This article is utter rubbish. Anyone who possesses an elite education will never suffer in their life. They're in the upper-echelon of society. I have no pity for them and they are not at a disadvantage.
Go ahead an ask anyone accepted into Yale if they'd trade it off for the same major at po-dunk State U.
I think you're confusing "these are the cons of going to an elite university" with "there are more cons than pros of going to an elite university."
It's quite possible to be mostly satisfied with something and still have good reasons to be dissatisfied, and it's perfectly reasonable to write about those reasons. I doubt Deresiewicz would say that "po-dunk State U" is better.
When I was on the Harvard tour, the guide was an Ivy League groupie -- she had applied and failed to get into Harvard, went to a good "backup school", (I think Case Western) and finally transferred into Harvard in her sophomore year -- without transferring any credits.
It made an impression on me. I checked out the 2nd tier of school and found a bunch of white bread people from Jersey looking forward to a career in ibanking or medicine.
I ended up in a good state school with real people and no debt. I lost the opportunity to work at McKinsey or whatever, but I consider that a plus.
Not at all. At that time in my life, I would have been attracted to that kind of gig, and having been a customer working with those kinds of firms, I wouldn't have liked it.
Fundamentally, the best thing hat I learned about in college was myself. Surrounding myself with type-As on some track would have stifled that. Honestly, I'm really happy with how life has turned out this far!
Anyone who never suffers in their life and is not aware of the total randomness of their own birth, is damaged in a way I would NOT want to swap with. One would have to have none to not realize how much infinitely more worth the personality one can become potentially is than even full control of all of the Earth's resources and command over all people could be. It's like the difference between making someone orgasm, and screaming at them, why can't they see how sexy one is and why aren't they aroused, especially since it was so expensive to get a room at this hotel.
Mind you, I think personal greatness is completely unrelated to social class. I'm not saying "elite education means you have issues", I don't think it's a zero-sum game at all. But having grown up in a town teeming with millionaires, I have to laugh at the idea that many rich aren't positively hunted by their own defects. Yes, they can buy an island, but they can't sit still on it, they cannot be with themselves, they cannot reflect on themselves. They are captured, driven, mad, and get hysterical when they are recognized and pitied. So they have to keep company that has the same fears, like an unspoken pact. It's like drug addicts hanging out with drug addicts instead of the people who would ask them wtf they are doing with their life.
They can't read many great minds and even get half of what they say; sure, neither do many poor people, but that's more because they don't have the time or the language is too bloated for them, not because there is some inherent vampire/garlic type incompatibility. If you discuss the exact same subjects with a "normal" person in normal words, they in my experience are less likely to throw up all sorts of deflections, while other people realize this stuff is fit to dissolve the lies their lives are and get scared.
Fear is not strength, and powerful people have many options, but when those options don't include letting go of power they are basically slaves as well. The highest echelons of power are impersonal and systematic, only entropy and madness gain from them, no human person; and it takes personal strength to sail in such an environment and not end up as a bundle of sticks held together by delusions. It takes fierce motherfuckers, which is the opposite of people who can't answer a straight question, as many people in the "upper echelons" demonstrate. Pester me not with their pocket calculator stuff :P
People seem to exaggerate the difference between Elite schools and State schools. The key difference between elite schools and other schools is entrenchment. Basically, how "sold" are students into society? At Yale, students hold a conformist, yet liberal attitude. They tend to take things much more seriously: grades, exams, clubs, events, etc. You'll find more expression at Yale than you will at a State school, but that expression tends to be low dimensional. Most people are worried about the same stuff -- it's just that they are all worried. That's what Yale is like. It's not that those students are smarter, it's just that they are more invested into the system, and they have been for longer.
That's pretty much 90% of the difference I notice between Yalies and State school students.
"Anyone who possesses an elite education will never suffer in their life"
This is not fair to say. Many, if not most ivy leagues go onto have relatively normal lives.
I have a friend in Vermont who went to Yale. She is a 'marketing manager'. I don't even think she could pay for her education unless her (doctor) father did.
I took a tour of Stanford, the girl went to Dartmouth. I don't think the people giving recruiting tours of Stanford earn all that much.
Surely, it opens a lot of doors, and there are probably industries in which it can give one a cosy path, but it's not the 'guarantee' of anything.
