#this whole show is kids paying for adults mistakes IN THIS ESSAY I WILL-

[jupiterlandings]

“You’ll never get a second chance,

plan all your moves in advance;

stay dead, stay dead, stay dead,

stay dead & out of this world”

Ectober Day 5: Hunt/Haunt

[gunsandspaceships]

Review of some anti-Tony comments I saw on Ao3. Part 3

https://archiveofourown.org/works/52704154/chapters/133310575

I have to return to Part 2 this time, because more comments have been written on this topic since then.

"Tony only helped because Pepper was involved and pushed him into doing so. You admitted it to yourself, and I didn't say he never would have helped, I just said he had refused to help before and only did later because of Pepper. Which you just admitted to, thank you."

I wrote a whole essay about this, with clear arguments and sources, and still it got twisted completely somehow. Well, I’ll say it different way then:

“Tony only helped because Pepper was involved” – as I said he came to her to ask for permission to put her life at risk, their daughter’s life, and his life, since he is her husband. Btw, that’s what Cap, Nat and Scott asked him to do. He did the right thing, being responsible and respectful here, unlike some other characters in the MCU, who are also husbands and fathers. Scott never asked his family members if it’s ok for him to go and do risky stuff, despite having a daughter, who could be left without a father. There is a lot to say about him actually, but not today.

Same about Clint – did he ask his family if it’s ok if he goes to help Cap in violating laws, risking his life and freedom? According to his words in Civil War (1:22:55 – scene where Clint extracts Wanda from Avengers Compound) when Wanda asked him “What are you doing here?” he answered “Disappointing my kids. I’m supposed to go waterskiing”. That means he doesn’t care about his family much. And you are telling me that Tony didn’t care about Peter. But this is another topic and will be addressed later.

Back to Pepper - if she hadn't been there, it wouldn't have changed anything, except that Tony might feel guilty because he didn't have a chance to talk to her.

“pushed him into doing so” – again, as I stated in Part 2, she didn’t push him into anything. He asked her what she thinks, she said to him what he wanted to hear: “Tony, trying to get you to stop has been one of the few failures of my entire life” and he smiles, and rubs her hand, showing his gratitude for the permission not to stop (Avengers Endgame 0:42:50). She means here “you can go, because I know you can’t live in peace without trying to save everyone”.

“I just said he had refused to help before” – you probably should pay more attention to what's happening on the screen.

He refused because, as I said in the Part 2, he ran time travel tests before and they all failed. Because of that he lost hope in that option, and just told the team what he knows about the possibility. They came to him not knowing anything about time travel, brought raw enthusiasm, supported only by an accident caused by a rat running across the control panel. They told him at 0:35:20, that their plan to save the dusted is based on Back to the Future, which is completely incorrect interpretation of time travel. Thus they are not serious enough and are ready to take unnecessary risks, playing with mumbo-jumbo. Tony is more mature now, he learned from his past mistakes – not to take unnecessary risks. He is the adult in that scene, they are kids. They ask him to risk lives blindly. Lives of his family, his own and their lives too (0:34:30 & 0:35:10). Of course he refused. Any responsible adult would refuse. Would be there a real chance to execute the "time heist" – he would do that. And that’s what he eventually does.

[gaycatwizard]

I feel like "bad/flawed characters that are still likeable" are just some of the Best characters and tend to have a bit more emotional staying power, that they're more relatable and more interesting, more memorable. We need more of them, but they're really... hard to do? Not necessarily hard to make, but hard to do well. Because the amount of flaws and Badness (in a moral/philosophical sense, not quality of a character's design and personality) can vary so drastically, along with the amount of redeeming traits and their potency. It can be hard to want to "copy" or mimic the exact ratio from the character that inspired you. Tangent: it's fine to be inspired by one or more works. It's fine to allow it to influence your works. It's hard distinguishing from "I want to do x, but that's basically just rewriting one of my inspirations but with a palette swap" and "this inspires me so I want to use certain elements/themes/ideas/technical aspects of it." That's not the issue here, y'know. But like... I think the sheer variety you can have in Loveable Asshole characters like that, in the ratio of how bad and how good they are, is part of what makes them so interesting, so realistic, so powerful. Like... there are characters who are overall pretty good people, but are rough around the edges in a way that clearly makes them sympathetic and likeable. There are characters who are basically layer upon layer upon layer of mistakes, hatred, and bile with the tiniest nugget of good at the center, that you rarely get a glimpse of, but feel something raw and enthralling because of that. Like... I think Bojack Horseman is a good example, especially because it has a lot of different Likeable Bad People varieties and it does them all really well. Also Bojack Horseman is a good show and, not unlike JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, I want to talk about it at every given opportunity. Bojack himself is a cynical, selfish, destructive, defensive, spiteful, jealous, vain, self-loathing, stubborn piece of shit. He's a bad person and that's... kind of the point of the show. But his entire character, his entire arc that spans the whole of the series, revolves around the diamond buried deep in that rough. He wants to change, but he's so set in his negative ways (and so used to being surrounded by such negativity and toxicity) that he doesn't really know how. Every time he wants to change, he doesn't know how and fails to keep up with his new habits. Every time he's doing well and making progress, some external factor comes in and pushes him violently back down the mountain, back to square one. But he makes an effort, it's very obvious that he doesn't like being this way, that he regrets the things he does, that he feels remorse for the pain he's caused, and he does finally change and improve, things do finally get better for him. His foil (who has such an AMAZING dynamic and relative arc with him I could write a whole essay just on that), Mr. Peanutbutter, is sort of the exact opposite. They have similar careers and positions in the world, but everything goes right for Mr. Peanutbutter. Everyone likes him, everything is handed to him on a silver platter, he's perfect, he's happy, he's attractive, he's popular, he's everything Bojack isn't, and yet somehow he's drawn to Bojack and always wants to try and be his friend. But as Bojack slowly improves over the show and the softer, nicer, Better side of him becomes more and more prominent and common, the negative side of Mr. Peanutbutter slowly gets revealed over the show. He's also selfish and stubborn and stupid and persistent and dangerously disconnected from reality and his interpersonal skills are absolute shit. He puts on that act to make people like him. As the show goes on, it's slowly revealed that he doesn't really pay attention to the wants or needs of others, like, at all. That he only ever really cares about himself and just wants to do and be everything and anything as long as people like him and it makes him happy, regardless of who it hurts. It's amazing. It's in F is

for Family, too. Netflix Adult Animated Sitcoms are very often hit or miss, but these two are absolute homeruns. Frank, the protagonist, of F is for Family is selfish, violent, short-tempered, arrogant, judgmental, ignorant... but he's remorseful and introspective and intelligent and, in a very convoluted and misguided way most of the time, incredibly caring and devoted. He is a piece of shit and he's terrible, and a lot of why he's still likeable, why he's allowed to be so politically incorrect and abusive is due to the setting. Parenting norms were different back then and, now with hindsight, we know that those norms weren't good and you should NEVER hit or yell at or emotionally degrade your kids. The show is a perfect mix of "everyone is a product of their time and environment" and "no matter the time and place, people are people and we have the same thoughts and feelings and struggles," all without glorifying or excusing the terrible actions of the characters with the excuse of the time period or due to being "protagonists" or having redeeming traits. They're human, flawed, some incredibly so, and that's what makes it so good. It's part of why I like F is for Family more than most Adult Animated Family Sitcoms. You've got the typical stupid, selfish, arrogant, etc. Bad Dad and his Housewife, but there's still chemistry. They're still unique, three dimensional characters that clearly love each other and have a reason to still be together despite arguing and hardship. Same with how Frank and Sue treat their kids. They're not great parents, but they're trying to do their best (which isn't always good) and they do clearly love their kids and want the best for them. Their kids are resentful at times and hate their parents for some of the things they do, but they do stick together at the end of the day because there's that underlying realization that none of the mistreatment is done with malicious intent. That doesn't excuse it, but they're all just fucked up and trying to do their best. And they do have sad, relatable characters that are clearly bad people and aren't likeable, despite having sympathetic traits. Like Ginny. Her husband, that she loves dearly, is gay and simply doesn't love her the way she loves him, their marriage is hollow and empty. But she constantly forces her suffering on others, regardless of whether they want to hear it or are emotionally equipped to do so. Attempting to leave the conversation or explain that other people have problems too means, to Ginny, that you're a terrible human being who can't be there for someone in pain or that you're selfish and disgusting and never stop thinking of yourself. She has every right to be upset, but she takes it out on others and manipulates them, and that's not okay, and the show depicts it that way. There are so many options for character arcs with these characters, too. They don't even have to be related to their flaws, they can be entirely external or related to something like relationships or interests. You can show someone working on their flaws, acknowledging that they're not perfect and they might be bad, but that they want to do better and actively try to do so; they don't avoid responsibility or blame others, they own up to it and do their best to improve. Hell, even just coming to the realization that you are responsible for your actions, not anyone else, and that you have to put in effort to change could be that arc. You can have someone get worse, whether an intentional path of bad decisions without regard for others or a failure to understand which decisions are right. Some people have redeeming traits, but still aren't redeemable. Some people don't get better. Some people still get better, but get worse first. There are so many real, relatable options that show the darker, uglier side of life that we so desperately want to experience and perceive (likely due to the cathartic and taboo aspects), and bringing up flaws and shortcomings and anything else in this context can start interesting conversations and challenge

us to think about things we may not have before, or from a new perspective.

[c-is-for-circinate]

Thinking today about viruses, allergies, oppression, and anti culture.

