logic in favour of, well, plain old bullshit), poverty is, political turmoil is. There are a few nutjobs out there too, these are a problem, but these are the same folk who would be serial killers in a state where religion is less prominent - basically they're societies violent oddities, the problem is that in a religiously vibrant place they find something to justify their psycopathic tendencies with and the means (guns, explosives, and an army of uneducated people) are available to do it on a larger, more violent scale are easily acquired.
That's such an arbitrary set of criteria you've tried to apply without applying any rationality to it:
"- He's a college drop-out, which near doubles the risk of divorce compared to someone having a degree."
Why? Because said people are more likely to suffer financial hardship due to poorer employment causing more stress. I don't think financial hardship will be a problem for Zuckerberg somehow. Zuckerberg didn't drop out of college because he wasn't that smart, he dropped out because he had achieved more than college could ever give him.
"- It's a mixed marriage with a white male and Asian-American female, which makes divorce around 4% more likely."
Does it? or is that statistic skewed by say, African-American relationships with white Americans where the racial prejudices are much more prevalent and problematic in such relationships. What's the figure for Asian-American/White-American relationships specifically? is the reasoning behind such marital breakups mitigated when wealth or level of education is increased?
"- There are no children, which further increases the risk of divorce."
Yet.
"- He's wealthy, which also increases the risk."
What about the skewing of this by hollywood types etc. that I pointed out? Amongst tech billionaires does this remain true? Is wealth the inherent cause of the risk or is it simply the stupid and wealthy? Does the greater intelligence of tech billionaires over say, rock stars allow them to outweigh this by having a relationship based on mutual love and respect rather than simply fucking the latest pinup?
I could go on, but the point is this, you're trying to pull out statistical quotations and apply them in an invalid manner. Your post is a classic example of the "Statistics can be used to prove anything" line, you're mis-applying them completely because you're using the general case, which may well not apply. Certainly you cannot say with any degree of confidence that the odds are against it, that is a complete and utter fabrication, based on misuse of statistics.
The primary mistake you've made is to assume from incomplete information what the real odds are on divorce, but you can't infer that from the incomplete information you've used. Yes, on average a college dropout in a mixed-race relationship, but a college dropout in a mixed-race relationship where both people are highly educated making the college dropout downsides irrelevant may statistically be more likely to lead a healthy marriage.
It may well be that doing an analysis of Slashdot moderations, that users who username begins with A are more often down-modded because they are more often wrong, but there may be a subgroup of those users for example, those beginning with A, but with a low UID are actually more often correct. The problem with your analysis is that you're ignoring that subgroup and applying the general case where it is likely not actually relevant.
"It is true, that employers have no loyalty to you. If you're gonna have the job security of a contractor, you might as well get the bill rate to go with it, eh?"
I agree, though I've not yet made the jump to contracting, I do find that I'm jumping jobs enough to mean I'm getting little of the permanent employee benefits (even here in the UK, with our strict employee protection laws I'm not due redundancy protection etc. unless I've been employed for something like a year) so I probably should make the jump to take the extra cash and tax deductables with no real loss. Currently though permanent employment has been doing me well, I've been flying up the chain so part my reasoning for staying is do I simply do a couple more years of it to get more Technical Architect, or shortly possibly even Technical Director experience and contract out at a higher rate doing that sort of role, rather than simply as a contract dev. I'm still a little undecided!
In the UK it's also slightly different regarding pensions though, by law, employers will soon have to offer some kind of pension which means you don't get much choice (I believe you can still opt out and run your own, but the point is you'll by default be given one in any perm job). This is because the public pension pot will otherwise become unmanagable so the government is simply pushing the burden onto employers. Honestly, I suspect by the time I retire the public pension pot will be gone entirely so you'll have to either have something yourself or one managed by your employer and besides, the state pension is so low anyway it's really only suited to being a fall back rather than something you can really live off to a worthwhile degree when you get older.
I think a lot of people need to get past the old fashioned idea of the world owing them a job, and owing them it for life no matter how irrelevant their skills have become, it really doesn't work like that anymore and as you say, the sooner people realise it the sooner they can look at themselves and do what is necessary to make that decent living. I think people used to believe that as part of the contract of the world owing them a job, they should be subservient to the firm for life for it giving them a job. It's just not like that now, it's a two way thing, part the trick is learning to bargain with your employer or prospective employer, and just as you would when bargaining with a trader - if you don't like the product (job) they're offering at the price (wage) they're offering it, then make sure you have the required skills to simply go elsewhere.
People form the vast majority of their views and understanding of the world from their personal experience, if you feel all personal experience should be discounted, you'd end up pretty fucking clueless about the world.
Sometimes personal experience means we're wrong, sometimes it means we're right, but fundamental the fact I pointed out that it was my personal experience was to accept that yes, I might not be right but I do not think I am wrong, because my argument actually follows logically to the conclusion that equality must be equality, anything else is, inherently, not equality, but there you have it.
Yeah because it's not as if relationships ever last, and women only ever marry for the divorce settlement don't they?
Perhaps you have had a rather traumatic marriage experience, but it is equally possible that they do actually love each other and get on great such that they will actually remain together until the day one of them dies.
He's a geek, not a Hollywood actor or rock star, he married someone he's known before he got rich, he married someone he loves, because he loves her, not because she's the latest oscar winning super-skinny blonde pinup actress, whom, with his fortunes, he could easily get if he really wanted to.
The GP's point still stands, if Zuckerberg is in a genuinely loving relationship then his position is just as secure as if he wasn't. That's kind of the point in having a healthy relationship, unfortunately many people don't get that.
