HN is broken, but you won't get anyone here to agree with this comment because of where you are. They don't like the truth here just like most places don't like the truth.
To contrast that, I have been wanting to move to San Francisco since a little kid and can't and most likely won't make that possibility. I am greatly excited for people like you, who clearly don't care where they live and care about crap like family values and property, to leave so this place so it can become liveable again.
I thought about down voting this, but I want to ask you...why the hate, or it seems like it? The OP has a well paying job and a skill set that allows him/her to make this choice. They are placing their family above status of living here which seems like a reasonable thing. I do not understand what I see as hate in your comment?
I also hit the tech lotto, have a nice house, etc. and am planing to leave. I worked my ass off for 20 years (with the last 10 being 50+ hour weeks, 150K+ miles per year travel, 2 weeks a month not with my family) to have the opportunity to play in that lotto. Does that make me someone to hate?
It is kind of a product of a society when jobs no longer involve skill. I can say the same thing (12 years with similar hours. I imagine I am younger than you) but I don't have anything monetary gain and absolutely no work experience to show for it. No family and spent most of those years working out of a car. I am currently about to be evicted and have made most of my money flipping things and working service jobs and I will never pay off my student loans (which was promised to paid by backstabbing parents) because I spent 15 years as a professional application applier only to never get a job. I will most likely never have a family because of this. I am 35 and haven't really started any life that is worth calling a life. I am just a slave to the system and shitty people in my life.
But please do tell me rich person that I should smile and be happy.
And this comment proves a lack of confidence by apologizing to a random person, thus demonstrating that confidence also doesn't matter in this modern world.
Why do you think that jobs no longer require skill? Most startup interviews are 100% based on merit. I have worked at 2 startups where we have people writing code that never finished a CS degree and they where some of the most valuable members of the team.
I am not telling you to smile and be happy. I was just trying to understand your thoughts in your comment. At one point in my life my wife and I had our cars repossessed and were a month from being on the street. I had a job for 9 months where I drove 300 miles a day to get to because we lived so far away (with family) and it was the job I could get that paid the bills for my family. We all do what we have to do. The world is not fair.
I had a friend that was a high school drop out that got a job with an A+ video game company with no experience. An ex girlfriend got a job as a Designer at Microsoft with a portfolio of a essentially stick figures. An old college friend got a PM job at google with a sports science degree. SPORTS SCIENCE. This isn't about skill, it is about falling in line.
Those people aren't in my life anymore because of that. These people succeeded in life without trying and is unacceptable for companies to hire in a world with an abundance of skill.
Forget about passion. That has never mattered when people with not understanding of how software works gets a position in a software company. Plenty of people are passionate about tech, but also want to work in operations.
> I had a friend that was a high school drop out that got a job with an A+ video game company with no experience. An ex girlfriend got a job as a Designer at Microsoft with a portfolio of a essentially stick figures. An old college friend got a PM job at google with a sports science degree. SPORTS SCIENCE. This isn't about skill, it is about falling in line.
> Those people aren't in my life anymore because of that.
You ended your friendship because they got good jobs? Am I reading this correctly?
I'm not sure if you're open to feedback, but based on what I'm hearing I would take the following actions if I were in your shoes:
1) Look into transitional housing facilities or permanent supportive housing programs near you, so you can stop worrying about rent for a period of 6-12 months.
2) Find a reliable source of food that is free or very cheap
3) Dedicate 2 days a week to learning and further development of your front-end dev skills
4) Dedicate the remaining days of the week to finding and completing contract work on Upwork.com. Start out by offering your services for a very small fee. The objective at the beginning is to just get good reviews (if you do a good job, people will come back and give you more work, but that's just a bonus). Once you have a few solid reviews under your belt, winning larger contracts will get easier.
5) Stop trying to flip things or doing anything else that doesn't reliably pay above $15/hr.
We loved the bay area when we arrived in 2009, and we still do. I spent the first 23 years of my life in Southern California, and while I'm not personally a fan of socal, I think the state of California is one of the most amazing, remarkable places in the world.
> don't ... care about crap like family values and property ...
I'm not sure what you mean? When you say 'family values', can you be more specific?
> don't care where they live and care about crap like family values and property, to leave so this place so it can become liveable again.
GP very clearly does care about where they live; it's just that that location, the result of 'crap like family values and property', is different to where you want to live.
It's okay for the person who has the money and privilege to do so. Not for those who can't. So your response just makes seem even more apparent that it is digital and physical imperialism
I really don't follow. It's OK for the other commenter to want to live in Washington state; it's OK for you to want to live in Silicon Valley; it's OK for me not to want to live in the USA.
We each care about where we live, and we each have different preferences: that's OK.
Legally sure. But is it right to siphon money out of a state and then take somewhere else? I know plenty of foreign families that take money out of America or back into the hands of their home country. Banks gave loans out for the great scam known as college, putting money into the hands of bank and less cycling through the economy.
Is it right to export exotic fruits to a state and siphon its money out somewhere else? It's the same thing; if the state doesn't like it, it can stop or discourage or palatabalise it.
You are saying this as though we have standards now.
For example, I see plenty of people touting the idea that everyone should be nice to one another. This is becoming a meme in society. I see the shittiest people wishing others to be nice to one another. It's become a cognitive dissonance.