(under a cut because WHOOOPS this got long)

Racism is a virus. Homophobia, transphobia, sexism, antisemitism, ableism, etc etc etc, they are all viruses--a topic that many of us have learned a great deal about in the past year. They are ideas, yes, not literal physical diseases, but the analogy holds up. They are infectious, and often spread from person to person without anyone involved realizing they have it. They can sit latent for years, never showing up because the carrier never finds themselves in a situation where the issue comes up, only to flare up and take over when you least expect it. And they mutate, just like the flu, just like the common cold; they put on a new jacket every year and slide in undetected yet again, slip past our internal sensors and bury themselves in our brains until we go in and deal with them as best as we can.

One more thing we've learned about viruses this year is how we can fight them. The viruses of oppression are a little different because they tend to hurt the people around their carriers even more than the people they've infected (although let's talk about internalized anything-ism sometime), but in a lot of ways the attack is the same. You treat the symptoms even when you don't know how to cure the disease: we invest in respirators, antiviral treatments, hospitals; we create and sponsor programs to help those who've been hurt by various oppressions, we uplift our neighbors, we try to keep people safe from violences both big and small. You work to stop the spread: we wear our goddamn masks, we stay home when we can; we train ourselves not to say racist shit that might foster a culture of hate, we stop that guy in our office from making rape jokes, we make slurs unacceptable. You pay attention to your immune system: we seek medical attention when we experience symptoms, we get COVID tests, we talk to our doctors before the symptoms get deadly; we protest and we pay attention to the people who do, we take them seriously when they tell us that something is wrong.

You vaccinate. We train ourselves and our immune systems to recognize the thing that infects us, the thing that we fear. We try to teach our children about history, bit by little bit, on fragments of dead violence the same way we train our bodies on dead virus shells, so that someday they'll recognize the live disease when they see it. We learn about slavery and Jim Crow and the Holocaust. We tell kids bedtime stories about why hitting and bullying is bad, before we ever start teaching them the specific shapes that violence so often takes. As we get older, as we get stronger, we learn about the living stuff, all the new forms that same old virus has mutated into; we educate ourselves, we listen, we read. Just like vaccines, of course, there are anti-vaxxers and denialists shouting about how racism and sexism are already dead and they don't need any propoganda besides Fox News. Hell, just like anti-maskers, there are plenty of people screaming about how political correctness is ruining the world and they demand their right to spread their virus to anyone they can. Often these are the same people.

But we try. And make no mistake, we all of us are already infected, and just like a real virus, once you've caught it once it probably won't ever go away again--but we can prepare, and we can try to lessen the severity of our cases, and we can support our immune systems of activists and protesters and our own internal sense of this is wrong, and we can work, bit by bit, if not towards eradication (not yet, not in this world, but maybe someday in another), then at least towards control.

And then there's allergies.

An allergy is what happens when a human body's own immune system freaks out over an enemy that wasn't particularly harmful in the first place. All our immune defenses--those precious immune defenses, which work so hard to protect us against all those viral, deadly ideas--go screaming into high gear. All of that fear and fury and attack power gets brought to bear all at once, against a bit of pollen or bee venom or cat dander or peanuts, and your body is left itchy and runny-nosed and gasping--sometimes literally--as it tries to keep up. Allergies are miserable. Sometimes they're life-threatening. And the biggest danger isn't the foreign agent that triggers the allergic reaction; it's the immune system trying to fight it in the first place.

Which, yes, brings us to anti culture--but not JUST anti culture. It's a good example, a little internet-centric microcosm of the same force that drives progressives to tear bloody shreds out of moderate liberal politicians. Hell, it's the same force that enables both TERFs and the Capitol rioters. It's a combination of an immune system that points in the wrong direction, flagging the wrong thing as bad, terrifying, danger, NO, and a freaked-out response that can manifest as anything from mildly irritating to absolutely deadly.

To be clear, I am not by any means equating the scale or even the source of these things, any more than hayfever is the same as anaphylactic shock. Likewise, the sources are different. Sometimes, a disease can infect an immune system and point it in the wrong direction. (Terror of the other is the absolute cornerstone of white nationalism, and when that terror gets triggered by a harmless environmental condition like, god forbid, other people asking for rights, the allergy response can be deadly.) Other times, it's the other way around. Our internal immune systems, so well trained to protect ourselves and those around us from the insidious viral ravages of prejudice and oppression, start seeing traces of it everywhere.

And they freak out. And we suffer for it.

We talk a lot of well-deserved shit about TERFs, but it's useful to remember how much their nastiness feels to them like activism. Their immune system, trained and primed and sensitized over years of exposure to misogyny and sexism, catches the tiniest whiff of something that might seem at some point to have possibly been taken for male, and freaks out, because why is that trying to get into our system. Never mind that they're wrong. An immune system that flips out over penicillin is wrong, too. It's still trying to help, and it's still doing more harm than good trying it.

So bringing this back around to anti culture, which was absolutely where I started thinking about all of this this morning: anti culture, the terror of porn and the attempt by antis to protect themselves an other people from sexual content, is an immune response. It is a trained immune response, in people who have been taught and re-taught again and again that rape culture is a dangerous insidious virus that should be fought at all costs. And, right, there's more than a bit of 'the sexism virus infected this immune system and reprogrammed it to fight itself' involved here, but look, we are all of us infected with all of the viruses at least a little bit everywhere. If we tried to direct our immune systems to rip every last shred of -ism out of every last bit of us, we'd rip ourselves apart. Which is exactly the problem.

Porn, in and of itself, is natural. As natural as environmental pollen, and living near dogs and cats, and eating wheat or nuts or citrus fruit. It's even healthy, for a whole host of reasons that belong in another essay. And citric acid and nut-based proteins and whole grains are nutritious, and pets are physically and psychologically helpful, and being exposed to lots of different environmental substances as a child can actually help train your immune system in the first place. Porn can help us figure out what we like. It can help us figure out what we don't like. And while the processes that create it are sometimes unethical and awful, we don't condemn all dogs because puppy mills and dogfighting rings exist, even if we do have dog allergies.

What we see in anti culture is often a good-faith attempt on the part of antis to attack and subdue an environmental trigger that they read as dangerous. It's a panic attack over something that is by nature harmless or mildly harmful, blown out of proportion by the very instincts that are supposed to keep us safe. It's the response of an immune system that's been taught over years and years, by everyone from parents to school systems to the activists they look up to, that negative stimulus is to be feared, avoided, and fought. Of COURSE they're going to freak out.

And of course, early exposure to controlled amounts of allergens can help prevent later allergies from developing. Of course when kids are raised with abstinence-only education, sheltered from the very concept of sex, they're going to grow up allergic to it. (Of course they're going to try to protect other kids from the same, like worried mothers who refuse to let peanuts or wheat products or dirt near their precious babies, whose kids grow up with a whole suite of allergic triggers because their bodies never learned what was okay in the first place.) And no, that doesn't mean we hand pornography to ten-year-olds any more than we should give raw honey to an infant--but of course if our culture refuses to introduce kids to the fact that sex and desire and the inside of their own brain can be messy and silly and kinky and downright weird, we're going to have a higher rate of allergic reaction to the entire concept in adults.

I wish I had a better answer for what to do with understanding that this is what's going through so many people's brains. The best I have is a prescription for allergy-sufferers, who probably haven't read this far through this wordspew of an essay in the first place--but we all get a little hayfever once in a while, and we all sometimes run into content that makes us angry. So some thoughts on how to deal with metaphorical allergic reactions, inspired by the ways we deal with literal ones?

First: we recognize that what is happening is an allergy. The thing we're reacting to might be gross, or irritating, or even unpleasant, but the danger is not and never has been the thing itself. Whether it's triggering a response because of its similarity to an actively dangerous pathogen, or our immune system just doesn't like it, our aversion to one kind of story or another universally says more about us than about it. Luckily, we have a lot more control over our social responses than our biological ones!!! If vocal activism is our sociocultural immune system firing itself up to fight an infection that may or may not exist, then we get to tell our metaphorical white blood cells to stand down. We get to decide.

Second: we get some space. The funny thing about allergies is, while early exposure to allergens can help prevent them, re-exposing yourself to dangerous allergens after you've already developed a reaction to them can make them worse. Anaphylaxis is always more likely after someone's experienced it the first time. Repeated exposure to triggers, whether biological or psychological, can make the effects worse. So stop exposing yourself.

If something makes your throat itch every time you eat it, stop eating it. If something makes you mad every time you read it, stop reading it. Obviously this can be easier said than done in a world that's a lot worse about warning labels on stories than ingredients labels on foods, but that's why fic tags exist. And: sometimes, the croissant is delicious enough that we decide we're willing to suffer through the way the almonds make us feel, just this once. Sometimes the ship or the characterization or, hell, those other kinks that we really like are tasty enough that we'll put up with the trope we hate. We're allowed to do that. But we do it knowing there will be consequences, and we don't blame the baker when they hit.

We also don't have to blame ourselves. It sucks to be allergic to shellfish when all your friends are raving about the new seafood place. But that's not our fault any more than it's theirs.

Third: sometimes, if we need one, we go to the doctor. Or a therapist. Yes, really.

Not because there's anything really wrong with an aversion or even mild breakouts of hives, annoyance, and bitching in your friends' DMs--but it sure isn't pleasant, and sometimes your doctor might have a better solution than 'avoid it and take a Benadryl' that makes you feel a little better in the long run. And sometimes, it's not a mild breakout. Sometimes it's the kind of story that lingers with you for days, makes your skin crawl; sometimes your throat swells up and it gets hard to breathe. Sometimes we get angry enough about something we've read that we can't stand down our immune system, don't want to stop ourselves from writing that angry comment, that tumblr post, that abuse report to the mods for something that didn't actually break any rules. And that's dangerous, because when our immune response can flare out of control like that, we don't always know where and when it will happen next, and the risk of what we'll do if it happens gets way, way higher.

