20180201

calorie intake and expenditure is a description not a prescription. this is about as useful as saying "make more money than you spend" in order to become wealthy. sure, that's true, but it won't help you make $10 million. how do you eliminate the desire to waste time and money on useless pursuits? that is the analogy we need to use to reframe this discussion. yes, there is a certain level of maturity and self-control involved, but you need to know what NOT to do first.

what is causing people the intense desire to overeat, and the intense lethargy that follows? probably insulin-spiking processed carbs and sugar. have you seen anyone in the throes of a carb addiction/crash cycle? it's damn near supernatural the amount of power these foods have over people.

at this point i consider them about the same level as cigarettes or alcohol. cheap, widely availabe, intensely addictive, and people who don't have a problem just telling you to "use less", "it's so easy". okay. sure.

"how do i graduate college?" "take more credits than it requires to graduate."

try telling this to the person who got sucked into the for-profit university and is $50k in debt.

the world is not as cut and dry as it seems, especially if you are burdened with a low IQ like the people who most easily fall for these schemes.

infrastructure projects have traditionally been a reliable form of mass non-minimum-wage employment.

i wouldn't say that you're wrong per se, but maybe a bit too generous to the narrowly defined class of "software developer". plenty of other fields employ the same class of cognitively elite individuals.

off the top of my head:

* lawyers and accountants and some types of financial professionals * aerospace engineers, rocket scientists, defense engineers * physicists, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers etc.

many of these people also write software as part of their job, at a more-than-competent level, while i don't think your average software engineer could do their job in any capacity whatsoever after i.e. 10 years of experience of just writing code.

i live in a city with a similar airport situation (santa monica, ca) most of these public fights about land use are just rich people fighting other rich people, because they're the only ones interested/wealthy enough to publicize their 'plight'.

poor and middle class folks either just deal with it or are pushed out.

i don't have a real account, haven't had one for years, because eventually i say something the mods don't like.

cheers.

> How many workers have to deal with the fallout of arrogant founder decisions?

well, so far, zero.

i think this thread is just you venting at me for having an opinion, because there's this image in your head of a mustache twirling asshole.

> So you think it’s a good idea for employees to go to the board with a position out of sync with management and bypass the management chain?

he just didn't like the language i used (it's blunt, and describes a social dynamic he's probably upset about). he forgot all about what's actually being discussed here, which is an IC-level employee vocalizing to the co-founders/executives and board about the direction/strategy/highlevel leadership of the company.

i think it's telling that you assume i have 'investors' to please, and that they will somehow punish me for my unjust mean words and actions that hurt someone's imaginary feelings. like 'investors' are somehow the arbiter of moral virtue in the world. maybe they are in your world, and that's why you are so shocked at my simple telling of the truth of how people operate in a company hierarchy.

i think what that just means you worship venture capitalists and fluffy language they espouse (in a cynically false way, i might add) over real world descriptors.

i started my business specifically to dramatically mitigate the possibility that small concentrations of people will have any financial leverage over me.

certainly seems plausible to me. do you think there's a reason they do this with art more than cars, homes, watches, jewelry? portability?

i've counted 3 separate conclusions you've projected onto me based on zero confirmed information about my situation. even if i refuted your points, you wouldn't believe me, so i guess you're right just because you say you are.

which is sort of what i was alluding to in my last comment.

that's a very pessimistic view, and one that doesn't take into account the reality of being an executive or board member.

i'm a co-founder/executive of a small technology company. i have employees that used to be in my position when they were younger, but now they want to just do their jobs and go home.

in other words, they don't have intense, heated discussions about strategy, make firing and hiring decisions, make large spending decisions, discuss the financial bookkeeping side of the business, try to raise money from or sell to really unpleasant people, soothe angry customers and employees, because they don't want to. they don't want their work day interrupted by a bunch of anxiety-ridden executive half-conversations and rants with no real conclusions or answers.

almost none of their personal money is on the line, and very little of their potential income is on the line. they can go and find another 100k job tomorrow, they could possibly even make MORE money at their next job just by the dumb luck of losing their current one. did you ever think about that?

but... now here's the part you won't like: the reason you hold your opinion is because you want something more than what you have now. and that fundamental mis-alignment is going to cause you some level of frustration, because you think of yourself as a shot caller, when you aren't (or, more specifically, don't have to be). and when you're told what to do you get resentful, because you think you know better. well, maybe you do, maybe you don't. but you don't write the checks, and that's what a business is.

if you want to be involved at the upper levels, nothing is stopping you. you just need to either find that job, or create one for yourself.

stepping into conversations in which you have no context and no skin in the game is a real fast way to get yourself shunned because you have shared NONE of the downside but you walk in the door like you have all the answers. quite frankly, that's bullshit. and quite frankly, even if it isn't, you don't have any influence in that situation so it's irrelevant.

you know, it's funny, i've never seen a loud motorcycle rider wear a high visibility vest or helmet. in fact they're usually wearing nearly all black.

... and why do you trust snopes?

birth limits you to upper middle class. you can be fabulously wealthy, but if you did not have the upbringing, you can not claim it.

however, if you are wealthy, you can buy an upper class lifestyle, and your children will be upper class, while you will not be.

in other words, their peers that they grew up with will accept them as upper class (meaning they had an upper-class upbringing), while their parents still consider you to be an up-and-comer, because you did not.

once you realize this, it's a much healthier situation because you stop trying to make that final jump. and once you stop trying to make that jump, both your upper middle and upper class friends will be more comfortable around you.

in other words, once you make it to upper middle, it's not worth worrying over. it's better to just focus on the money to make your family's life comfortable without worrying about social details. money defines everything under upper class; birth and upbringing defines the upper class.

by the time your children's children come around, everyone will have forgotten about you, and the new normal will have taken hold.

that last jump can only be given by birth -- which, if you stop and think about it, is exactly how it works, right?