No, your inability to stand up for yourself and your inability to ensure you're talented enough to be able to jump ship from any such company that expects such a thing are the reasons you have to work an 80 hour week.
I've never worked an 80 hour week, not once, I wouldn't even touch an employer who expected such a thing and you're an idiot if you do. If you do, then that also makes you the reason you have to work an 80 hour week - because you're actually letting companies get away with such absurdity. If you don't like it then walk, go get a job elsewhere, can't get a job elsewhere? skill up, improve yourself, then go get a job elsewhere. The only thing stopping you working somewhere that doesn't expect you to work an 80 hour week is you.
Yes, but what exactly does that have to do with anything? Being male doesn't mean I'm unable to see the hypocrisy in the feminist equality argument where what they actually mean is equality, but only when it suits them. If you have a male, and a female, in a relationship, and one of those necessarily needs to work shorter hours and in said relationship the couple decide that it is the female, then the female cannot complain that she is less favourable to her male counterparts when it comes to promotion due to the fact that she spends less time at her place of work and is hence less able to contribute to the company. There is nothing preventing her discussing with her partner that he instead be the one that works the shorter hours so that she does not face that barrier and he, like her, will then face the same issue vs. female counterparts. There is without a doubt a historical bias towards the female taking this role in a family, but I would wager from my personal experience of having discussed exactly this with many female colleagues that given the choice, many females would rather keep it that way, than be given the alternative of having to work longer hours to support the family financially. Absolutely this isn't universally the case, but then, that's why there is a trend towards more women being the breadwinners of the family nowadays - things are on the right trajectory, so what is the problem? For what it's worth, in our family, we don't have kids, both me and my girlfriend have been able to pursue our careers, she's certainly not found this apparent glass ceiling yet, but again, maybe that's because she actually puts in the hours like everyone else who fails to find this glass ceiling?
So again, what exactly was your point? I'm all for equality, but equality is equality, it's a two way thing.
"Yes, that is the line always used by people who oppose anti-discrimination legislation. Because obviously, the market sorts out all problems as long as you leave it alone."
On the contrary, I fully support said legislation and believe it's yet another reason why cries of ageism are largely FUD and merely a good excuse to cover for incompetence/lack of suitability for a role. I'm not much of a fan of the free market being left to be completely free largely because I think no ideology is absolutely perfect and balance is needed (hence why I believe a healthy blend of socialism/capitalism is far superior to extreme socialism ala Greece or extreme capitalism ala the US). That doesn't preclude me from recognising however that in some systems many theorised problems are never born into fruition due to the fact many such systems have emergent properties that naturally deal with those problems.
"HTML5 is roughly equivalent to Java as far as a multi-platform programming language and development platform."
No, not in the slightest. Not even close
"The only successful approach I've ever encountered to using a virtual machine was employed by the Digitalk VM which cached successive VM invocations so that you ran at native 'raw iron" machine speeds after encountering the performance hit the first and only time an pseudo-instruction was executed in a method.".
When did you last read anything about the JVM? 1995?
"The lethal performance problems that WordPerfect encountered trying to implement their suite of office products in Java still apply."
No, no they don't. That was the best part of a decade before Hotspot even came along, which was basically a complete rewrite.
You could've typed your post about 15 years ago, and you might've had a point. Now however, your post makes absolutely no sense, and shows an understanding that only someone who had literally been living under a rock for 15 years would have. Java has changed a lot since 1997, and your criticism is nonsensical in the context of those changes.
"but the legal duty of a trademark holder is to actively defend illegitimate use of the trademark or risk dilution."
So if you don't defend someone who is using your trademark illegitimately, then there is a risk you will be diluted? That sounds a bit harsh.
Don't worry, we know what you meant:
"but the legal duty of a trademark holder is to actively defend against illegitimate use of the trademark or risk losing the trademark due to trademark dilution."
"Employees no longer receive pensions, and in the field of computer programming they expect to be completely un-employable at 40 years of age (not due to lack of talent, but to rampant unchecked agism). So, employees *need* to charge a lot for their work."
I see this complaint a lot on Slashdot, perhaps it's country specific (the US?) but in my experience it's completely and utterly false in the UK and is merely an excuse for people who just don't cut it, and simply haven't kept their skills uptodate, or are merely just crap employees which makes them useless, no matter how much they've done before. It's the IT world's equivalent of manual labourers whinging about immigrants - sorry, but if an immigrant beats you to a job despite you being native to a country with a better education system, and often a native language advantage then it's your fault for not taking the opportunities given to you whilst the immigrant managed to make himself the better candidate despite not having the advantages you did. Oh, he took less pay? tough shit, you were probably overpaid- no one thinks they're overpaid, but it doesn't mean they aren't.
Honestly, it's tiresome to hear, if you're good at what you do and are willing to put in the hours then no one gives a fuck how young, or old you are, what race you are, what sex you are. It's the same as the women who whinge about the glass ceiling whilst simultaneously saying "Oh, but I need to leave at 3pm every day to pick the kids up" - tough fucking shit, get your husband to do it or accept that that's the price you pay for choosing to be the member of the family who opts to do less hours.
I know plenty of 40+ and 50+ programmers and none of them are having a problem with employment because they're good at what they do, and they've kept learning continuously throughout their careers. I do know some unemployed 30-somethings who worked in software development, but they're all unemployed because they're simply shit, they are the bottom 8%. Others I know that age and younger are seeing booming careers because they're simply superb at what they do.
There still seems to be far, far more software jobs around than there are suitable candidates. If you find yourself long-term unemployed in this field for more than maybe 3 months and think someone else is to blame, then you're probably one of those people incapable of introspection, if you're incapable of introspection, you're not going to be able to look objectively at your skills and abilities and recognise why employers don't want you. Or to put it simply, you are the problem.