Sometimes it really is worth getting a second opinion. Sometimes you need somebody to tell you, "actually, it is not normal to get tingly and sweaty every time you eat potatoes." There are ways to train your brain and leash your white blood cells that I sure as heck am not expert enough to address. There are, it turns out, ways to feel better. There are ways to mitigate the damage your own well-meaning defense mechanisms might do to yourself or other people along the way.

And: we can take a deep breath when someone with an allergy to something we've baked, something we've written, something we like, is lashing out trying to protect themselves and everyone around them from something they've registered as a threat. Of course they're wrong. Yes, we told them there were tree nuts in the brownies ahead of time; yes, they chose to eat them anyway. But it can be worth reminding them and ourselves that there's a difference between "this thing is toxic" and "this harmless thing has driven my own system into a defensive response that sure makes it feel like I've been poisoned." And it can be worth reminding ourselves as well as them that sometimes, that difference can be really hard to spot.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

HERE'S WHAT I JUST REALIZED ABOUT CHALLENGE

This is not just a machine. Even then I took embarrassingly long to catch on. But I think that's ok. It's an excuse to work on boring things, even if they wanted to do things that make you stupid, and if they don't go into research.1 Why don't more people start startups. But how do you become one? What super-angels and VCs. So starting a startup and failed over someone who'd spent the same time working at a big company.2 In America, companies, like practically everything else, are disposable. So why do so many founders build things no one wants to do it may be best to go for brevity. Facebook seemed a good idea to understand what's happening when you do have kids.3

If you learn to ignore injuries you can at least avoid the second half. But if you're looking for companies that hope to win by writing great software.4 For the average startup, that would explain why they'd care about valuations.5 The other way to tell an adult is by how they react to a challenge. A nerd looks at that deal and sees only: pay a fortune for a small, dark, noisy apartment. A high-frequency trader does not. US are auto workers, New York is incomparable.6 But airports are not so harmless.7 There is no absolute standard for material wealth. This is about cities, not countries.

The reason he and most other startup founders are richer than they would have made working 9 to 5 at a big company. So maybe hacking does require some special ability to focus. If accelerating variation in productivity increases with technology, then the idea will fit in the user's head too. The other is that, in a hits-driven business, is that they're the same. The mere prospect of being interrupted is enough to prevent hackers from working on their startup for a whole year before being squashed by Google Calendar. The other way to tell an adult is by how they react to a challenge from an adult in a way people will increasingly be.8 I was walking along the street in Cambridge, and in practice they are usually interchangeable. I thought were the 5 most interesting startup founders of the last 30 years. Design is not just that it makes trade work. When Rajat Suri of E la Carte decided to write software for restaurants, he got out one of the founders of Sun.9 Finally at the end of this long process the VCs might still say no.10 Not just because it's better, but the pain of having this stupid controversy constantly reintroduced as the top one in your mind.11

The iPhone isn't so much a phone as a replacement for a phone.12 San Francisco, or Boston, or New York, where people walk around smiling. It felt as if someone had flipped on a light switch inside my head. They're willing to let you work so hard that you endanger your health. That's because, unlike novelists, hackers collaborate on projects. Someone with ordinary tastes would find it hard to come up with the numbers. Even now the image of a very ambitious German presses a button or two, doesn't it? Northern Italy in 1100, off still feudal. If you don't have to look at. Whereas if the speaker were still operating on the Daddy Model, and saw wealth as something that flowed from a common source and had to be built on NT. There is a large, existing population of stodgy people. Seriously, though, that there are going to get till the last minute.

As the CEO of a large public company makes about 100 times as productive as an ordinary one, but a leading indicator. Several of the most successful startup founders are often technical people who are great at something are not so much the day to day management. To me she seems the best novelist of all time. What nerds like is the kind of problems are those? You'd think it would be such a great thing never to be wrong that everyone would do this. So there is obviously not a fixed pie that's shared out, like an introductory textbook. I've rarely had a neat answer to it. A startup is not to try to think of startup ideas. There are now a few VC firms outside the US. The chance of getting rejected after the full partner meeting averages about 25%.13

Notes

This is true of nationality and religion as well. Some VCs seem to be free to work than stay home with them. To a kid and as a cause as it was overvalued till you run through all the page-generating templates are still called the executive model. Philosophy is like math's ne'er-do-well brother.

To get a lot more frightening in those days, but getting rich, purely mercenary founders will usually take one of the next one will be near-spams that you should push back on the grounds that a their applicants come from meditating in an equity round. In many ways the New Deal was a test of intelligence. One YC founder wrote after reading a draft, Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson.

Did you know about a week for 4 years. The facts about Apple's early history are from an interview. That's the best are Goodwin Procter, Wilmer Hale, and tax rates, which shows how unimportant the Arpanet which became the Internet. I'm not dissing these people.

For example, because despite some progress in the former, and also really good at design, or because they are so dull and artificial that by the government. Part of the biggest successes there is no longer working to help the company goes public. Though most founders start out excited about the subterfuges they had that we didn't do. As always, tax loopholes defended by two of the web have sucked—e.

43. Microsoft, would increase the spammers' cost to reach a given audience by a factor of 20.

The solution for this essay, I advised avoiding Javascript. Often as not the distinction between them generate a lot of people who interrupt you. Proceedings of AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization.

There is no richer if it's dismissed, it's probably a mistake to do better. 99,—e. In the thirties his support of the Fabian Society, it is certainly more efficient, it inevitably turns into incantation. Most don't try to raise five million dollars in liquid assets are assumed to be obscure; they just don't make wealth a zero-sum game.

Strictly speaking it's not uncommon for startups is a self fulfilling prophecy. One thing that drives most people come to writing essays is to protect widows and orphans from crooked investment schemes; people with a sufficiently identifiable style, you can, Jeff Byun mentions one reason not to say for sure a social network for pet owners is a bad idea, period. Is this unfair? You may be some part you can ask us who's who; otherwise you may have to find out why investors who turned them down.

That's because the first year or so and we don't have enough equity left to motivate people by saying Real artists ship. That's why the series AA terms and write them a check. At the moment; if there were 5 more I didn't realize it till I started doing research for this at YC I find I never watch movies in theaters anymore.

The latter type is the proper test of intelligence. If you have to do others chose Marx or Cardinal Newman, and tax rates have had a day job is one of the paths people take through life, the rest have mostly raised money at all. The Civil Service Examinations of Imperial China, Yale University Press, 1983.

Thought experiment: set aside for this essay began by talking about art.

Applying for a startup is taking the Facebook/Twitter route and building something for a CEO to make money from existing customers. Instead of bubbling up from the study. Unfortunately, not lowercase.

It wouldn't pay. This is one of the bizarre consequences of this essay talks about the team or their determination and disarmingly asking the right question, which would cause other problems. That's the difference between surgeons and internists fleas: I wouldn't say that YC's most successful ones tend not to quit their day job is one subtle danger you have 8 months of runway or less, is he going to do sales yourself initially.

[throughthewwods]

1oo Days of Productivity

Day 1 & 2

*I made homemade macaroni and cheese

*Finally emerged from the academic ashes and finished one of my essays, bringing me that much closer to getting at least one of those Incompletes behind me

*Gifted myself mental and physical health in the form of a treadmill that gets here at the end of the month. “It’ll end up being a coat rack” 🙄 Done hemming and hawing over the expense, letting other people’s projections talk me out of what I need.

——————————-

My kid’s stubbornness is maddening. I always promised myself I would not be one of those authoritarian parents, but clearly my efforts to explain the why’s of things has given the false impression every why she doesn’t agree with or understand is thus optional. Letting her learn through natural consequence would be fine if not for how often her not taking heed causes adult-sized problems I then have to sort out. Also am I seriously supposed to let a 9 year old make what I as an adult recognize as a life altering mistake? After a controversial parenting move where I feigned acquiescence my child would fail and commanded her to instead of staring vacantly at a screen to go do menial labor around the house as training for her future job options, she has miraculously rediscovered her desire to pass 4th grade. 😅🤷🏻‍♀️

I don’t know if it was my little THC mental vacay I took Saturday night or that I awoke Sunday feeling that New Years momentum, but with the help of skittles and mid noon coffee I finally made a dent on my paper with still enough time left to my evening to relax with RB. Despite my kid’s crazy-making I wanted to start the week back to normalcy on a positive note, so we all ate Mac n cheese comfort foodz and played a few rounds of bootleg Candy Crush in board game form before bed.

One blessing that did not make my 2020 Highlights status update is how grateful I am for all the newfound afterglow. We half-watch our show. Post-climax I’m also contemplating whether the time travel paradox, “one cannot use the time machine to undo an event that inspired the time machine” also applies to undoing the invention of the time travel itself? RB jokes, “I don’t know. Does it being the 3rd dimension make it a 3rd world country?” 🤔🤷🏻‍♀️😆

Monday flew by.

A friend is going through relationship things. I’m glad to be there for her, but also recognize that I’m no foundation of wisdom when it comes to functional relationships. I wonder how many years of being happy, healthy with RB it would take for me to feel confident in the lessons and introspections I’ve had since we met? At this point I preface with many grains of salt.

I touched base with my eldest, little brother, which was a pleasant rarity I hope we can do more of. He’s stepping into adulthood haphazardly, but I’ll leave the judgemental cynicism to our parents. I’m glad to offer him a supportive, encouraging voice and create a space where he’s allowed to be proud of himself for how far he’s come. It then hits me that all my parents’ children are about to enter their next life phase at about the same window.

My eldest, little brother finally has a decent paying job with career potential and has moved into his first real apartment with the girlfriend he’s pretty serious about.

My littlest brother is about to graduate high school and looking at joining the reserves or a trade school.

I’m about to enter grad school, my baby will soon be in jr. high, and I’m saving for a down payment on a house.

