The use of IQ tests is already suspect, but then I saw that the author is tracking the political leanings of LLMs by using that silly economic/authoritarian political compass - so they seem pretty committed to "tracking" useless noise.
It doesn't necessarily require the founder investing large amounts, Bezos began with a small investment - and a lot of ingenuity.
My own business began this year with $0 and I'm way past $100k. I had to live in my car for two months, absolutely worth it though, it helped me focus like never before. I created excellent product and then spent a lot of time both online and offline finding customers.
And now imagine you do this, and after all the shit you went through people start saying you don't deserve your money, completely ignoring the huge risk you made and the opportunity cost behind you, and that YOU MADE THE THING. What would you think?
nah, if you make $100k (especially if it's straight W-2 income) you have basically just entered the range where you have enough disposable cash to be worth taking but not enough to do anything about it. no one will say so explicitly, but this group is the prime target for taxation.
Every single worker with a wage is more privileged than me - I had zero, no job, no house, and debt. Them not being able to take risks is just bullshit, they're simply afraid or don't even want to - and that is alright, people like me will happily employ them - unless employing or being in the state becomes too risky.
A car? Access to the internet? Their mental and physical health? No dependents? It's unclear how emteycz fed, cleaned, and clothed themselves while they had debt and no home, but plausibly there's some assistance there.
And the parent poster was talking about their privilege today in any case.
> how emteycz fed, cleaned, and clothed themselves
Black market jobs, and sometimes not much to eat. I had clothes from before. Zero assistance, that's how it is in our little social democratic republic.
I am not sure if they've kept up or not, as I haven't kept up with the series, despite my attempts. Nothing against the series, I just haven't taken the time to follow yet.
Not necessarily true, especially if you are using a language with type-inference or you are able to encode your logic in types.
Additionally - what do you think unit tests are? They aren't additional code you have to write?
I'm not someone who thinks types completely reduce the need for testing, but I absolutely do not get why dynamic language fans are like "Uhg, I HATE having to write types", but then end up basically reimplementing a type system in a much more verbose testing framework.
>Not necessarily true, especially if you are using a language with type-inference or you are able to encode your logic in types.
I agree that it is not necessarily true, but the languages which manage to squeeze in static typing and still end up with programs that are shorter and sweeter than python's are all fairly niche right now, which carries its own set of problems.
>Additionally - what do you think unit tests are? They aren't additional code you have to write?
Never denied it for a second. There aren't any languages which don't require unit testing though, and there probably never will be. Let's not pretend otherwise.
>I'm not someone who thinks types completely reduce the need for testing, but I absolutely do not get why dynamic language fans are like "Uhg, I HATE having to write types", but then end up basically reimplementing a type system in a much more verbose testing framework.
I've never done this.
I'd wager that the amount of code I have to write, including tests, is less than in all other practical languages. Often much less. That is very valuable.
I would guess a well done scala project would be at least one order of magnitude shorter than a comparable python project. You just can't get the same level of abstractions without a type system to help you out.
> I'd wager that the amount of code I have to write, including tests, is less than in all other practical languages. Often much less. That is very valuable.
It would take a very gerrymandered definition of "practical" to say that Python counts but F# doesn't, and I'm pretty confident F# would win that comparison for most problems. (If you'll allow me Scala, which is my language of choice and the one I use full-time at my job, I'm very confident it would win the comparison for the vast majority of problems)
And as someone who has coded both Python and Ruby on the job, and most recently Scala, I find the amount of time I'm debugging runtime errors much less in Scala, which is very valuable.
I also don't feel the amount of code I am writing to be all that significantly larger than what I was writing in Python/Ruby.
But that's what makes Threes superior, for me - the needing to add 1 and 2, and the fact that they don't match each other makes for a more difficult game that requires much more thought. The fact that you can make matches with the basic tile that has the highest percentage of popping on the board every moves means that there are less consequences to not making the optimal move each turn.
That's just my opinion of course, but 2048 seems annoyingly easy - so much so that the up right down left repeat strategy is very valid to score a somewhat decent score when compared to some players.