Most employers aren't stupid, if you're asking for a sensible wage, and are extremely competent, then they'll jump at the opportunity to hire you whatever the fuck other traits you have. Racists, ageists and other bigots thankfully tend to get selected out in the world of business, because their competitors that aren't bigotted will rapidly snap up the talent they didn't want, leaving them with the shit.
When you're looking for a new job, you only have so much time in which you can attend interviews.
So say you're looking for a job now, a quarter of the way through the year, and you only have say, a week of leave left. Do you use that entire week on one job you may or may not get? or do you use those 5 days leave to attend 5 full day, or maybe even 10 half-day interviews? I know where I'd place my bet.
The kind of hiring process mentioned in TFA only works if you're so awesome that people desperately want to work for you, the problem is that a number of companies that do this sort of thing aren't actually as awesome as they seem to think they are. The net result is that the only people turning up to their process will be the unemployed, and many of the unemployed are often unemployed for a reason. You're going to find it hard to pull in the superstar programmers that no one else wants to let go of because they'll simply be too busy for your week long slave labour camp.
The really competent, busy, hard working individuals often just don't have a week off lying around for this sort drama. Throwing away a whole week on one potential job prospect is too massive a gamble compared to the alternative of instead using the time for 5 - 10 other job prospects.
You know, I don't know if it is popularity based. Maybe it is, maybe I've missed some obscure global trends, but I always found it amusing to type "Is it wrong". For some time this would end up with suggestions such as:
"Is it wrong to sleep with my mother" "Is it wrong to sleep with my brother" "Is it wrong to sleep with my sister" "Is it wrong to sleep with my dog"
I tried it today and noticed in 4th place:
"Is it wrong to have a centipede in my"
Now, again, as I say, maybe I've missed something, but are these really the most popular search terms? Over what time period? Presumably it's not over all time as someone else's response implies.
Similarly I've seen many suggestions pop up in the past that strike me as being far from likely to be purely popularity based.
Which is why the highest paid in our society do very little work, and genuinely do basically steal through tax avoidance etc.?
I get what you're saying, but if what you're saying is true then we're doing something wrong.
I suppose there's an argument however that those who do make the most money manage to do so precisely because they don't subscribe to those social norms and are happy to play the game by their own rules, instead of everyone elses. Hence the high number of extremely succesful sociopaths in the world, but either way, it's not working as one would hope.
That would be a sensible theory to answer the question if it were in any way true.
The problem is though the smartphone market is bigger than the tablet and MP3 player market combined, and Apple sells far far more iPhones than iPads and iPods combined, yet Android has over 3 times the marketshare of iOS in the smartphone market, and as such your theory unfortunately does not make any sense in the context of the actual cold hard data.
The ability is there to remove playstore enabled apps and nothing else. That's been examined over and over and over.
Sure Google could delete non-malicious apps, but in the past 4 - 5 years since release they haven't, whereas Amazon has removed legit content.
"After all this is the company that supposedly had no paid journalists and then managed to come up with a list after the judge told them to get real. They're not going to disclose anything that makes them look bad."
Ah I see, so you're just a Google hater, because that's a complete twist on reality. In reality the judge asked for a list of who'd been paid to blog about the case. Oracle explicitly paid two people to blog about the case, that is, Oracle paid them precisely for that purpose with the intention of swaying public opinion. In contrast, Google paid absolutely no one to do this explicity, but asked the judge if they needed to include people whom they had paid for some other reasons, but who had also blogged about the case off their own back - poining out this could include completely independent bloggers who get money from Google via AdSense for example. The judge said they didn't need to go that far but just a list of people who Google had paid at some point and whom had blogged about the case. Looking through the list you can see that the pay/blog link of those they listed is tenuous at best and merely a cautious list. Unlike Oracle, Google didn't explicitly pay anyone to blog about the case, only that some people they paid chose to blog about the case. Note that some Oracle employees did this also, but Oracle chose not to disclose any of them - Oracle only disclosed those they explicitly paid for the case - so Google were much more open than Oracle in that Google had no explicitly paid bloggers for the case, but some bloggers who they'd paid for other work in the past, and Oracle had 2 explicitly paid bloggers for the case, and some undisclosed number of bloggers who blogged about the case whom they'd paid for other stuff and blogged off their own back. Note that we know someo of this people exist, because Oracle has paid Gosling in the past, and we know he blogged about it, and yet Oracle didn't disclose him.
So yeah, I know Google has the potential to be evil over this sort of thing, but unlike Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, et. al. the evil they've done to date is relatively non-existent. They haven't sold my personal data illegaly like Facebook, they haven't taken away legit apps time and time again whilst abusing their monopoly position in digital music etc. like Apple, and they haven't strangled the market and abuse their monopoly like Microsoft. Perhaps they'll do something like Apple and Amazon and will remove legit apps at some point, but until then they're still the most trustworthy.
This wont matter to you though, as you clearly have some fanboy agenda. That much is betrayed by your attitude.
Having an ego and aggressive negotiation aren't the same things by any measure.
At the end of the day, companies may have someone with a big ego running a development team and be misled to believe that they know their stuff, but when someone who really does know their stuff comes along, it doesn't take much for management to realise cold hard facts, such as the guy who knows his stuff, and quietly just gets on with doing the job is delivering higher profit margins, lower staff turnover in his team and so forth.