It is only matter of time till being "nice" becomes state mandated in a country (US) where if I want to be a piece of shit, I can be a piece of shit. A lot of people in the states seem to genuinely not understand this concept.
I sense hate speech, you will be added to special list whose posts will be verified by group of people from city X which voted 90% for party X. You can either fall in line and align yourself with 9 media outlets or be "fact checked".
What would you do in that situation if it were you. I would personally choose to fail and not be apart of a system that does this, but it sounds like you embrace it?
Your question is about the current process though, and the answer is if you really do not have access to a room with internet that you can use for a couple of hours, the best thing you can do is to contact your school and see what arrangements can be made to accommodate you.
I actually have gone out of my way to, and have mostly successfully avoided that situations, and have gone out of my way to point out to schools the damage they are doing.
However, not everyone has that option, is willing to take that option, or understands the ramifications of not taking that option.
I hate the current system. I also understand why people choose to follow it.
Edit 0: It looks like maybe this conversation has hit the maximum depth for HN? If you'd like to continue talking, please feel free to email me.
Edit 1: Turns out I was wrong. The reply timer just hadn't passed. Still feel free to email me if you like.
To call it "embrace" is unfair to the parent comment. People get coerced to accept things all the time, especially when it concerns the future of their children. Very few people have an "all or nothing" kind of mentality when it comes to resisting establishment, especially when the cost of accepting is relatively minor. In this case, accepting the anti-cheat has a very low cost: enduring a crapware and spyware for a little while.
It is more the concept of wanting something you claim to not want by making a fake version of it. Just eat vegan products? It seems like a cognitive dissonance when I see the words vegan and burger together.
But vegans want burgers, they just don’t want to kill an animal for that burger. This is no different than someone making a turkey burger because they don’t like beef.
For some reason, only vegans get called out for making substitutions.
> Burgers aren't a huge deal in Asia, for example.
Asia is a big place, but for example in China pretty much everything has a small amount of pork as a minor ingredient/seasoning; "vegan" dishes are the pitiable food of the poor; and the word for household is literally a roof with a pig underneath it
The only "bad" burger to the op is the traditional definition that includes meat. Burger as a concept of two-breads, some toppings, and a patty (arguibly a melt?) is fine.
You just repeated yourself. So I ask again why when you claim that this is something you think is bad. By conception, you want something that is not what you claim to desire. It is engineered and the opposite of natural by design.
First, I'm not a vegan. Second, vegans avoid animal products because they come from animals. Various imitation and substitute products do not come from animals and so are not avoided.
Or, tl;dr: You do realize soy milk is very popular among vegans, right?
Apologies, I failed to communicate my point correctly.
What I am trying to say is that vegans are trying to engineer a product. So this product the opposite of natural, so what is with the claims of health?
I don't know why I used the word "bad"
I find it frustrating as a person who only eats meat and vegetables to have to tolerate vegans who claim health benefits. Most vegans I've met are fat.
I'm no newbie vegan and I still looooove vegan burgers. I'm "indoctrinated" only insofar that everyone is "indoctrinated" by the gastronomic culture of their upbringing.
What I want the most is a readily available vegan food on every corner. For instance, it is surprisingly difficult to buy anything vegan on a highway stop/petrol station where I am from. Vegan burger from MCD will mean a lot.
Hmm, then I guess that leads to my next question: what is a burger? Is a turkey burger a burger? Is a burger ground meat? Is it simply ground protein (making a vegan burger a burger)?
Well, meat requires more plants to “suffer” than eating the plants directly. So if this was your line if reasoning, you would be a staunch vegan. The majority of crops are grown to feed livestock.
People usually make your argument in bad faith because even when corrected you never had a moral interest in “minimizing plant suffering” to begin with. You just thought you had a good gotcha.
> So if this was your line if reasoning, you would be a staunch vegan.
Not really. A person who eats both doesn't typically agonize over the morality of eating animals or plants like many vegans do. It's pointing out the fallacy of advocating veganism on the basis of animal suffering.
That of course is only one argument for veganism among many much stronger ones, but it doesn't make it a bad argument to make.
Vegans choose to abstain from animal products, not that they "don't want them."
The reasons might be environmental, ethical, moral, or religious, etc... Not important, just that a vegan or vegetarian is simply someone who did a cost-benefit analysis where, to them, the costs of meat (environmental degradation, massive suffering, personal guilt, my-god-said-so, whatever) outweigh the benefits (taste, convenience, social acceptably). That's merely it!
It's not cognitive dissonance to want to enjoy some of the benefits of something without some of the costs - that's what vegan "meat" (at least attempts) to do.
So weak discipline? I don't get it as a person who just eats meat and veggies why you would want something you don't want?
It's like creating a protein based pea that tastes exactly like a pea in every way but made with animal protein and I call it carnivore peas. What you are saying is that you are trying to reverse engineer something for hedonism's sake.
They aren't trying to reverse engineer anything, they are trying to make food they like that is not also attached to activities they find unethical.
There's no contradiction or dissonance, it's "I find raising and slaughtering animals for food unethical" on the one side and "I like certain flavors" on the other.
As usual, a bunch of non-commutative human beings rewarded for hiding and not sharing their Authoritarian opinion about controlling humanity under your very ADULT response
If you believe that someone voting for whom they believe in is splitting the vote, then you don't believe in democracy right? You are thinking like a marketing strategist it sounds like.
