banned_man
Thus, a woman benefits by selecting a loyal man rather than a promiscuous one. For her to marry a loyal man with strong genetics (e.g. an attractive man with a limited sexual history, indicating a low disposition toward promiscuity) is optimal. A woman who disqualifies men because they've had a low number of sexual partners is never going to accomplish this.
Anyway, the obsession over the number of past sexual partners means nothing in an evolutionary context, since the whole concept is a social construct. Pre-numerate cave dwellers would have lost count pretty quickly.
1. More women should be thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. Are they that unsure of their own judgment that they need to evaluate a man based on the imputed opinions of people they've never met, many of whom are in his distant past? I, for one, like finding a great girl who men have underrated in the past.
2. A low or high number of sexual partners has, in general, a lot more to do with lifestyle and values than ability.
A high-IQ person is going to have difficult socialization early in life, and be behind the curve on a lot of social milestones. However, this becomes less important as a person gets older; most people would consider it a good thing for a 40-year-old to be mistaken for someone in his mid-30s.
My IQ's about 150 and I've definitely had a problem with girls I've dated not taking me seriously (to the point where I've had to dump them) because I'm 25 and my "number" is in (gasp!) the low single digits, as if not having done a Sherman's march in my 20s were something to be embarrassed about. I'm sure that a significantly more insecure version of myself would internalize this and have problems, but actually I just look at these sorts of experiences as incredibly funny.
For maximizing life success, I'd say that an IQ in the low 130s is optimal, but anything above 140 is dangerous and rather useless unless you want to "swing for the fences" and achieve something that will be remembered after you die (something that, in my mind, is overrated). People selected as leaders are usually 75-90th percentile (intellectually) within their reference frame, and almost never 95+. The upshot is that the frame of reference gets smarter as one gets older; people with 130 IQs are virtually never popular in high school, but can do well in adulthood. In general, the smarter you are, the later in life you hit your stride, socially speaking.
The risk is that not everyone recovers, although most do, from the negative experiences earlier on. A 30-year-old with a 145 IQ has probably recovered from any innate social problems and become socially normal, neurologically speaking, but in the corporate world he's going to be competing against people in the 120-130 range who have the advantage of positive past experiences.
The problem with OOP is that it encourages the proliferation of mutable state. If each object has mutable state, then a large object-oriented program has distributed mutable state, potentially in hundreds of different silos. Problems like concurrency become impossible to reason about.
FP encourages the careful sequestration of mutable state. It's false to say that FP outlaws it entirely, since it's hard to do anything useful without side effects. However, functional style limits and sequesters mutable state to such a degree that it's usually easy to reason about what side effects are happening.
When you're older, you're more able to process concurrency and your sense of self is more compartmentalized. You have a work-line consisting of your career and job life, a family-line, a vacation-line that emerges when one travels and is otherwise ignored, and probably several friends-lines (college friends, work friends, friends of the families) corresponding to various distinct social groups. Each plot-line is allocated only a fraction of the time given to the single plot-line a young child has, and thus each progresses much slower per year.
For a child, a year is an eternity. For an adult, it can be very short, because many plot-lines advance very little in this time. If you have a vacation spot you visit every year, every time you go you are bringing up year-old memories that seem as if they occurred yesterday, so time seems to be going extremely fast.
The result is an economy that shows a lack of pluralism: finance dominates, all other professions suffer. Most Americans don't understand the complexities of the situation and liken Wall Street to a cancer responsible for the atrophy of the real economy.
I don't want to see finance get destroyed, but a return to a pluralistic economy where people assume roles appropriate to their abilities and behaviors. The perverse irony here is that capital markets are supposed to efficiently allocate resources, yet the era of the market-state has utterly misallocated the nation's talent, strangling academia while directing a disproportionate share of talented people to finance, one of the industries in which they're least useful.
For a more serious analysis, here goes: a person who works for deferred or no salary is a founder and should be paid with some equity (a percentage of the whole company, not just a small percentage of what he produces) in the venture. Understandably, you don't want to give equity to interns. So you probably shouldn't have interns until you can pay wages.
In general, if you develop a platform and someone develops an app on it, the application writer gets more than a 50% share of the proceeds. I believe iPhone and Kindle developers get 70%.
Your name will not appear on the novel, though mine will. However, I'll forward your name to a couple of literary agents and, without getting specific, tell them that I know you to "generally do very good work".
How does this deal sound to you?
(* Well, Mr. Burns didn't technically buy it; he merely blocked it out.)
What I'd do: ask for 30 minutes before I go, and log into Yahoo finance. Find a 2% gainer for each day on the stock market. Each day, move half of my net worth into the gainer (only half as a measure of caution; I might inadvertently alter the future and screw myself). The reason to aim for +2 is to avoid insider trading suspicion; putting my money into a +10 or -20 (shorting) every day would land me in jail; no one would believe I could tell the future because of time travel. Each day, I'd earn a 1% profit.
Starting from $10000, I'd get to $10 million within 720 trading days, or about 3 years. At this point, I'd limit my profits to $100k per day because otherwise I'd be at the level where I could actually change the future, eroding my gains. So I'd gain "only" $25m/year for the next decade, cashing out at $250m.
Consider games for an example of poorly invested resources. The graphics have improved dramatically in video games between the era of Chrono Trigger ('95) and now. The quality of the games has declined. These two trends are linked together. Now that the budget for a game is in the 7- and 8-digit range, business people have creative control over games, and games are more likely to be designed by committee. Thus, they end up sucking. Improving the graphics will not solve this problem, but there's still demand for high-quality games that is not being met through traditional channels.
The marketing, business, and work/life balance problems are important, too, but they don't really belong in a CS course, and CS professors are not experts on these topics anyway.
No one is accusing anything. You don't see the red sign and "accuse" it of being a stop sign. You realize immediately that it is a stop sign (pattern recognition) and behave accordingly. Behaving accordingly with respect to such women is avoiding them entirely.
Healthy women don't want to be anywhere around those sorts of men, who tend to be abusive husbands and terrible fathers. However, a certain class of psychologically damaged woman does tend to find that type of man sexually attractive.