I've seen this in a number of companies, the quiet but brilliant turn up on the first day of the job, they don't seem much, but they get on and deliver, they quietly gain respect as they manage to solve problems no one else could, sometimes even outside the role they were employed for, they deliver greater profits, their team is happier, and then they move on to new pastures and management look back at the guy with the ego with a completely recalibrated perspective on things.
""Rock stars" - we called them divas in my company - are notoriously unmanageable: many of them are temperamental, don't work well with others"
To me this means they weren't rock star developers. Being a great developers means being excellent not just at writing fancy algorithms, but being able to architect great code, being able to communicate with the project stakeholders to find out what they really want, being able to organise and train other coders to improve their level of competence. If your "rock star" developers were problematic, then I'd argue what you actually had were a bunch of people who managed to sell themselves as being more competent than they were - they told you they were "rock star" developers and you believed them, but in reality they weren't.
"tend to do what they "know" is right instead of doing what they're told"
I take issue with this. Surely the whole point in hiring the best of the best is that they know from experience what the fuck they are doing. If you don't listen to them then you are hence the problem, why hire them if you're just not going to listen to them and do things your way anyway? If you know better then you don't need them in the first place. If you do need them, then fucking listen to them.
Really, it's not difficult. The ones who really do deserve the "rock star" developer title are the ones whom you'd never have any of the problems you listed with (bar the one in the last paragraph which I believe is a flaw with your management rather than them). If you're having those problems then you've hired a salesman. A salesman who is a pro at selling himself at an overinflated price, but not really the person you were actually looking for.
Having an ego runs completely counter to being a great developer or engineer, because if you have an ego you're not capable of introspection, you're not capable of noticing your flaws, your weak areas, and improving them. If your devs have an ego then they're never going to be as good as the ones who quietly and happily just self improve. Take John Romero and John Carmack, one of these has a massive fucking ego, an ego so big it can fill a football stadium, the other has a long history of writing pretty impressive cutting edge code without ever displaying an ounce of ego. The latter has had an impressive career developing cutting edge tech, the former, when he went it alone became probably the biggest flop in the industry and his studio was only saved by a bunch of other previously nameless devs who worked on a separate project away from him.
Egos are a trait of wannabes, real superstars just get the fuck on and do what they do.
Slashdot Mirror
"iOS6 is supported all the way back to the iPhone 3GS. How is this creating any fragmentation?"
He's talking about hardware fragmentation, the OS has nothing to do with it.
He's referring to the fact you have at least 5 different resolution/aspect ratio combinations to deal with now, and because iOS didn't plan for fragmentation from the outset, claiming it was a problem only for Android, it's more of a pain to deal with now.
In contrast, because Android planned for it from the outset, it's much more trivial to scale an Android app to different hardware configurations.
Also, whilst I understand you can have letterboxes on iOS to show original iPhone apps on the iPad, and existing iPhone apps on the new iPhone in their original display format, the point is that in existing apps this means you're getting no benefit from your new phone - in fact, you have a larger, more unweildy device and no benefit from it when using all these older apps. In contrast, because Android planned for exactly this, Android developers have written Android apps to cater to different screen sizes since release so you just about always get the benefit of your larger screen with Android and without any app recompiles.
This is being brought up because fragmentation was used to troll Android in the early days claiming it made Android more awkward to work with. Yet the thing is that fragmentation is essential to keep a product moving forward - you have to add new hardware, change screen resolutions and so forth to keep improving your device, it's a simple fact. People are bringing this up now because it's evidence of how stupid and lacking in foresight Apple's decision was to try and troll Android over fragmentation when Apple is now seeing fragmentation and in fact has to, if it wants to continue to move it's devices forward.
Fragmentation is a necessary evil and isn't a new problem. Any developer worth their salt should be able to deal with it as it's been a standard problem in desktop and web applications since their inception now. To not properly plan for it, as Apple didn't, was stupid and foolish, and Android's decision to plan for it despite early criticism is now coming into fruition because Android apps just keep on working and looking great on new devices, but many of the iPhone apps keep getting letterboxed, shrunk, or doubled in pixel size and so forth which makes them look shit.
"Sounds to me like a No True Scotsman fallacy."
If it sounds to you like the no true scotsman fallacy then that doesn't mean it is, it just means you've failed to logically comprehend the discussion at hand.
It's really quite simple, religious extremists have killed people stating they did so because the people they killed refuse to have the same beliefs as them.
Dictatorships have killed people because those people wanted to live their lives differently to how the state determined they should live their lives and because they refused to devote their lives to the will of the state and it's leadership.
What hasn't happened is atheists killing people because those people they would've killed refused to not believe in god.
No one's saying it's less evil, merely pointing out that it's a completely different issue such that it is not evidence that atheism is a driving force behind extremism, which it is completely true.
"lus you contradict yourself when you say that in one sentence, and then follow it with "they wanted them to worship the state not god"....that IS forced conversion."
Maybe, but the point is that it's not forced conversion to atheism, it's forced conversion adhering to the will of the state and it's leadership.
You've one off on a tangent, the argument was whether atheism has ever been a determining factor in committing an atrocity, not whether dictatorships have done things equally as bad as religious extremists. We all know the latter is true, but it has nothing to do with atheism being a driving force behind any kind of extremist ideologies like religion is, which was kind of the GP's point.
Actually, in a way there's a lot of evidence it is.
Many studies have concluded that the conflict between Israel, Jordan, Syria, and the Palestines over the years have been as much about raw resources like pure water in such a dry region as a decisive element in causing the conflict.
In Africa, much of the conflict surrounded the raw materials from mines - blood diamonds aren't merely a funding source for warring groups, but a cause as much as anything else as rivals decide to use violence to try and gain a greater share of said resource.
Resources - land, water, oil - are at the source of most conflicts.