This repo is a fork of gorhill/uBlock. Merging it upstream means merging the changes in this fork back to gorhill/uBlock so that majority of the UO community can enjoy the Safari compatibility of UO and this fork's user base can enjoy bugfixes from the gorhill/uBlock. And as users of ad blockers, we don't end up with 2 similar but slightly different softwares.
Ideally, this fork should be merged back as a PR to the original repo instead of advertising it as-is.
Just a friendly reminder that HN considers comments that don't contribute to the article "off-topic" and you are likely to be downvoted as such. If you want to turn around your negative karma, please try and follow the community guidelines. Additionally this week there is a political embargo, so comments like this are even more likely to be penalised.
The problem with that theory is that China is not some primitive savage culture that has no idea how to "copy" Facebook (like savages who "copied" runways very poorly).
Chinese could easily copy Facebook and call it something else but with built-in restrictions that they're looking for. They take our tech and perfect it for their culture. That's not identical to a guy in a hut with a wooden walkie-talkie. Sorry.
The only difference would be is that it's a closed network. Doesn't mean it's "less" or "primitive" or "savage" when compared to Facebook. Just different.
The point is that china has it's own sites that are more popular than FB, WhatsApp, eBay etc, in a large part because they are more appropriate to local norms. This doesn't imply some sort of China-exceptionalism; Blackberry was huge in Indonesia and Orkut in Brazil.
They'd like to have some of the magic fecundity of the Valley too -- and why not? Though copying the overt structure doesn't get you there -- many many many have tried, including many in the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_with_%22Silicon...). Hell, there are many studies and theories of how the Valley got to be where it is, with no consensus. I have commented further down in this thread on some unique or highly unusual factors that make it so effective (for me) right now but I have no solid theories of how it got to have the magic mix it does.
China policies are very protectionist so you cannot say if those companies would be successful in a 'open' environment. Their competition is just blocked there.
A text editor will always be with you, no matter what you're working on. IDEs tend to be for a specific host platform, language, and sometimes target platform. For example, Xcode only runs on a Mac, understands a limited set of languages, and is best used for building Mac and iOS apps. MS Visual Studio only runs on Windows, understands more but different languages, and is best used for building for Microsoft platforms. Android Studio is best used for Android things. IntelliJ and Eclipse are best used for Java.
If anyone has heard of your programming language, there is probably an Emacs mode for it.
More to the point, Xcode, Visual Studio, Android Studio, IntelliJ, Eclipse, and so forth all have generally different UIs, which means that unless you spend all your development time in a single environment, you have to do a lot of really expensive mental context switching.
An editor like Emacs or Vim provides a unified user interface for all the different languages and development environments with which you use it, which eliminates almost all of that mental overhead - and can also invoke your compiler, (usually) integrate with your debugger, et cetera. IDEs still win on tight integration, but for any language popular enough that someone's invested the time to build a well-integrated IDE for it, Emacs or Vim will generally cover at least the 90% cases quite well, too.
If I ever try Emacs again, I'll have a look. In the past I've found clang-based plugins seem to have a half-life of about 6 months.. while Emacs might live forever if your plugins don't, then you are relearning a bunch of things anyway.
PS at first i thought your URL was some kind of joke I didn't get, until I clicked it and found it linked to a genuine project.
Emacs users don't have to worry about minor errors because we don't make them. Vi users don't, either (they already made a huge error, so all their little ones don't matter).
On a more serious note, a lot of the features of an IDE (e.g. code completion, method lookup, compiling, and version control integration) are trivially turned on with emacs. I use etags (ctags, etc) and have macros bound to various frequently used git commands, auto-compile when I change a translation unit, etc. My Emacs is an IDE. And much more. Vi has similar functionality available to some degree or other and even if it didn't, with evil mode in emacs vi users can have it, too.
Most if not all IDEs separate compilation from the actual editing. So choice of editor is really orthogonal to whoever is doing the compiling. Ideally you want to be able to do this all from the command line anyways so you can run automated tests when code is checked in. Vim and Emacs can be set up to emulate a pretty convincing IDE experience, but the separation between editor and compiler is much more clear.
To reverse your question: why require an IDE if the same tools work on the command line too?