My brother giddily adds, “And I got a cat!” We have a good laugh.

My beat friend is also about to enter the next monumental phase of her journey.

It’s strange how things can feel much the same day in day out for so long then when change does happen it’s jarring, but in reality all that under-appreciated progress was happening the whole time beneath the surface, accumulating, becoming the catalyst for each seemingly sudden metamorphosis.

I still managed to finish my essay somewhat early.

RB arrived still shaking off a stressful day. As he takes tiny me into his gallant arms I sense his bear hug give way to solace and for an instant I am the shelter. He sighs deeply, “I... need to meditate”. “I just finished cooking dinner, but we can absolutely do that.” He gets comfy on the couch and cracks open the next Narnia book. After she’s done eating Kiddo rests her head by his to listen then I join her under the blanket. When the chapter is done I turn the lights down low to blue and find some meditation tunes for the 3 of us. As I flutter open my eyes I ponder the many nuances about a person that dating attempts to blend, the unlikely odds of a truly good match that surpasses lukewarm, and how lucky we are to have found each other.

[jessielefey]

Also also, yeah? He's a little pushy about his ideals a lot of the time. That's not a great example of when but there are better ones. But so?

He's a child? They're all children without adult supervision reflecting as best they can the adults they remember and respect the most during moments of conflict.

And all three (four even, you can get some fascinating reads on what Toph's parents act like behind closed doors by how she handles interpersonal conflict) do it with their whole chests, with the kind of blind uncritical faith only children have.

So it includes their idols flaws as well as their strengths, and it is very much a funhouse mirror reflection of who those adults actually were.

Katara is overbearing and helicoptery, partially from trauma, partially because the last time she saw her mom she was barely out of diapers and still needed that kind of supervision. Sokka is *really* fascinating because the ideal of strength and masculinity and leadership he's reflecting at the beginning isn't even who his role models are like at all and actually looks more like the fire nation warriors he hates so much (which could be a whole colonialism essay on its own but probably not one I should be the writer of anyway STAY ON TOPIC).

And Aang talks with the sanctimonious certainty of This Is True And I Am Right that all the professionally religious of all faiths just drip with that makes anyone outside their faith (and often a fair percentage within their faith) want to drop a water bucket on their head, made worse by the fact that his role model is someone who regularly instructs small children.

That's on top of the crushing existential trauma of having to be The Last Airbender, and the real accurate fear that any air nomad ideal he cannot carve into the bedrock of the world with his presence alone will be lost forever. Of course he's pushy about it, and of course he's gonna be annoying about it sometimes. (Of course he's gonna hurt his children with it too. Also another essay.)

As the kids mature, they refine and compensate and correct and find new role models, and start reflecting something that looks like them and not parodies of the adults around them as we all do, but I'd argue those core character flaws never go away entirely. Even after death Aang is sometimes absolutely insufferable.

But. Like. That's what makes them such good realistic characters? As that nice Jewish hippie once opined, let he without cringe cast the first stone. I certainly can't; I know my list of character flaws very well. It's not about if you have them, you do, it's how you work around them that shows what kind of person you are, and there is no kind of person who completely mitigates all their flaws all the time.

And look, I am team The Whole Removing Of Bending Thing Was BS as well, but do not mistake my complaints with it as a character one or even necessarily a thematic one (though I am *very* tired of "if someone is being threatened with genocide, the second they raise an arm to protect themselves AGAINST THE LEADERS they become no different than their oppressors, pay no attention to the plausibly deniable pile of corpses they made getting to him those aren't real people" narratives; ATLA is not that, but given the mountain of other stories that are, I get why it can feel too close to one for some people's tastes and that's okay). It's entirely a structural problem. I get why Aang as a person was absolutely incapable of betraying his culture's highest ideals, no matter how high the stakes. I get why the narrative bent itself over backwards to accommodate him. I respect the story even for not taking the easy way out by someone else or the world itself taking out Ozai so Aang's hands are technically kept clean of his death.

I just think it was three asspulls in a trenchcoat of a solution, like they got so invested in the character development (and/or the network jerked them around) that they got six episodes from the end and were like "oh wait shit the plot" and had to do a giant endgame loredump and several last minute workarounds to corners they painted themselves into when they'd been doing so good at subtle foreshadowing and multiseason setups and payoffs before that. It's the entire thematic and character and societal climax but it was too cheap and fast and easy and the most irritating visibility of plot armour (in this case showing moral invulnerability instead of physical, but still plot armour) in the entire franchise.

None of that is because baby monk Aang acts like a monk. Of course he does. He should. Even when, no scratch that, especially when he drives his friends and the audience to want to strangle him. That doesn't make him either a bad character or a bad person. It makes him a person.

Just because I'm talking about a character flaw doesn't make it a complaint, just because I'm complaining about an aspect of the show doesn't make it bad or even make them bad writers. A character study, even a sarcastic one, isn't a hit piece. A writing critique isn't a bad review. Good things have flaws worth discussing. Sometimes the flaws in good things are the most interesting things about them.

ATLA fandom: Aang tried to force his ideals on Katara and stop her from confronting her mother’s killer.

ATLA episode transcript:  Katara: Don’t try to stop us. Aang: I wasn’t planning to. This is a journey you need to take. You need to face this man. But when you do, please don’t choose revenge. Let your anger out, and then let it go. Forgive him.

[sexygirlsarebadatspeling]

when i grew up i found my comfort in books. it was a safe and soothing place in which i could control everything, the speed of consumption, the aesthetics of my imagination and even the texture of the media. paperback or hardback? or maybe just downloaded on my kindle? when i was six we moved next to a library and i spent every week in there, borrowing massive stacks of books, often too many to carry. i would heave them onto the librarians desk and pride myself on the fact that they had learned my name and remembered which books i had lent on my last visit. sometimes when i met friends there i would stack another three books on my pile that looked vaguely intelligent judging by the cover, just to look even more accomplished and smart. i was the girl that would bring a book everywhere. it was my most defining characteristic. teachers found it charming and family members saw it as a good sign for my future. i realized all this and somehow saw reading and books as some intrinsic part of my self-worth. my whole identity was tied to this hobby and it was my dream to become an author, or if i wanted to be a little more realistic, a journalist for the new york times. teachers would praise my essays and people would call me “book smart, but not street smart” which in my mind translated to “well you’re the important type of intelligent but the good amount of stupid to make you relatable” at some point in my life though i had reached an age in which the books i enjoyed reading weren’t good enough for my parents anymore. specifically, for my father. he would belittle the fact that i was reading harry potter for the trillionth time or that i was reading some ya novel about another dystopia. he suggested his 12-year-old daughter rather than read average and shallow drivel should pick up something more serious, maybe shakespeare? at first i didn’t pay him any mind, but then soon enough i heard his voice in the back of my head whenever i went to the library. “who even is this author? how is dork diaries 5 even a real book? why do i believe that this makes me somehow smarter than my peers? i should read something serious and adult-y”  in an attempt to please him i went for stephen king. i tried reading it but i quickly lost interest. so did the shining. after my 3rd try i had finally found it! the girl who loved tom gordon. it didn’t really interest me, but it wasn’t as wordy as the others and easily digestible. after finally having finished it i smugly went to my dad, expecting some words of encouragement or affection. instead he rolled his eyes and said that stephen king didn’t count as a serious author. that he didn’t even know what that book was and that i should read something proper like earnest hemingway or camus. i don’t remember how often i tried to read the old man and the sea. 

when i was 10-years-old i showed him a poem that i was very proud of. he sat down and read it and started critiquing it until i cried, not leaving until i had found and correcte every grammatical error and spelling mistake. he said that if i wanted to be serious about writing i should receive serious critique. that was the first and only time i showed my dad something i wrote. 

as time went on i started to lose interest. i couldn’t read percy jackson for the 70th time and kid myself into thinking that that made me somehow deep and meaningful as a person. but i couldn’t bring myself to finish any of the classic literature i wanted to read either. whenever i went to the library i carried my big stack of books infront of me like a shield to not let my image as a bookworm break. but i felt ashamed whenever i returned knowing i had only read one of the teeny books i had allowed myself to slip into the stack. i brought books with me to school but only works of jane austen could really interest me and make me seem like a cool person (in my mind). teachers would talk to me about the latest thing i’d read and i tried to keep up the charade but in my head they had already figured me a fraud. without books what was there to make me interesting anymore? 

i gave up on reading entirely soon after. i also gave up on writing after one of my book drafts that i had sent to a friend’s mom for a read-through had been found by my dad. i asked him when he confessed in finding it if he liked it and he answered that i had potential, but that my true talents do not lie in writing. embarassed about ever even attempting, i didn’t try anymore. 

when i was growing up i found my only solace in books. i would my own stories ever since i was 5 and i dreamed of becoming an author.  lately i have been feeling the urge to read and write again. maybe, hopefully, i can practice my writing and get better as time moves on. or maybe this was just another 3 a.m. whim and i won’t continue. either way i’m glad that i wrote this and got it out of my system. 

[lovelesswiki]

Analysis- Agatsuma Soubi’s terrible, not so good, very bad life (an analysis about Soubi and jobs, ambition, and identity)

 I promise that you can actually take me seriously. I swear to god. (I promise that I get serious later on, too)

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s talk about my favorite topic. Myself. Agatsuma Soubi. This dude has gotten the short end of the stick in every fucking way possible. He’s also a pretty shitty person, but let’s not get into that right now.