"The odds start at close to 50% risk for divorce in the first place, for anyone."
This simply isn't true, if it were, then divorce rates would tend towards this value in every country, but they simply do not. Obviously many social factors come in to play. You're far less likely to get divorced if you're Italian for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography
You've not provided any source whatsoever for any of your claims either which makes your argument suspicious, and a quick Google has brought up some equally silly statistics:
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/21-factors-may-increase-risk-divorce
One interesting key theme there though is those who are highly intelligent (which both Zuckerberg and his wife are) are the least likely groups to get a divorce which demonstrates my point that you can try and chip away at your 50% starting point (if even that was correct) with various stats here and there (even though combined with other factors they may have different outcomes) but the fact that they have already been a couple for quite some time, through some major upheavals in both their lives, coupled with the fact they're both smart, means that these combined things may mean they're a strong enough couple to drive a steamroller right through your other stats.
I'd wager people who are smart, and who have been able to get through such a major upheaval as these two went through without trouble have a far higher chance of staying together - and that's really the point here, if these two are a particularly unique subset, which, given their circumstances, they absolutely are (not many people make billions in their 20s) then the average becomes meaningless - these aren't average people, living a stereotypical lifestyle, by any measure.
The only statistic that would give a reasonable chance of determining the success of this particular marriage would be one that gives the average for their combined set of fairly unique circumstances, but you don't have that, so you've no idea. You can't simply choose an arbitrary starting point and take a number of disjoint statistics to arbitrarily chip away at that point and expect to come to any realistic or informed conclusion, it just doesn't work like that.
"but when was the last time you saw an angry mob of Christians storming a British embassy and murdering diplomats because Dawkins insulted them?"
The only reason for this is because said Christians that you're referring to live in a comfortably protected state.
But when you consider Christians who aren't, you see a different picture - in Africa many Christians have been equally guilty of slaughter of muslims and so forth, but more prominently you only have to look at what happened in Yugoslavia where the Christian Serbs literally commited one of the worst atrocitiesof the last 30 years against muslim civilians. The troubles in Ireland were as much about inter-Christian conflict as anything else and South America has seen much Christian conflict and terrorist groups to boot.
Which really goes to show it's much less about religion explicitly and more to do with political atmosphere and poverty. This is why your suggestion that Islam is somehow uniquely violent is utterly stupid, the only way you can make that correlation right now is because currently muslims are the ones living in political and economic environments where this sort of thing can thrive, in part, because largely Christian nations have been responsible somewhat for creating that atmosphere in some cases, the obvious one being Iraq, where Bush/Blair's Christian crusade stirred up a hornet's nest of Islamic terrorism.
Part the problem of the Western mindset and media is that it's quick to lump disparate Islamic terrorist groups together with Islamic extremists (but that do not resort to terrorism) and muslim civilians all in one basket creating the illusion of a grand Islamic problem. The issue is that it doesn't do the same when it comes to the IRA, Kony's LRA in Uganda, the KKK, Breivik in Norway, the NLFT in India, all committing terrorist acts in the name of Christianity yet it's really no different.
Islam isn't the problem (well, I say that, but personally I think all religion is a problem as it inherently requires a believer to be irrational, and to often reject logic in favour of, well, plain old bullshit), poverty is, political turmoil is. There are a few nutjobs out there too, these are a problem, but these are the same folk who would be serial killers in a state where religion is less prominent - basically they're societies violent oddities, the problem is that in a religiously vibrant place they find something to justify their psycopathic tendencies with and the means (guns, explosives, and an army of uneducated people) are available to do it on a larger, more violent scale are easily acquired.
The Christian crusader type terms.
He literally believes he's a modern christian crusader.
Absolutely, that's why Bill Gates' marriage was over so quickly.
Oh wait, nevermind.
That's such an arbitrary set of criteria you've tried to apply without applying any rationality to it:
"- He's a college drop-out, which near doubles the risk of divorce compared to someone having a degree."
Why? Because said people are more likely to suffer financial hardship due to poorer employment causing more stress. I don't think financial hardship will be a problem for Zuckerberg somehow. Zuckerberg didn't drop out of college because he wasn't that smart, he dropped out because he had achieved more than college could ever give him.
"- It's a mixed marriage with a white male and Asian-American female, which makes divorce around 4% more likely."
Does it? or is that statistic skewed by say, African-American relationships with white Americans where the racial prejudices are much more prevalent and problematic in such relationships. What's the figure for Asian-American/White-American relationships specifically? is the reasoning behind such marital breakups mitigated when wealth or level of education is increased?
"- There are no children, which further increases the risk of divorce."
Yet.
"- He's wealthy, which also increases the risk."
What about the skewing of this by hollywood types etc. that I pointed out? Amongst tech billionaires does this remain true? Is wealth the inherent cause of the risk or is it simply the stupid and wealthy? Does the greater intelligence of tech billionaires over say, rock stars allow them to outweigh this by having a relationship based on mutual love and respect rather than simply fucking the latest pinup?
I could go on, but the point is this, you're trying to pull out statistical quotations and apply them in an invalid manner. Your post is a classic example of the "Statistics can be used to prove anything" line, you're mis-applying them completely because you're using the general case, which may well not apply. Certainly you cannot say with any degree of confidence that the odds are against it, that is a complete and utter fabrication, based on misuse of statistics.
The primary mistake you've made is to assume from incomplete information what the real odds are on divorce, but you can't infer that from the incomplete information you've used. Yes, on average a college dropout in a mixed-race relationship, but a college dropout in a mixed-race relationship where both people are highly educated making the college dropout downsides irrelevant may statistically be more likely to lead a healthy marriage.