Vim is pretty much an IDE. I type :make (not :!make) to build. Vim gathers the errors into a quick-fix list, and navigates through them. I have Vim's :grep bound to doing lid lookups on a mkid-generated database: lightning fast to find all occurrences of an identifier. And of course tags for chasing identifier definitions, thanks to a ctags-generated database. Vim has very good syntax highlighting and indentation; many times I spot as syntax error because it is flagged by Vim. I also have a Vim add-on that performs code completion. I type foo. and the list of members of structure foo come up, etc.
I don't step-debug inside Vim; but it looks like there are ways:
At least for Emacs, one of the things I like about it is the ability to add functionality when I need it. For example, implementing a "go back to the last place I modified this file" (super useful to me, at least) and then binding it a key would likely be hard to "add" to an existing IDE. With Emacs, not so much.
It's also very easy to add ad-hoc functionality directly from the editor. You can start with a keyboard macro (F3, do crap, F3, do crap, F4, hit F4 again to do "do crap" as many times as you want) and go all the way up to writin elisp packages. M-x find-function makes it easy to look at the internals of whatever library you're using. defadvice makes it easy to do horrible, but expedient, things and get on with your life. IMHO, if you're not writing at least a little bit of elisp, you're not taking advantage of Emacs's real potential.
The thing is that an editor is one of the tools that a programmer uses. We also use build tools, debuggers, profilers, visualisation tools, etc, etc.
IDE stands for "integrated development environment", but to do the "integration" part, what it usually means is that it bundles tools for you. So you are stuck with the editor, debugger, build tool, etc of your IDE. Every time you choose not to use that "integrated" tool reduces the value of the IDE.
For example, if you decide to write your own build files and start the build process off differently than the IDE expects, it's no longer "integrated". If you decide to use a different debugger, it's no longer "integrated".
Primarily, choosing not to use an IDE is mostly about wanting to be flexible about the tools you are choosing. Sometimes the tools in the IDE are really good for your job (for example, some of the refactoring tools can actually make certain IDEs worth it alone in some environments). Other tools, like the simplified build systems, almost always cause more trouble than they are worth in the long run.
When you get down to think about it, how difficult is it to "integrate" a custom set of tools without an IDE? We are programmers. Especially programmers who come from a Unix background are very much used to building their own environments. It's not nearly so hard as it seems -- especially because most of the heavy lifting has already been done by people before you.
In the case of Emacs, it practically is an IDE, except that you can plug damn near anything into it with a little elbow grease. I know of programmers who never leave Emacs. Ever.
So to sum up, there is almost nothing you do in your IDE that I don't also do in my custom built DE. My biggest gripe about IDEs is that I wish they would unintegrate their tools so I could use them separately :-)
You should be able to edit text in a familiar manner regardless of what kind of text it is. It might be source code, or it might be an email, a webpage, a document, your shell, a debugger, or anything else you can think of. No matter what you're editing you'll have the same features, keyboard shortcuts, etc available.
A programmer who wants a good universal text editor will find one that also has good integration with their compiler and debugger; emacs and vim are both pretty good choices there.
A lot of people need to use Facebook to stay in touch with family members and friends they otherwise would not be able to communicate with due to distance, past, or what have you. This is a problem of "not enough good competition." Facebook has a de facto monopoly on social networking. Google tried in vain, but they lost miserably. Until someone can step up to Zuckerberg, Facebook will do what they want when it comes to shitty news, annoying notifications, and over-bloated web design. I've used Facebook since the day it was released. It used to be really, really good. Now it's just crap. I hope a new competitor shows them what's up.
It's really simple, if you need to be on Facebook, just set it up to send you notifications to your email. Only check Facebook when you get a notification.
If you want to talk to people, talk to them directly.
I'm hoping the competitor will be a light and universal Authentication+Authorization protocol under a ubiquitous set of service contracts like contacts, calendar, tasks, etc... the direction LiveJournal was going essentially, possibly with some modernized stack pieces. Paired with low energy+cost home servers like RasPis, reasonably reliable broadband in at least one extended family home, and perhaps some self-maintaining systems in the cloud with self-owned AWS keys similar to "mail in a box".