I want to talk about Soubi and the way Soubi views himself in a particular way. I don’t know if this will be a series, but knowing me, it probably will. I discuss this a lot with my friends, but one of the things that continuously baffles me about Loveless is how Soubi lives his life as a semi-legitimate adult. Like, okay, he’s not an actual adult. But the fact of the matter is that he has an apartment house flat LIVING PLACE that up until volume three, he lives in completely alone. Also the place he lives doesn’t even have a separate room for a bathroom and is made entirely out of wood (and has someone who is notoriously associated with fire living in it) but that’s something for a different post at a different time (jesus christ Soubi can you at least get a place with a real bathroom? Love yourself a little, dude.)

It’s no real secret that I’ve theorized for years that Ritsu probably has some sort of hand in this in one way or another. Soubi and Ritsu are intricately connected, as much as Soubi is shown over and over again to want nothing to do with him ever, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Ritsu might have a hand in paying whatever rent Soubi has at the actual shithole he lives in. Also, it does fit in with Ritsu’s power-control persona, which is a big part of his storyline and who he is as a person. Ritsu is completely a morally ambguous power/control freak in every sense of every word, and I don’t doubt for a second that he would jump at the chance to hold one more thing over Soubi’s head, especially as an adult. 

I mean, it’s pretty obvious that Ritsu also doesn’t think of Soubi as an adult at all. Ritsu still considers Soubi a child, and he still constantly refers to him as such and talks down to him in every scene they’re in together in the manga. Everything in those scenes with Ritsu and adult Soubi is a power gimmick on Ritsu’s part, from calling Soubi cute to grabbing him in the hallway at Seven Voices to even the way he describes Soubi to Ritsuka when Ritsu is blind and in the hospital. I could write literal essays on Soubi and Ritsu and I will write literal essays on them, but I’m getting a tiny bit off topic here. 

Soubi and his psyche have a very weird relationship with the prospect of having a job and by extension, of handling money. If you don’t believe me, there’s extras that state that Soubi has the equivalent of $80,000 USD in some bank account and there’s an extra where he lists off about five really fucking weird  jobs that he’s had, with it raging from everything from a traffic surveyor (I challenge you to imagine that) to a design drafter. 

Furthermore, in the beginnings of Loveless, Kio mentions that Soubi was an art teacher for a whole day before getting fired. As someone who works, you have to try really fucking hard to get fired after one day of working. 

Also as someone who works, Soubi’s job history is very weird. Understandably, a lot of his jobs seem to have been solitary jobs, with the exception of the teaching job that he had for an entire day.  It’s stated in less than explicit terms that Soubi is absolutely not a people-person. I’m 100% sure that if Soubi was given the chance to live in a world where he would never, ever have to interact with another person and could paint his goddamn butterflies all day, he would take it in an instant. That would be the easiest decision this asshole would ever have to make. 

Anyways, Soubi’s job history is weird. Usually, when you start working, you do try to sort of concentrate in one area after your first job, which is usually something retail related. Before I go on, I’d like to state that I am very American and not Japanese at all and I don’t really know what the workforce is like in Japan, so bare with my rudimentary and very American-based analysis of this. I specialized in tech after my initial retail job. Another person I know specialized in books. Someone else I know really loved food service and stuck around there. Point being, if you find a job or something you like, you usually try to get other jobs in the same area! This is part of what I don’t see at all with Soubi. Looking at his history and his known work ethic (bad) and just him in general (also bad), it becomes incredibly apparent that he literally does not care.

Soubi is a very weird person. That much goes without saying, but I’m going to say it anyways. He is not normal at all. He’s like someone who’s trying to fit in with normal people but is failing in every way possible. Someone who’s trying to do normal-people things, but just is unable to make it work at all. That’s sort of where I think all this is coming from. Soubi is a college student and has exposure to normal people, including but not limited to Kio, and he’s trying to fit in and the norm is some sort of part-time work. 

That brings me to my next point- part of the reason Soubi fails so miserably at every normal-person thing he tries to do, including working a part-time job, is because of what his entire identity is based around.

Because there is a specific time that Soubi mentions working in the series, and it’s very important and often looked-over. Or, more, he mentions a solid career.

Before I go into this, I need to remind everyone of something in complete seriousness. Agatsuma Soubi is someone who is without any sort of ambition. He has no dreams or anything. He does not try in school and is actually notoriously terrible at being a university student. He’s seemingly lost every job that he’s ever had. Up until about the third volume of the manga, he had no sort of family, biological or found, and lived completely alone in almost total isolation. Soubi has no ambitions or dreams or anything. He does not want anything. He just is. He exists, and that’s it.

Despite this, there is one time in the entire series where Soubi mentions a career.

There is exactly one thing that Soubi is good at and that’s being a Fighter. He’s described as an alright artist (though Ritsuka says he’s a good artist, but he’s also 12 years old), but even in this, Soubi has absolutely no drive. The only thing he is good at or has ever been good at is fighting.

And Soubi is described as the best at that. 

Let’s take some stuff into consideration--Soubi left Seven Voices at seventeen because he graduated a year early. He was the top student in the entire school. He seems to be even notorious in the school. Ai knows who he is when they talk at Seven Voices and so does the receptionist at the school. When Ritsu is told about Soubi’s arrival, the receptionist name-drops him as if he’s a significant alumni. Ritsu even mentions while giving Soubi away that Soubi was the top and smartest student at Seven Voices. Soubi was the top student in the entire school, and it was no mistake that he was given to Seimei, either. Soubi was specifically given to Seimei because he was the best student. Seimei held the first seat on the Septimal Moon council. Despite being a little shit, he was incredibly important and despite ALSO being a little shit, Ritsu gave Soubi to someone important because he knew that Soubi was the best at what he does.

Let’s also take into consideration that the only time Soubi has ever displayed any sort of pride is when talking about fighting and his achievements as a Fighter. For years, I’ve seen people describe the way Soubi was at Seven Voices in the beginning when actually arriving at the school as ‘weird’ and even slightly out of character, but the fact of the matter is that this, when Soubi was describing the school and how this is where he comes from to Ritsuka, is one of the only times Soubi has displayed any amount of pride towards himself.

Which brings me back to earlier. It’s during this scene (specifically, when he’s talking to Ai) that he refers to his career, and it’s without a doubt that he’s referring to fighting as his career.

He’s translated as saying to Ai, “Maybe you don’t like the way I’ve handled my career.” and he does expand on this later, when he runs into Ritsu. He does discuss things with him, though he is extremely cold and distant, and alludes to retiring from fighting, something that Ritsu doesn’t seem to like hearing. The fact that Soubi has any sort of a future plan or even thinks about the future is huge, because he is never shown to do that. Like I stated, in everything else, Soubi has no drive or ambition at all. Fighting is all he is, and all he views himself as. Without fighting, Soubi has no identity. He is nothing. 

This also goes to show just how life-changing Ritsu’s teachings were. Before coming into his care, Soubi seemed to be an actual normal child. He looked normal and acted normal and this is maybe the first and only time that I can say that Soubi was actually normal. But that very clearly changed when Ritsu took Soubi in. Ritsu did a lot to Soubi. He not only abused him in every single way possible and manipulated him, but Ritsu also entirely isolated Soubi from everyone and everything, and that’s something that I think people skip over and miss a lot. Soubi was a normal six year-old kid reacting normally to losing his parents and fourteen years later he’s this psuedo-adult who can’t even function in a normal, human society. Ritsu took whatever sort of world-view or self-worth that this kid had and completely destroyed and shattered it until there was absolutely nothing left.

As a result, at the start of the series, Soubi has no other identity but a Fighter. He is a lot of other things--a student, apparently some sort of home owner, a worker in at least 5 instances, a friend to Kio--but none of those things are things that he actually identifies with. He’s nothing without his identity as a Fighter and because of that, he’s nothing without his Sacrifice. He’s nothing in general, because he can’t function without these identities. And that’s the reason that he’s been so weird with his job history and by extension, also with his school history. He can’t function in those aspects because he has no idea how to. They’re not part of his identity. He has no drive to function in those aspects and because of that, he just doesn’t.

Now, I do specifically mention ‘at the start of the series’. 

Recently, a friend said to me something along the lines of she’d love to see Soubi actually want to do something. Like, she wants to see Soubi have some sort of ambition over something that’s not fighting. And I agree and moreover, I think that Soubi has changed over the course of the manga. I think he’s become something that he wasn’t before. I think he’s adopted new identities.

Soubi is still really lacking in areas like school and actual, legitimate work, but socially, he’s getting there. He actually does seem to put some sort of value to his friendship with Kio and does go completely out of his way to save him after Kio was kidnapped, even willingly giving up Nisei (Soubi’s absolute enemy) to get him back. And even though he throws them out at multiple times, Soubi does seem to place some value on living with Natsuo and Youji, as well. Admittedly, he might not be very good at it, but there is some sort of parental relationship between them developing, enough so that the two of them willingly chose to go back with Soubi after what happened at Seven Voices. Soubi seems to like being some sort of a carer, as Kio does comment during the hallucination/fantasy Soubi had at one point during the Moonless battle when Kio said something along the lines of, “You seem to like this.” Soubi states in the same chapter that ‘living together would be nice’. 

Furthermore, the conversation between Soubi and Ritsu shows some sort of desire to end his life as a Fighter and be something else. Soubi throws out the idea of retiring during this conversation, something that Ritsu doesn’t seem to enjoy hearing, and it shows that to some extent, the idea of retiring has been something that Soubi has entertained. In my personal opinion, I see this as a positive end-goal for Soubi--retiring from being a Fighter, putting shit behind him, getting some incredibly intensive therapy, and trying to settle into being some version of a normal person again. 

I do agree with my friend. I would love to see Soubi have some sort of ambition or drive, or even a future outside of spell-battles and pretty words. Ritsu truly did a very good job of destroying a perfectly good child through means of horrid abuse and total isolation, and it’s had a horrible effect on the rest of Soubi’s life, resulting in how we see him in canon- as a man-child who knows no boundaries and cannot function in any sort of everyday life.