It may well be that doing an analysis of Slashdot moderations, that users who username begins with A are more often down-modded because they are more often wrong, but there may be a subgroup of those users for example, those beginning with A, but with a low UID are actually more often correct. The problem with your analysis is that you're ignoring that subgroup and applying the general case where it is likely not actually relevant.
"It is true, that employers have no loyalty to you. If you're gonna have the job security of a contractor, you might as well get the bill rate to go with it, eh?"
I agree, though I've not yet made the jump to contracting, I do find that I'm jumping jobs enough to mean I'm getting little of the permanent employee benefits (even here in the UK, with our strict employee protection laws I'm not due redundancy protection etc. unless I've been employed for something like a year) so I probably should make the jump to take the extra cash and tax deductables with no real loss. Currently though permanent employment has been doing me well, I've been flying up the chain so part my reasoning for staying is do I simply do a couple more years of it to get more Technical Architect, or shortly possibly even Technical Director experience and contract out at a higher rate doing that sort of role, rather than simply as a contract dev. I'm still a little undecided!
In the UK it's also slightly different regarding pensions though, by law, employers will soon have to offer some kind of pension which means you don't get much choice (I believe you can still opt out and run your own, but the point is you'll by default be given one in any perm job). This is because the public pension pot will otherwise become unmanagable so the government is simply pushing the burden onto employers. Honestly, I suspect by the time I retire the public pension pot will be gone entirely so you'll have to either have something yourself or one managed by your employer and besides, the state pension is so low anyway it's really only suited to being a fall back rather than something you can really live off to a worthwhile degree when you get older.
I think a lot of people need to get past the old fashioned idea of the world owing them a job, and owing them it for life no matter how irrelevant their skills have become, it really doesn't work like that anymore and as you say, the sooner people realise it the sooner they can look at themselves and do what is necessary to make that decent living. I think people used to believe that as part of the contract of the world owing them a job, they should be subservient to the firm for life for it giving them a job. It's just not like that now, it's a two way thing, part the trick is learning to bargain with your employer or prospective employer, and just as you would when bargaining with a trader - if you don't like the product (job) they're offering at the price (wage) they're offering it, then make sure you have the required skills to simply go elsewhere.
People form the vast majority of their views and understanding of the world from their personal experience, if you feel all personal experience should be discounted, you'd end up pretty fucking clueless about the world.
Sometimes personal experience means we're wrong, sometimes it means we're right, but fundamental the fact I pointed out that it was my personal experience was to accept that yes, I might not be right but I do not think I am wrong, because my argument actually follows logically to the conclusion that equality must be equality, anything else is, inherently, not equality, but there you have it.
Yeah because it's not as if relationships ever last, and women only ever marry for the divorce settlement don't they?
Perhaps you have had a rather traumatic marriage experience, but it is equally possible that they do actually love each other and get on great such that they will actually remain together until the day one of them dies.
He's a geek, not a Hollywood actor or rock star, he married someone he's known before he got rich, he married someone he loves, because he loves her, not because she's the latest oscar winning super-skinny blonde pinup actress, whom, with his fortunes, he could easily get if he really wanted to.
The GP's point still stands, if Zuckerberg is in a genuinely loving relationship then his position is just as secure as if he wasn't. That's kind of the point in having a healthy relationship, unfortunately many people don't get that.
No, your inability to stand up for yourself and your inability to ensure you're talented enough to be able to jump ship from any such company that expects such a thing are the reasons you have to work an 80 hour week.
I've never worked an 80 hour week, not once, I wouldn't even touch an employer who expected such a thing and you're an idiot if you do. If you do, then that also makes you the reason you have to work an 80 hour week - because you're actually letting companies get away with such absurdity. If you don't like it then walk, go get a job elsewhere, can't get a job elsewhere? skill up, improve yourself, then go get a job elsewhere. The only thing stopping you working somewhere that doesn't expect you to work an 80 hour week is you.
"Taking a wild guess here, but are you male?"
Yes, but what exactly does that have to do with anything? Being male doesn't mean I'm unable to see the hypocrisy in the feminist equality argument where what they actually mean is equality, but only when it suits them. If you have a male, and a female, in a relationship, and one of those necessarily needs to work shorter hours and in said relationship the couple decide that it is the female, then the female cannot complain that she is less favourable to her male counterparts when it comes to promotion due to the fact that she spends less time at her place of work and is hence less able to contribute to the company. There is nothing preventing her discussing with her partner that he instead be the one that works the shorter hours so that she does not face that barrier and he, like her, will then face the same issue vs. female counterparts. There is without a doubt a historical bias towards the female taking this role in a family, but I would wager from my personal experience of having discussed exactly this with many female colleagues that given the choice, many females would rather keep it that way, than be given the alternative of having to work longer hours to support the family financially. Absolutely this isn't universally the case, but then, that's why there is a trend towards more women being the breadwinners of the family nowadays - things are on the right trajectory, so what is the problem? For what it's worth, in our family, we don't have kids, both me and my girlfriend have been able to pursue our careers, she's certainly not found this apparent glass ceiling yet, but again, maybe that's because she actually puts in the hours like everyone else who fails to find this glass ceiling?
So again, what exactly was your point? I'm all for equality, but equality is equality, it's a two way thing.
"Yes, that is the line always used by people who oppose anti-discrimination legislation. Because obviously, the market sorts out all problems as long as you leave it alone."
