No, really.. It is wise to never publically tell someone they are wrong, unless you're defending someone. You should wait until his friends and colleagues have left his side, then whisper your opinion into his ear. In the Internet world, that means sending him an email. To not do so is bad karma in every sense of the word.. My post above was modded down because I publically pointed out that he was wrong to point out Paul's percieved flaws in public; maybe I should have sent him an email instead. This wisdom is proven true over and over. My #lisp fiasco convinced me of that (long story).

You're wrong to tell people they're wrong to publicly tell people they're wrong.

Most mature and intelligent people love it when someone is able to offer useful critiques of their work, as long as they're civil about it. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

I don't see in there where you should prefix everything with "What an oversimplification! You're wrong, wrong, wrong!"

Seriously, would you want this guy making a few million? Not only would he be a douche, but he'd be a rich douche. Imagine how he'd treat his waitresses and waiters then. Or his local cops. Or anyone not as smart as he is, which is, apparently, EVERYONE. I'd even call him a detriment to our society, because the child just seems to act like a Paris Hilton with brains. Smart people can be civil, and it's just silly to watch everyone go "Cperciva you're so awesome! You should do X with your life!" and him go "Oh ho ho, didn't you think I already considered that? I turned down a headhunter yesterday, in fact. Now go make me a sandwich."

The dude's a genius, but he could learn a little humility. But he's obviously not going to learn until some event wakes him up to it, so I'm done caring that maybe one more nice person could exist in the world.

I would want this guy making a few million, if he doesn't steal them. His waitressers and waiters can quit anytime if their alternatives are overall better.

(Kudos for being able to imagine a Paris Hilton with brains.)

That's exactly the problem, a reward in the face of repugnant behavior. I wasn't going to respond, but I found this comment pretty depressing so I have to ask you: You seriously believe being rich is a license to be a douche? Or that everyone's allowed to act however they want to food service workers, or the people that guard you while you sleep? Or anyone at all? What if, for example, someone had to be a waitress to save up money for college? Sure, she could start a business, but what if she has literally zero money and no contacts, and she was just born like that?

What's depressing is how often people don't think of other people.

Being rich in this case wouldn't be a reward for his attitude, but for solving the problem of people who want secure, usable backup systems.

I'm not saying being rich would entitle him to any particular behaviour; they're orthogonal things.

About the hypothetical waitress, either she could find another job to pay for college, or otherwise her ability to go to college depends on cperciva getting rich.

There are other examples where you could argue that raw capitalism may not be in the general interest. Think, for example, of real state; that's more of a zero sum game. In my area, rich foreign people are buying most of the real estate for summer houses they'll visit once every other year or so, while locals have a hard time to find a first accomodation due to pumped prices. Many people have to migrate to save up for a house here. Since the utility of that real estate is way lower for the foreign rich than for the local poor, I claim that in this case raw capitalism is reducing overall value.

(PS: I misread 'waitress' as home servant.)

If cperciva is Paris Hilton with brains, I sure hope someone doesn't email me the video...