He’s trying to make the point that the only path to success in the software industry is to work insane hours, sleep under your desk, and give up your one and only youth, and if you don’t do that, you’re a pussy. He’s using my words to try and back up that thesis.
I hate this, because it’s not true, and it’s disingenuous.
What is true is that for a VC’s business model to work, it’s necessary for you to give up your life in order for him to become richer.
Follow the fucking money. When a VC tells you what’s good for you, check your wallet, then count your fingers.
#RescueBronson my letter to @JimWatsonOttawa et al
I’m very sad I wasn’t able to make the only Open House for the Bronson Avenue widening. The mere fact that this is being proposed, and that Diane Holmes is opposing it, is a symbol of something wrong with the planning process for this.
I live between Preston and Bronson, and where once the two streets were pretty much the same, Preston is now a joy to walk, cycle or drive down, and Bronson is still the same dangerous, unfriendly street.
In fact, the city has gotten a lot of things right recently, with the road diet on Scott, the SBL on Laurier, and the revitalization of both Preston and Wellington W.
Why then is Bronson being singled out for such retrograde planning? Honestly it’s like the traffic engineers were being transported from the ’50s. I drive down Bronson to and from work on average twice a week at rush hour, and, the frustrations I have with driving down Bronson cannot be fixed by merely widening the lanes.
The flow of traffic on Bronson has more to do with the problems of cars turning left on side streets (all of them, not just Somerset and Gladstone), and cars parked sporadically in the right lane. Driving down Bronson requires constantly changing lanes almost randomly to avoid unexpected obstacles. This is what causes traffic slowdowns on Bronson north of Gladstone, not the width of lanes.
There is nothing in the the current plans for Bronson Avenue that would alleviate any of the problems I face as a driver on Bronson, much less a cyclist or pedestrian. If there were I might support it.
On the other hand, the Bronson Road Diet plan, along with parking areas for cars protected by bulbouts, such as those on Wellington W, or Preston, would get rid of all of these problems, and make my commute to work far more pleasant, no matter which way I chose to commute.
Thank you for your time, and please take the interests and experience of a resident who walks, or bikes, or drives down Bronson nearly every day into account.
“SIR – Thanks for the story nine years ago on the benefits of office clutter (“In praise of clutter”, December 21st 2002). I located the article this week in a pile of important material set aside for review. The system has worked perfectly, as you said it would.”—A letter from Australia. (via theeconomist) PS: I love the fact that the economist is now putting their letters to the editor on tumblr
SIR – I wonder why I, along with countless other Americans, bother to follow the Republican race at all, as none of the candidates is providing a compelling vision to challenge Mr Obama in next year’s election. One reason for remaining interested could be that the dramas which unfold each week are yet another type of sensationalist reality television. Perhaps politics could learn something from that format, by kicking candidates off the island, making them leave the house, or allowing a sharp-tongued Simon Cowell to berate their performance and decide upon their legitimacy.
A weekly voting system to get the clowns off the stage does not at this point seem such a terrible idea, especially since the prize is the nomination for a run at the chance to be ruler of the free world.
Here’s what I think about that, right now. I’m a science fiction writer, and one of the great stories of science fiction is “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” which was written by Ursula K. Le Guin. The story posits a fantastic utopian city, where everything is beautiful, with one catch: In order for all this comfort and beauty to exist, one child must be kept in filth and misery. Every citizen of Omelas, when they come of age, is told about that one blameless child being put through hell. And they have a choice: Accept that is the price for their perfect lives in Omelas, or walk away from that paradise, into uncertainty and possibly chaos.
At Pennsylvania State University, a grown man found a blameless child being put through hell. Other grown men learned of it. Each of them had to make their choice, and decide, fundamentally, whether the continuation of their utopia — or at very least the illusion of their utopia — was worth the pain and suffering of that one child. Through their actions, and their inactions, we know the choice they made.
“Somewhere in there, say 14 or 15 years in, I had so much bike knowledge, and, thanks to all those years of riding everything from $300 to $10,000 bikes week after week, I had so much knowledge of so many bikes that if someone wanted to know why a bike steered the way it did, I could finally give an answer that those old mentors of mine wouldn’t have been able to refute or even expand upon. I knew it all. And that is the high point of any sort of knowledge or pursuit from which, of course, if you’re lucky and persistent, you find out you know practically nothing. You finally get up high enough to get a clear view of how much more there is out there to know. It’s humbling.”—Learning to Review Bicycles | The Selection | Bicycling.com
“Social networks exist to sell you crap. The icky feeling you get when your friend starts to talk to you about Amway, or when you spot someone passing out business cards at a birthday party, is the entire driving force behind a site like Facebook.”—The Social Graph is Neither (Pinboard Blog)
listening to CBC’s Q on the radio tuesday night. In particular, this discussion between a Globe&Mail editorial writer Karim Bardeesy and (I have to quote this) “Head of the University of Toronto’s Mark Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies” Brenda Cossman
You’ve probably seen this rant by Rick Mercer. If you haven’t go watch it now. I’m not gay, but it resonated with me. It reminded of a great speech by Harvey Milk about how it’s easy it is to demonize gay people when you don’t know any, but when you realize that your friends and neighbours are gay, it becomes harder and harder.
The Globe and Mail editorial was in response to the Rick Mercer Rant, saying that calling on gay people to come out is a moral obligation too far. People in public life have to sacrifice so much, we should be able to respect this one privacy. Not a position I agree with, but not a wholly unreasonable one either.
If you want to get caught up, and really understand, I recommend reading all the material above.
In the Rick Mercer rant, he specifically mentions “Cabinet Ministers” in the litany of types of gay people he knows. That caught me, because I don’t know of any openly gay Cabinet Ministers.
In the Q discussion, Karim Bardeesy talks specifically about the risks of coming out to hypothetical Conservative Party politicians.
And I’ve been getting more and more frustrated, because they keep dancing around the not-so-openly gay John Baird. Nobody even mentions his name, and the multiple times he’s been outed. Nope, they keep dancing around the issue. It seems to be what everyone is referring to, but nobody is mentioning it by name.
Baird even appears in the "it gets better" video that the Conservative Party put out, but he didn’t say it then, when it really mattered.
I think what really frustrates me is that this should not be an issue, but it is.
I read about this in the paper yesterday, but I didn’t think it affected me, it took Ken Gray, a columnist I usually disagree with strongly, to connect the dots and help me realize how this was actually the best thing Tim Horton’s could do for me, personally. Not sure how it’ll work out as a business decision