On the contrary, I fully support said legislation and believe it's yet another reason why cries of ageism are largely FUD and merely a good excuse to cover for incompetence/lack of suitability for a role. I'm not much of a fan of the free market being left to be completely free largely because I think no ideology is absolutely perfect and balance is needed (hence why I believe a healthy blend of socialism/capitalism is far superior to extreme socialism ala Greece or extreme capitalism ala the US). That doesn't preclude me from recognising however that in some systems many theorised problems are never born into fruition due to the fact many such systems have emergent properties that naturally deal with those problems.
"HTML5 is roughly equivalent to Java as far as a multi-platform programming language and development platform."
No, not in the slightest. Not even close
"The only successful approach I've ever encountered to using a virtual machine was employed by the Digitalk VM which cached successive VM invocations so that you ran at native 'raw iron" machine speeds after encountering the performance hit the first and only time an pseudo-instruction was executed in a method.".
When did you last read anything about the JVM? 1995?
"The lethal performance problems that WordPerfect encountered trying to implement their suite of office products in Java still apply."
No, no they don't. That was the best part of a decade before Hotspot even came along, which was basically a complete rewrite.
You could've typed your post about 15 years ago, and you might've had a point. Now however, your post makes absolutely no sense, and shows an understanding that only someone who had literally been living under a rock for 15 years would have. Java has changed a lot since 1997, and your criticism is nonsensical in the context of those changes.
"but the legal duty of a trademark holder is to actively defend illegitimate use of the trademark or risk dilution."
So if you don't defend someone who is using your trademark illegitimately, then there is a risk you will be diluted? That sounds a bit harsh.
Don't worry, we know what you meant:
"but the legal duty of a trademark holder is to actively defend against illegitimate use of the trademark or risk losing the trademark due to trademark dilution."
"Employees no longer receive pensions, and in the field of computer programming they expect to be completely un-employable at 40 years of age (not due to lack of talent, but to rampant unchecked agism). So, employees *need* to charge a lot for their work."
I see this complaint a lot on Slashdot, perhaps it's country specific (the US?) but in my experience it's completely and utterly false in the UK and is merely an excuse for people who just don't cut it, and simply haven't kept their skills uptodate, or are merely just crap employees which makes them useless, no matter how much they've done before. It's the IT world's equivalent of manual labourers whinging about immigrants - sorry, but if an immigrant beats you to a job despite you being native to a country with a better education system, and often a native language advantage then it's your fault for not taking the opportunities given to you whilst the immigrant managed to make himself the better candidate despite not having the advantages you did. Oh, he took less pay? tough shit, you were probably overpaid- no one thinks they're overpaid, but it doesn't mean they aren't.
Honestly, it's tiresome to hear, if you're good at what you do and are willing to put in the hours then no one gives a fuck how young, or old you are, what race you are, what sex you are. It's the same as the women who whinge about the glass ceiling whilst simultaneously saying "Oh, but I need to leave at 3pm every day to pick the kids up" - tough fucking shit, get your husband to do it or accept that that's the price you pay for choosing to be the member of the family who opts to do less hours.
I know plenty of 40+ and 50+ programmers and none of them are having a problem with employment because they're good at what they do, and they've kept learning continuously throughout their careers. I do know some unemployed 30-somethings who worked in software development, but they're all unemployed because they're simply shit, they are the bottom 8%. Others I know that age and younger are seeing booming careers because they're simply superb at what they do.
There still seems to be far, far more software jobs around than there are suitable candidates. If you find yourself long-term unemployed in this field for more than maybe 3 months and think someone else is to blame, then you're probably one of those people incapable of introspection, if you're incapable of introspection, you're not going to be able to look objectively at your skills and abilities and recognise why employers don't want you. Or to put it simply, you are the problem.
Most employers aren't stupid, if you're asking for a sensible wage, and are extremely competent, then they'll jump at the opportunity to hire you whatever the fuck other traits you have. Racists, ageists and other bigots thankfully tend to get selected out in the world of business, because their competitors that aren't bigotted will rapidly snap up the talent they didn't want, leaving them with the shit.
The problem is for many people it's impractical.
When you're looking for a new job, you only have so much time in which you can attend interviews.
So say you're looking for a job now, a quarter of the way through the year, and you only have say, a week of leave left. Do you use that entire week on one job you may or may not get? or do you use those 5 days leave to attend 5 full day, or maybe even 10 half-day interviews? I know where I'd place my bet.
The kind of hiring process mentioned in TFA only works if you're so awesome that people desperately want to work for you, the problem is that a number of companies that do this sort of thing aren't actually as awesome as they seem to think they are. The net result is that the only people turning up to their process will be the unemployed, and many of the unemployed are often unemployed for a reason. You're going to find it hard to pull in the superstar programmers that no one else wants to let go of because they'll simply be too busy for your week long slave labour camp.
The really competent, busy, hard working individuals often just don't have a week off lying around for this sort drama. Throwing away a whole week on one potential job prospect is too massive a gamble compared to the alternative of instead using the time for 5 - 10 other job prospects.
You know, I don't know if it is popularity based. Maybe it is, maybe I've missed some obscure global trends, but I always found it amusing to type "Is it wrong". For some time this would end up with suggestions such as:
"Is it wrong to sleep with my mother"
"Is it wrong to sleep with my brother"
"Is it wrong to sleep with my sister"
"Is it wrong to sleep with my dog"
I tried it today and noticed in 4th place:
"Is it wrong to have a centipede in my"
Now, again, as I say, maybe I've missed something, but are these really the most popular search terms? Over what time period? Presumably it's not over all time as someone else's response implies.
Similarly I've seen many suggestions pop up in the past that strike me as being far from likely to be purely popularity based.
Which is why the highest paid in our society do very little work, and genuinely do basically steal through tax avoidance etc.?
