I had a long day at work, and didn't see this. I posted another comment (couldn't edit; too late). You may be sure that I am MS shill, cleverly astroturfing their now-free product.
Startups are one of the only mechanisms doing that in our contemporary financial pyramid economy. They are one of the only true class mobility engines left.
Are you being sarcastic? I can't believe anyone would really believe this. Look at the profiles of successful VC-funded startup founders[0], it's all about pedigree:
"Yet on close inspection, the evidence suggests that the keys to success in the start-up world are not much different than those of many other elite professions. A prestigious degree, a proven track record and personal connections to power-brokers are at least as important as a great idea. Scrappy unknowns with a suitcase and a dream are the exceptions, not the rule.
...
That means the founders had held a senior position at a big technology firm, worked at a well-connected smaller one, started a successful company already, or attended one of just three universities - Stanford, Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
No, and I meant relatively speaking compared to other mechanisms. Startups mint new money rather than enrich old money, and they create high paying jobs.
I was mostly responding to your comment about class mobility. I don't consider a system that semi-randomly catapults a few ivy leaguers from already-wealthy families into the ranks of billionaires to be a "true class mobility engine".
Class mobility at the highest echelons -- say hundred-thousandaires to millionaires or billionaires -- helps class mobility overall by introducing new ideas and by enriching people who still remember what it was like to not have near-infinite supplies of money and power.
If you have a society where the top echelons are locked down, it won't be long until this caste system trickles down to the rest of the culture.
It's not everything and class mobility at lower levels of society is probably more important, but it's not a bad thing either.
I suppose I agree with you in theory, but in practice I'm not sure there's much difference in outlook going from being the child of a wealthy family who has many things given to him (or her, but let's be real, it's almost always a him) to then being a young-adult billionaire CEO who can easily buy many things.
Put another way, if you can now afford to buy a brand-new Ferrari, does it matter that you had to drive a three year old Lexus to high school?
All the ones I use (cppcheck, jshint, jsxhint, ruby, clang) require that you have the toolchains already installed. Seems like a pretty consistent design. Those are the official linters [1], though.
Edit: Checked a bunch of the others, including those for Lua, XML and Python. None of them come bundled with the underlying tool.
> seems to drag a full install of whatever the popular implementation of the language is.
This is the biggest problem with sublime plugins. dependencies. It is also 100% why I refuse to add non-python dependencies to any plugins I write (which has really just been JsFormat thus far)
You can "crack" or "reform" any hydrocarbon to any other at the cost of some energy. Plastic tends to be ethane -> polyethylene, and the like. The fraction called "naptha" which is between ethane and gasoline in refining tends to be used as chemical feedstock.
If doing heroin was a spectator sport where competitors were highly paid and needed to be in peak physical condition and perform impressive feats in order to be the best at doing heroin, then this analogy might be slightly more relevant...
And in that case, if an "extreme heroin" player published a mathematics paper, I still would be impressed.
> then this analogy might be slightly more relevant
Agreed, football is worse: we actively encourage and reward modern day gladiatorial combat such that otherwise brilliant people feel the need to participate. NFL players publishing papers and having successful academic careers afterwards are not the norm.
You are being incredibly hyperbolic. There are issues with football, but equating the sport to actual bloodsport (or heroin use... really?) is a ridiculous stretch.
It really doesn't do anything to further the discourse.
I think that pivoting the framing from a known known (look at these guys who have brain damage and are killing themselves) to a known unknown (have we really accounted for all the variance?) is risky, because you're then flirting with confirmation bias.
I think that if one guy wants to fly through a canyon in a wingsuit, it's one matter. But when you have an entire nation cheering this behavior on, it starts to make us introspect and say... wait.. exactly how hedonistic are we? Is this really the kind of behavior we want to teach our children? The reductio is that it could lead to us selecting against ourselves, as a species. Go Team!
No, just written by Zed Shaw. Honest mistake though.