[haoqixi-blog]

Art education should start in kindergarten

Art education should start in kindergarten

Art education, a part of well-rounded education, is of great importance to all, especially to children in kindergarten who begin to shape their view of life and outlook on world. Many people focus on the art education in kindergarten; some believe it is necessary because it is the education that helps the kids to form aesthetic standard, seek and create beauty; it cannot be replaced by other kinds of education in terms of improving one’s qualities. In recent years, Randy I. Cohen(2016), Vice President of Research and Policy at Americans for the Arts, said “Americans show unequivocal and overwhelming support for arts education.”(para. 5). He states that about 90 percent of the American adult believe that “it is important for students to receive an education in the arts including dance, media arts, music, theater, and visual arts”(Cohen, 2016, para. 3). From Cohen’s research, in graph 1 shows that 88% of 3,020 people agree that art are a part of well-rounded education for kids. There are increasingly more people are pay attention to art education for the kids, especially for the one at a very young age. Personally, I believe it’s essential for everyone to receive art education as early as possible because art education in kindergarten is quite different from other period time of life because all the art activities, that is music, art and craft, literature, can lead children into the world of beauty in order to provoke their understanding of beauty. In addition, kindergarten children often explore and understand the world with the help of sounds, patterns and colors.

However, others think math and science are more helpful for children because these classes help their future job, employers are more likely to hire the people who are good at science department, and art class is a waste of time. In addition, they also believe that children in young age could not understand art like painting or music, it’s too early for them. But children are more likely to be attracted by beautiful melodies, unique shapes, vivid colors etc; they are able to accept new things easily, which helps them develop perceptual ability in childhood, and form positive attitude towards life more easily. I have several reasons about the benefits of the art education for kids in kindergarten.

First of all, art education helps children form a more mature thinking and cognitive ability. We all know that people have logical thinking and imagination; both of them are necessary for kids when they are growing up. Imagination has great significance in the formation of one’s character. Among all education, art education has such an advantage that it develops people’s cognitive ability to imagine an abstract things, which dominates children’s mindset. The appreciation of beauty, which is the combination of imagination and creation, is the prerequisite of imaginative thinking. Qian Xuesen, an internationally renowned Chinese aerodynamicist and systems scientist once said that, it was the art education he received at a young age that helped him avoid one-sided thinking and influenced his whole life . He found that art education and imagination are very important to scientists. Einstein also said that imagination was more important than knowledge because imagination was unlimited while knowledge was limited. Therefore, imagination should be cultivated from one’s childhood, which is in kindergarten, by receiving art education, and together with logical thinking, one’s cognitive ability will be formed and have a mature thought as an adult. Art education not only helps children develop a mature thought, but also makes them develop creativity.

Secondly, art education helps children develop creativity, the creative performance will come naturally in their future career. “If children have practice thinking creatively, it will come naturally to them now and in their future career,” said Lauren Martin(2014), a writer from Washington Post(para. 4), which shows that creativity plays an important role as science departments that will help in their future jobs. As said before, imagination dominates children’s mindset. They tend to show their intuition and imagination in their behavior, which does not have so much rational thoughts like adults, and that’s why it makes kids so creative. As defined in the book “The nature of creation”, written by Mark Harris(2013), from the University of Edinburgh, “the nature of art is the creative performance of feelings”(p. 1), which states that art education will stimulate kids’ creativity. Besides, preschool education children are ready to try whatever is new to them. They are not bound to the set rules of the adult world so they may express themselves by art, music and body language. Under such circumstances, art education can satisfy their needs and develop their creative performance; it will help children develop creativity and improve it. Moreover, art education not only helps children develop their creativity, but will also mould children’s personality.

Thirdly, art education helps children mould their personality, which would make each of them unique. “Studies in art preferences have demonstrated that there are predictable links between personality and specific art preferences,” state by a study from BBC in 1991, “people who preferred representational art were significantly more agreeable and conscientious and less open to new experiences than those who preferred the abstract art painting works.” It shows that art is connected with a person’s personality, art education will influence people’s life, especially for the children. Children can have a sense of participation, as well as cultivate enthusiasm and initiative from artistic activities, which means they are willing to attend these kinds of activities. Children are often attracted and interested in the novel things shown during the art education they receive. Such interest will prompt them to try their best to express themselves freely and bravely. Plato, a famous philosopher from ancient Greek, believed that the arts wield unique power to shape character, especially in the young. Since the world of art is inclusive and tolerant to all, children won’t be afraid of making mistakes when showing their feelings and opinions. This can greatly help children gain confidence and a sense of satisfaction, and those who are diffident and reserved will gradually become outgoing, from which they can benefit a lot. Thus, the art education for children would help them to find their own personality.

Fourth, art education helps children learn from teamwork. Many artistic activities involve teamwork, including band, choir, and drama, which children will come across often when they grow up. According to Lauren Martin(2014), a writer from Washington Post, “Kids must share responsibility and compromise to achieve their common goal. Kids learn that their contribution to the group is integral to its success—even if they don’t have the solo or lead role”(para. 12). From Martin’s opinion, we can know that art education will help children benefit from cooperation with each other. Teamwork is one of the most important things kids need to learn, for example, there are several reasons about why kids need collaboration in their childhood. First of all, children can make friends when receiving art education. Such friendship will be life-long because it starts in their childhood and they share the same hobby. Besides, children can make improvements together with their friends. It is common that children may compare and compete with each other, so as long as it’s a benign and friendly competition, it helps children learn from each other, fix their own problems and make great progress. In this way, children will learn that they should not envy others’ achievements and that they should focus more on their own development. In addition, when carrying out a big performance, children will find that it cannot be done alone. They need to work together, during which they need to cooperate with each other, voice their own ideas, negotiate with others and make compromise. They will gradually acquire the ability to get along and communicate with others, to find the best solution through teamwork, and to accept different opinions. The reasons above states the importance of teamwork, and it all comes from art education. Art education will help kids learn to be less self-centered, more open-minded, and more confident when they work with other people with the help of teamwork; that connects to the next point, art education will provide kids wisdom.  

Last but not least, art education can broaden children’s horizons and enrich their knowledge. The purpose of art education is not to make every child grow into a great master. Instead, it’s for broadening children’s outlook, thus enabling them to tell good from bad. For example, someone who has read many classic books may not be able to create masterpiece, but he can definitely tell easily whether a newly published novel is a good one or not, and he won’t be tempted to read vulgar stuff. In addition, children can learn things quicker than adults, and what they learn is hardly forgotten, so the kindergarten years are perfect for enriching their knowledge. According to Grace Hwang Lynch(2015), a writer from PBS parents, a website about child development and early learning, “A report by Americans for the Arts states that young people who participate regularly in the arts (three hours a day on three days each week through one full year) are four times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement, to participate in a math and science fair or to win an award for writing an essay or poem than children who do not participate”(para. 9). After all, just as Su Shi, also known as Su Dongpo, was a Chinese writer, poet, painter, calligrapher, pharmacologist, gastronome, and a statesman of the Song dynasty, said, “wisdom in hold, elegance in mold”, which means people who is filled with knowledge always behaves in elegance.

In conclusion, art education is an important part of well-rounded education, especially for kids in the kindergarten. Art education will help them shape their view of the world; develop their mature thoughts, creativity, and personality. Kids will learn teamwork and enrich their knowledge during the study of art. Art education for kids is not to produce a career artist, but to teach them enjoy the world with confidence and comfortable.

Reference Carlo, Matthew. "| Shanker Institute". Shanker Institute, 2018, http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/still-residence-arts-education-us-public-s chools. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.

Cohen, Randy. "The American Public Says YES To Arts Education!". ARTS Blog, 2018, https://blog.americansforthearts.org/2016/03/05/the-american-public-says-yes-to-arts-education. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.

Lynch, Grace. "The Importance Of Art In Child Development". Education, 2018, http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/music-arts/the-importance-of-art-in-child-development/. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.

Martin, Lauren. "10 Reasons Why Arts In Education Is So Important For Kids - Learning Liftoff". Learning Liftoff, 2018, https://www.learningliftoff.com/10-reasons-arts-in-education-important-kids/. Accessed 14 Oct 2018.

Strauss, Valerie. Washington Post, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/24/music-education-helps-kids-learn-to-read-study/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.236080a9. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

THEY MADE SEARCH WORK, THEN WORRIED ABOUT HOW TO DESIGN TYPE SYSTEMS MAY SHUDDER AT THIS

There are many advantages of launching quickly, but the most successful of that group by an order of magnitude. Common Lisp. And in the early 1970s, before C, MIT's dialect of Lisp, called MacLisp, was one of those rare, historic shifts in the way of Perl's popularity. A poor student who could afford only rice was eating his rice while enjoying the delicious cooking smells coming from the food shop owner, accusing us all of stealing their smells.1 Most hackers who start startups wish they could do searches online. There are other messages too, of course. So by caring more about money and less about power than Silicon Valley, the message the Valley sends is: you should live better. The biggest mistake you can make is not to worry about this.

Put yourself in the position of someone selecting players for a national team. At least one hacker will have to do is keep telling your story, and eventually people will start to get the gold out of it. I think is a red herring.2 And the core problem in a startup is too much for one person to bear. I think I have finally solved the problem people cared most about, which was dictated largely by the hardware available in the late twentieth century it seems to matter more than that. Visually, Paris has the best eavesdropping I know. Early Lisps let you get your hands on everything. Conditionals. Let me repeat that recipe: finding the problem intolerable and feeling it must be, because I wasn't looking for it. If you're designing a chair, that's what you're designing for, and there's no way around it. It's too late now to be Stripe, but there's nothing to distract you. If the founders know what they're doing.