My thinking is you can present and recombine data in any number of ways and we have the tools to do it, there "just" needs to be some organization. One could even make an ironically named FakeBook that presents a familiar UI on top of a federated system. It could even import FB data dumps. I've lead a couple/few attempts to rally my techie friends to build something like this with limited success, though not since ~2008.
> It used to be really, really good. Now it's just crap. I hope a new competitor shows them what's up.
My last effort was cloning MySpace with open source stuff like XMPP but Facebook got really good during that time frame, kinda sad I didn't keep going now (hindsight). I made an AOL/AIM alternative in VB3 that a bunch of people at my high school were using in 2000 at age 15 when I got my first DSL line, no technical reasons anyone can't come out of left field and overthrow them esp. in 2016.
From parent:
> Are people really that helpless?
But as I've made my way around Silicon Valley, the "VHS vs Beta" anecdote keeps coming to mind as I see marketing dollars behind the proliferation of inferior but wildly popular tech. In my view now this is a war for attention FB is winning, the only way to overthrow FB is to really show people that it's a piece of the worst smelling thing you can imagine. I had a visceral reaction seeing Zuck in a suit, I can't be the only one--not disgust or anything, just that it wasn't a hoodie as his MO previously dictated... could sell the sell-out story to some, now, with deep implications on privacy/freedom of expression/access to "true" information.
Your question has been asked and answered, probably several times. You're getting banned because you refuse to learn about and use the search function.
Flooding SO with beginner questions lowers the usefulness for everyone.
There is no hard limit on the number of questions you can ask. If you are getting downvoted or banned you are probably asking low quality questions that are frustrating for the volunteers that answer questions on stackoverflow.
This is not a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it.
Those bans (which occur for users who post many questions while receiving few positive votes) are for the sake of the community of contributors to the site. Allowing them to be bypassed for a fee would risk violating the community trust that's emphasized in this article.
After many years of being part of the Stack Exchange community I have come to the conclusion that folks will do whatever they can to avoid actually reading that page.
I've seen folks post questions on meta about how to get out of the ban (used to be a very regular occurrence, a bunch a day). I've seen folks post on other stack exchange sites asking how to get out. People even get emailed for this. All to ask questions which are answered perfectly well by the page they were linked to in the ban.
I've seen this so often that I can still remember the goo.gl URL that the old FAQ used to be behind (http://goo.gl/C1Kwu).
I have personally never used it and am unaffiliated with it, but a friend suggested it and has found it useful. He explained it to me as a dedicated, personal Stack Overflow.
Not crazy but out of scope. If you need a mentor get one but SO is not for mentoring. On the other hand even 49.99 per month is too cheap for a service like this.
You could try offering that money to a TA for a limited number of email assists or phone calls. They're usually both pretty strapped for cash and people who enjoy helping.
There is a cost to other users in time spent sifting through questions, so it'd probably need to be a student only area. In a business environment this is something people pay for, but not $50 at a time.
There is no limit - the only issue is if your questions are marked as bad. If you ask questions that are answerable and work on StackOveflow, you can ask as many as you like.
If they started banning users for asking questions or even for asking poor (read extremely poor) questions, then the overall traffic would reduce significantly.
I wish. We've been doing this for 5-6 years now, and it hasn't. Quite honestly, if we could get rid of the worst 20% of questions instantly, life would be a lot better for the remaining 80%... But, identifying those 20% when often SO is their only option is... Brutally hard. I've seen the same person try to post variations on the same question dozens of times before finally getting around the quality checks... Only to have it sink like a rock because of course it was still unintelligible after all that.
Apple is going to take a hit on this transitory MBP no doubt. But the successive ones will do much better in the eyes of the market when USB C cords become the norm.
If you read on HDMI's website they say the USB C to HDMI direct cord will be coming out in 2017. So maybe Apple jumped the gun a little bit, but I think they're eyeing the future.
Plus all the pressure on 3rd parties to deliver will mean the ecosystem will rapidly change in the same way it did when they removed Floppy Disks and CD Drives and VGA ports, etc.
For C#, there is an obvious need for a Windows machine (at least for now). But I don't see the reason why I need to have visual studio to develop C++ or Java. Especially Java, where IntelliJ is just simply better and it's available everywhere.
Go ahead an ask anyone accepted into Yale if they'd trade it off for the same major at po-dunk State U.
What do you think their response will be?
Don't be daft. This is trash.