I get what you're saying, but if what you're saying is true then we're doing something wrong.
I suppose there's an argument however that those who do make the most money manage to do so precisely because they don't subscribe to those social norms and are happy to play the game by their own rules, instead of everyone elses. Hence the high number of extremely succesful sociopaths in the world, but either way, it's not working as one would hope.
That would be a sensible theory to answer the question if it were in any way true.
The problem is though the smartphone market is bigger than the tablet and MP3 player market combined, and Apple sells far far more iPhones than iPads and iPods combined, yet Android has over 3 times the marketshare of iOS in the smartphone market, and as such your theory unfortunately does not make any sense in the context of the actual cold hard data.
The ability is there to remove playstore enabled apps and nothing else. That's been examined over and over and over.
Sure Google could delete non-malicious apps, but in the past 4 - 5 years since release they haven't, whereas Amazon has removed legit content.
"After all this is the company that supposedly had no paid journalists and then managed to come up with a list after the judge told them to get real. They're not going to disclose anything that makes them look bad."
Ah I see, so you're just a Google hater, because that's a complete twist on reality. In reality the judge asked for a list of who'd been paid to blog about the case. Oracle explicitly paid two people to blog about the case, that is, Oracle paid them precisely for that purpose with the intention of swaying public opinion. In contrast, Google paid absolutely no one to do this explicity, but asked the judge if they needed to include people whom they had paid for some other reasons, but who had also blogged about the case off their own back - poining out this could include completely independent bloggers who get money from Google via AdSense for example. The judge said they didn't need to go that far but just a list of people who Google had paid at some point and whom had blogged about the case. Looking through the list you can see that the pay/blog link of those they listed is tenuous at best and merely a cautious list. Unlike Oracle, Google didn't explicitly pay anyone to blog about the case, only that some people they paid chose to blog about the case. Note that some Oracle employees did this also, but Oracle chose not to disclose any of them - Oracle only disclosed those they explicitly paid for the case - so Google were much more open than Oracle in that Google had no explicitly paid bloggers for the case, but some bloggers who they'd paid for other work in the past, and Oracle had 2 explicitly paid bloggers for the case, and some undisclosed number of bloggers who blogged about the case whom they'd paid for other stuff and blogged off their own back. Note that we know someo of this people exist, because Oracle has paid Gosling in the past, and we know he blogged about it, and yet Oracle didn't disclose him.
So yeah, I know Google has the potential to be evil over this sort of thing, but unlike Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, et. al. the evil they've done to date is relatively non-existent. They haven't sold my personal data illegaly like Facebook, they haven't taken away legit apps time and time again whilst abusing their monopoly position in digital music etc. like Apple, and they haven't strangled the market and abuse their monopoly like Microsoft. Perhaps they'll do something like Apple and Amazon and will remove legit apps at some point, but until then they're still the most trustworthy.
This wont matter to you though, as you clearly have some fanboy agenda. That much is betrayed by your attitude.
Sure, but the better the coder, the less sacrifices required.
Having an ego and aggressive negotiation aren't the same things by any measure.
At the end of the day, companies may have someone with a big ego running a development team and be misled to believe that they know their stuff, but when someone who really does know their stuff comes along, it doesn't take much for management to realise cold hard facts, such as the guy who knows his stuff, and quietly just gets on with doing the job is delivering higher profit margins, lower staff turnover in his team and so forth.
I've seen this in a number of companies, the quiet but brilliant turn up on the first day of the job, they don't seem much, but they get on and deliver, they quietly gain respect as they manage to solve problems no one else could, sometimes even outside the role they were employed for, they deliver greater profits, their team is happier, and then they move on to new pastures and management look back at the guy with the ego with a completely recalibrated perspective on things.
I think you've probably just been fleeced.
""Rock stars" - we called them divas in my company - are notoriously unmanageable: many of them are temperamental, don't work well with others"
To me this means they weren't rock star developers. Being a great developers means being excellent not just at writing fancy algorithms, but being able to architect great code, being able to communicate with the project stakeholders to find out what they really want, being able to organise and train other coders to improve their level of competence. If your "rock star" developers were problematic, then I'd argue what you actually had were a bunch of people who managed to sell themselves as being more competent than they were - they told you they were "rock star" developers and you believed them, but in reality they weren't.
"tend to do what they "know" is right instead of doing what they're told"
I take issue with this. Surely the whole point in hiring the best of the best is that they know from experience what the fuck they are doing. If you don't listen to them then you are hence the problem, why hire them if you're just not going to listen to them and do things your way anyway? If you know better then you don't need them in the first place. If you do need them, then fucking listen to them.
Really, it's not difficult. The ones who really do deserve the "rock star" developer title are the ones whom you'd never have any of the problems you listed with (bar the one in the last paragraph which I believe is a flaw with your management rather than them). If you're having those problems then you've hired a salesman. A salesman who is a pro at selling himself at an overinflated price, but not really the person you were actually looking for.
Having an ego runs completely counter to being a great developer or engineer, because if you have an ego you're not capable of introspection, you're not capable of noticing your flaws, your weak areas, and improving them. If your devs have an ego then they're never going to be as good as the ones who quietly and happily just self improve. Take John Romero and John Carmack, one of these has a massive fucking ego, an ego so big it can fill a football stadium, the other has a long history of writing pretty impressive cutting edge code without ever displaying an ounce of ego. The latter has had an impressive career developing cutting edge tech, the former, when he went it alone became probably the biggest flop in the industry and his studio was only saved by a bunch of other previously nameless devs who worked on a separate project away from him.
Egos are a trait of wannabes, real superstars just get the fuck on and do what they do.