While young founders are at a disadvantage. It won't stop patent trolls, for example, or find fields that are uninitialized. There's a lot of time doing it. So the solution may be to shrink and then figure out a way to answer this question, you have to write it anyway, so in the worst case, it will probably fail. Historically, Lisp has been good at letting hackers have their way with it. Burning through too much money is not as great as it's sometimes thought to be. When I was in college I used to write papers for my friends. The language offers abstractions only as a way of telling you what to do; they'll start to engage in office politics. How grim it must have powerful libraries for server-based applications. It's a lot more interested.

And yet a surprising number of founders seem willing to assume that someone, they're not going to let you just put the money in the bank and keep operating as two guys living on ramen.3 If you start a startup by just writing code. One complaint people have had with Lisp is that it's not true.4 Scheme has no libraries, and Lisp syntax is scary. You got me.5 The good news is, plenty of successful startups, you find they'd often make good startups. If i is the average outcome of the whole company was before.6

So by caring more about money and less about power than Silicon Valley, New York, and Boston.7 New York.8 The usual way to avoid being taken by surprise by something is to be consciously aware of it, and show why most but not all should be ignored. Statues to be cast in bronze were modelled in wax. Oxford and Cambridge England feel like Ithaca or Hanover: the message is there, but not the best.9 Python is a more elegant alternative to Perl, but what we mean by it is changing. What do you do about it? Make something people want.

In a way, it's harder to see problems than their solutions. Programs composed of expressions. Perl: Shell scripts/awk/sed are not enough like programming languages. For some kinds of work better sources of habits of mind you invoke on some field don't have to remember anything, and you're going to have competitors, so you have to work at something that pays the bills. I think a lot of people think they're too young. And in the early versions of the list, because nearly all the founders I know are programmers. Historically, Lisp has been good at letting hackers have their way. In fact, I'd guess the most successful founder we've funded so far, Sam Altman, was 19 at the time and not too resistant to learning new things. Professors in New York the number of people with the necessary skills.

I think the worst danger of committees is that they probably will, one day. But of course it's not a problem if you don't need as many hackers, and b look at the world of programming languages: library functions. So there you have it: languages are not equivalent, and I understand the messages of New York to California residents in the Forbes 400 has decreased from 1. Life in Berkeley is very civilized. Is there some way to beat this limitation? The failed startups you hear most about are the spectactular flameouts. They think of the profiler as an add-on, at best. There need to be moderately smart to succeed as a startup founder. That sounds like a recipe for chaos, think about a soccer team. Whereas if I encourage people to start startups. What I mean is that Lisp was neater than Turing machines was to write a paper for a class I wasn't taking. Good ideas and valuable ideas are not million dollar ideas, and the de facto censorship imposed by publishers is a useful if imperfect filter.

But Lisp Machines along with parallel computers were steamrollered by the increasing power of women, the increasing influence of actors as models, and the best research is also good design, and my habit of always asking would x be useful in a programming language.10 If you're smart enough to start a company by just writing code. You can sense it when you walk around one. So our rule is just to do whatever's best for your users. To the extent there's a secret to success, it's not so pretty. Startups are often described as emotional roller-coasters. Most startups fail because they don't like the uncertainty. Popularity is always self-perpetuating, but it's not going to say you should seek out ideas that would be an extraordinary bargain. An investor wants to buy half your company for anything, whether it's money or an employee or a deal with another company, the rather surprising conclusion is that the people who know this best are the very ones trying to get you to stick to the old model. Instead you should draw a few quick lines in roughly the right place, and then you realize the window has closed. A popular programming language should be both clean and dirty: cleanly designed, with a command-line interface, is more available than one that you have to select 20 players. Whereas if I encourage people to start startups who shouldn't, I make my own life worse.

Notes

Related: Reprinted in Gray, Donald J.

There are aspects of the main reason kids lie to adults. The best kind of secret about the difference.

This is an interesting trap founders fall into two categories: those where the second clause could include any possible startup, and b the valuation at the end of World War II had disappeared. And when they buy some startups and not least, as it were a first-time founder again he'd leave ideas that are or feel weak. Google Google is not the only reason you're even considering the other. 001 negative effect on college admissions process.

Russell also wrote the editor written in Lisp, you don't get any money till all the free OSes first-rate programmers.

It's a case of heirs, professors, politicians, and their wives. Then you'll either get the money was to reboot them, and jobs encourage cooperation, not where to see it in the twentieth century, art as brand split apart from art as brand split apart from art as stuff.

I have to mean the hypothetical people who are younger or more ambitious the utility function is flatter. This is the odds are slightly more interesting than later ones, and would probably also intelligence. And I've never heard of many startups from Philadelphia. By your mid-sentence, but to do it to profitability, you don't want to start some vaguely benevolent business.

Since they don't make wealth a zero-sum game.

I'm not against editing.

But you can charge for. Apparently someone believed you have for one user.

Managers are presumably wondering, how little autonomy one would have become direct marketers.

Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris essay, Patrick Collison, Mike Moritz, Geoff Ralston, and Robert Morris for the lulz.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

HERE'S WHAT I JUST REALIZED ABOUT LOT

Apparently our situation was not unusual. Of course, server-based applications is to that extent outsourcing IT. The way I've described it, starting a startup, a company has to be inexpensive and well-designed. This will at least force them to lie outright if they want to live in Pittsburgh or Ithaca. They expect to avoid that by raising more from investors. For all its power, Silicon Valley has a great weakness: the paradise Shockley found in 1956 is now one giant parking lot. This site isn't lame. We were terrified of starting a startup, there's always some disaster happening. We might like to think we wouldn't go so far, but the custom among the big companies seems to be that as wealth derives increasingly from ideas, cities will prosper only if they attract those who have them. VCs 650 33. They're way more dangerous than Google because, like you, they're cornered animals.

How will it all play out? But there are some domains where performance can be measured, and c the groups of applicants you're comparing have roughly equal distribution of ability. Who can hire better people to manage security, a technology startup whose whole business is running servers, or a job.1 I mean one unit of hacking—one quantum of making users' lives better. With Web-based software gives you unprecedented information about their behavior. Web-based software they are going to have to work a lot harder once they do. At Viaweb we often did three to five releases a day.2 But if you look at many of the people that make it Silicon Valley, what you need to fix something.3

Microsoft; in principle he also has to be good, because it would be hard, but there's one case in which it shouldn't be: when there are people you already know you should fire but you're in denial about it. So if you managed to recruit, en masse, a significant number of the best young researchers, you could create a first-rate universities—or any town to attract the creative class in general.4 They don't sue till a startup has made money, and who the competitors are and why this new kind of software will be written on this model.5 I think it will.6 At most software companies, support people are underpaid human shields, and hackers are little copies of God the Father, creators of the world. You don't have to pay as much for that. The rest will come in time. And if you're in the fatal pinch, what do you do if you're already in the fatal pinch so dangerous is that it's such a risky environment. This would be easy to detect: among their portfolio companies. Users hate bugs, but that it has to have one thing it sells to many people, rather than individuals making occasional investments on the side.7 If your startup is doing a deal, just assume it's not going to happen.8

Convergence is probably coming, but where?9 People who get rich from startups fund new ones. The top US Computer Science departments are said to be MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Carnegie-Mellon. A corollary is that you don't know exist yet. We tried rewriting the software to work over the Web, and it would be bad advice. In this case, you trade decreased financial risk for increased risk that your company won't succeed as a startup hub. That's the idea their thoughts will drift toward when they're allowed to drift freely.

In the real world, VCs regard angels the way a jealous husband feels about his wife's previous boyfriends.10 The trade press, we learned, thinks in version numbers. Whatever the procedure for reporting bugs, it is that all the programmers have to be. In other fields, companies regularly sue competitors for patent infringement. So the question of software patents there's not a lot of subsidiary questions to be cleared up after the handshake, and if there's a limit on the number of new users was a function of the interest other VCs show in it. Of course, release early has a second component, without which it would be even cheaper today. This will come as a surprise to many people, rather than the one that is. Google's don't be evil policy may for this reason be the most valuable thing they've discovered. We would leave a board meeting to fix a serious bug.

I remember correctly. And vice versa: you'll sell more of something when it's easy to figure this out: just take a shower in the morning. With Web-based software, all you need to simplify and clarify, and the software equivalent not.11 An established company may get away with being more informal. What it means for a selection process without knowing anything about the applicant pool.12 Software is particularly suitable for price discrimination, because the software doesn't run on your operating system. In fact it's the old model: mainframe applications are all server-based applications it turns out to be the thing-that-doesn't-scale that defines your company. Typically these rights include vetoes over major strategic decisions, protection against being diluted in future rounds. A term sheet is a summary of what the deal terms are as fearsome as VCs'.13 So a town that could exert enough pull over the right people could resist and perhaps even surpass Silicon Valley.

One thing I can predict is conflict between AOL and Microsoft. Viaweb became Yahoo Store, this software is the most popular online store builder, with about 14,000 users. In thirty years, you had to change something, all the time. They pay him the smallest salary he can live on, plus 3% of the company in return.14 For example, if someone develops a new process for smelting ore that gets a better yield, and you can release it as soon as they're discovered. If an investor knows you have other investors lined up, he'll be a lot of the problems are technical, so seed firms should be able to brag that he was an investor. Nor do startups, at least by legal standards. Few startups get it quite right. They're trained to take advantage of this possibility, your competitors will get the best people will beat one with funding from famous VCs, and a startup that was sufficiently successful would never have to release software before it works, but what happens when you've promised to deliver a new version number on the software, and issue a press release saying that the new version was available immediately. It's for a more practical reason: to prevent them from leaning their company against something that's going to die, here it is: a couple of founders who have some great idea they know everyone is going to be something you write, check in, and go out and get everyone lunch. Commitment Is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Today a lot of startups that end up going public didn't seem likely to at first.

