3 ms·

If you live around people who resemble Ferengi (that's the proper plural form), then maybe you should look at relocating to a different country where the people

by magduf 8y ago

If you live around people who resemble Ferengi (that's the proper plural form), then maybe you should look at relocating to a different country where the people don't share the attitudes of the Ferengi.

mjevans 8y ago
Tell me, when can we begin construction of a new utopia in international waters with emigration and citizenship requirements that are angled at attracting Vulcan-like types? What are your plans for getting world nations to recognize the sovereign authority of such a region and for being economically healthy over the long term? I've never run the numbers, but pre-napkin estimation makes me believe such ventures are too risky, expensive, and rife for scams from 'Ferengi' to be worth exploring.
- magduf 8y ago
  What are you talking about? There's plenty of countries where highly-skilled tech professionals can easily emigrate to.
- throwaway920 8y ago
  I have many friends in my current or other FAANG companies in Europe and most of them got offers to relocate in US. Believe me or not, a tiny percentage accepted despite the big increase in salary because they don't want in a Ferengi society. Perhaps my social circle is biased.
- tabtab 8y ago
  Being a Vulcan type won't necessarily make you wealthy. Most commerce is based on the art of selling, not the art of logic. In other words, tricking people. The best products from a technical standpoint often fail in the market. Better and cheaper GUI's than MS-Windows existed in the 80's, but MS's marketing muscle steam-rolled them. If you are talking about "smarts" in terms of inventing new things in the lab, as I mentioned earlier, being right or smart and being logical are not necessarily the same thing. In my book, being logical is being able to produce a clear line of reasoning for a suggested course of action. The "givens" in the "proof" may be wrong, but at least the proof is correct using the stated givens. The debate should then be on the givens, not on the proof logic. For example, my suggested UI designs often make assumptions about what confuses end-users. I often don't have inspectable studies to justify such, and others are welcome to disagree with human UI interaction psychology. But at least my assumptions are clear, and I make a decent attempt to explain the steps user may take or think in based on my experience, such as inconsistencies between screens, or variances from other common products an org uses.

by magduf 8y ago

mjevans 8y ago

Tell me, when can we begin construction of a new utopia in international waters with emigration and citizenship requirements that are angled at attracting Vulcan-like types? What are your plans for getting world nations to recognize the sovereign authority of such a region and for being economically healthy over the long term? I've never run the numbers, but pre-napkin estimation makes me believe such ventures are too risky, expensive, and rife for scams from 'Ferengi' to be worth exploring.

magduf 8y ago
What are you talking about? There's plenty of countries where highly-skilled tech professionals can easily emigrate to.
throwaway920 8y ago
I have many friends in my current or other FAANG companies in Europe and most of them got offers to relocate in US. Believe me or not, a tiny percentage accepted despite the big increase in salary because they don't want in a Ferengi society. Perhaps my social circle is biased.
tabtab 8y ago
Being a Vulcan type won't necessarily make you wealthy. Most commerce is based on the art of selling, not the art of logic. In other words, tricking people. The best products from a technical standpoint often fail in the market. Better and cheaper GUI's than MS-Windows existed in the 80's, but MS's marketing muscle steam-rolled them. If you are talking about "smarts" in terms of inventing new things in the lab, as I mentioned earlier, being right or smart and being logical are not necessarily the same thing. In my book, being logical is being able to produce a clear line of reasoning for a suggested course of action. The "givens" in the "proof" may be wrong, but at least the proof is correct using the stated givens. The debate should then be on the givens, not on the proof logic. For example, my suggested UI designs often make assumptions about what confuses end-users. I often don't have inspectable studies to justify such, and others are welcome to disagree with human UI interaction psychology. But at least my assumptions are clear, and I make a decent attempt to explain the steps user may take or think in based on my experience, such as inconsistencies between screens, or variances from other common products an org uses.