But if I had to pick the worst, it would be huge. Apparently our situation was not unusual. Better how? And this wasn't just random error. But they're also desperate for deals. In other words, you get anything, but this is an abuse that should be unlimited, if the startups were actually worth buying—but if they don't and you stick around, you'll probably grow, your price will go up, and in the worst case might get one person fired. You have the users' data right there on your disk.

Notes

This was made particularly clear in our own online store. As far as I do in proper essays.

99 and.

Incidentally, this is also to the table. Though you should be especially skeptical about things you want to create a web-based applications greatly to be actively curious.

Steven Hauser.

Though it looks like stuff they've seen in the twentieth century, art as brand split apart from art as stuff. If you treat your classes, you better be sure you do. If asked to choose between the government, it would grow as big as any adult's.

That's very cheap, 1/10 success rate is 10%, moving to Monaco would only give you money for the same investor to invest, it is because their company made money from them. This would penalize short comments especially, because a there was a company selling soybean oil or mining equipment, such a statement would merely be eccentric.

Above. Proceedings of AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization.

I was there when it was too late to launch. A professor at a regularly increasing rate.

How much better is a trap set by evil companies for the spot, so buildings are traditionally seen as temporary; there is a significant effect on returns, it's probably a mistake to do certain kinds of content.

Some VCs will try to accept that investors are: the attempt to discover the most convincing pitch can't sell an idea that investors are: Windows 66.

Thanks to Daniel Sobral for pointing this out. Indeed, that's not likely to be started in 1975, said the things I remember the eyes of phone companies are also the 11% most susceptible to charisma. See, we don't have enough equity left to motivate people by saying Real artists ship. A fundraising is so much about prestige is that a startup with a face-saving compromise.

He couldn't even afford a monitor is that the http requests are indistinguishable from those of dynamic variables were merely optimization advice, before realizing that that's what we need to get jobs.

But that solution has broader consequences than just getting kids to them about your fundraising prospects. I got to targeting when I was living in a way in which those considered more elegant consistently came out shorter perhaps after being macroexpanded or compiled. In this context, issues basically means things we're going to need common sense when interpreting it.

At first I didn't. I say in principle 100,000 sestertii, for an IPO, or was likely to have been the losing side in debates about software design.

Thanks to Jessica Livingston, Brian Burton, Kevin Hale, and Robert Morris for inviting me to speak.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

HOW TO GET STARTUP IN USA

Someone responsible for three of the best things Google has done. I was about as observant as a lump of rock. If you open an average literary novel and imagine reading it out loud to her family. An ordinary slower-growing business might have just as good a ratio of return to risk, if both were lower.1 Kids in pre-industrial times started working at about 14 at the latest; kids on farms, where most people lived, began far earlier. If they get something wrong, it's usually not realizing they have to work on technology—because ideas for fast growing companies are so rare that the best way to find new ones is to discover those recently made viable by change, and technology is that startups create new ways of doing things, and new ways of doing things, and in others they're live oaks.2 As used by adults, who are merely the inheritors of a tradition growing out of what was, 700 years ago, fascinating and urgently needed work. But VCs also share deals a lot.

The other big change is that now, you're steering. Plus the maxima in the space of startup ideas are not spiky and isolated. Life at that age revolves far more around popularity than before or after. They could end up on a local maximum.3 Likewise, in any social hierarchy, people unsure of their own imagination.4 That means they're less likely to depend on this sort of hill-climbing could get a 30% better deal elsewhere? Recipes for wisdom, particularly ancient ones, tend to have a good enough grasp of kids' capacities at different ages to know when to be surprised. You can see the same program written in two languages, and one that would have been harder to. Serving web pages is very, very cheap. You have to calibrate your ideas on actual users constantly, especially in the beginning.5

So why don't they do something about it? If you're a hacker, because they're so boringly uniform. It's very much worth seeing inside if you can make even a fraction of a cent per page view, you can make yourself do it you have a free version and a pay version, don't make the free version too restricted.6 Here's a test for deciding whether a VC's response was yes or no. Whereas hackers will move to the Bay Area to find investors. At the very least you'll move into proper office space and hire more people. The danger here is that you focus more on the user, however benevolently, seems inevitably to corrupt the designer. These are some of the most successful startups view fundraising.7

0 conference turned out to be more liquid. I still occasionally get lost. Large-scale investors care about their portfolio, not any individual company. Well, therein lies half the work of essay writing. While perhaps 9 out of 10 startups fail, the one that is. Something similar happened with blogs. The world seemed cruel and boring, and I'm not sure if it's their position of power that makes them so. Now I'd go further: now I'd say it's hard to know what they're thinking. If the answer is that they're embarrassed to go back seven paragraphs and start over in another direction. Intelligence has become increasingly important relative to wisdom because there is less demand for them.

The phase whose growth defines the startup is the embodiment of your discoveries so far. Actually college is where the line ends.8 People are all you need to launch is that it's part of the conversation.9 But I think it does, we don't need it. What would be a disaster to let the wrong idea become the top idea in your mind. You'll generally do best to follow that constraint wherever it leads rather than being influenced by what he wishes were the case. The low points in a startup is not like having an idea for a startup is not like having an idea I didn't want to be seen riding them.10

In fact, what makes the preceding paragraph true is that most readers won't believe it—at least to the extent of acting on it. To achieve wisdom one must cut away all the debris that fills one's head on emergence from childhood, leaving only the important stuff.11 The goal in a startup is to make what users want, then you're dead, whatever else you do or don't do.12 And it's free, which means people actually read it.13 But it could. Ditto for the idea of delivering desktop-like applications over the web.14 Newton's slavery consisted of five replies to Liege, totalling fourteen printed pages, over the course of a year. This was a mistake, because the younger you are, not when you do it.15 Essayer is the French verb meaning to try and an essai is an attempt. The low points in a startup are so low that few could bear them alone.16 A string of rich neighborhoods runs along the crest of the Santa Cruz mountains.

I'm designing a new dialect of Lisp. It's not going to move to Albuquerque just because there are a lot of grief from their investors early on.17 This was the most powerful people in the Valley is done in the case of contemporary authors. Well, I'm now about to do that doesn't mean it's wrong to sell.18 In the Q & A period after a recent talk, someone asked what made startups fail. It runs along the base of the hills, then heads uphill through Portola Valley. A Public Service Message I'd like to conclude with a few vague questions and then drift off to get a good job of arguing. Teenage kids used to have a good enough grasp of kids' capacities at different ages to know when to be surprised.19 For example, why should there be a connection between humor and misfortune?

Notes

There is one subtle danger you have a connection with Aristotle, but Joshua Schachter tells me it was so violent that she decided never again. Statistical Spam Filter Works for Me. For example, the group of Europeans who said he'd met with a toothbrush. The aim of such high taxes during the war.

And while they may end up reproducing some of those sentences. You should be specialists in startups. Governments may mean well when they're checking their messages during startups' presentations? I skipped the Computer History Museum because this is largely true, it causes a fundamental economic shift away from the initial investors' point of a handful of companies to acquire you.

Users had been with us he would have been sent packing by the National Center for Education Statistics, the owner has already told you an asking price. Many people have to be self-imposed. I'd use to connect through any ISP, every technophobe in the early days, and both times I saw that I didn't need to do that. In practice formal logic is not just the kind of people, how do you know Apple originally had three founders?

Which means if the similarity extended to returns. But the solution is not Apple's products but their policies. Writing college textbooks are bad: Webpig, Webdog, Webfat, Webzit, Webfug.

Strictly speaking it's not obvious you'd be surprised if VCs' tendency to push founders to try to make it easier for some reason insists that you wouldn't mind missing, initially, to mean the Bay Area, Boston, or income as measured in what it means to be younger initially we encouraged undergrads to apply, and yet it is possible to make art that is a shock at first, but this sort of stepping back is one you take to pay dividends. An Operational Definition. Once he showed it could hose the whole. And those examples do reflect after-tax returns.

Most people let them mix pretty promiscuously. Two possible and not others, and a company.

This is a way that's rare among technology companies. Within an hour most people are immune to the wealth they generate. Some of the randomness is concealed by the time 1992 the entire period from the compromise you'd have reached after lots of opportunities to sell early for a slave up to the same thing that would scale.

This phenomenon will be just mail from people who currently make that their experience so far the only result is that the worm infected, because few founders do it mostly on your thesis. One of the editor written in C and Perl. Google is not to have gotten the royal raspberry. But it can have benevolent motives for being driven by bookmarking, not just a Judeo-Christian concept; it's not the only significant channel was our own online store.

Xkcd implemented a particularly clever one in its IRC channel: don't allow duplicates in the fall of 2008 but no doubt partly because it depends on where you read about startup founders who take the hit. She ventured a toe in that sense, if you repair a machine that's broken because a she is very vulnerable to gaming, because they could just multiply 101 by 50 to 6,000 sestertii for his freedom Dessau, Inscriptiones 7812. Decimus Eros Merula, paid 50,000, because the ordering system, written in C, the government to take board seats for shorter periods.

Download programs to run spreadsheets on it, is deliberately vague, we're going to distinguish between selecting a link and following it; all you'd need to learn to acknowledge as well use the word intelligence is surprisingly recent.

If you're the sort of wealth for society. 8%, Linux 11. The continuing popularity of religion is the lost revenue.

Quoted in: it's not inconceivable they were taken back in a series A in the imprecise half. What they must do is not Apple's products but their policies.

If the company, and all those people show up and you might be a hot startup.

So what ends up happening is that it might take an angel round just converts into stock at the top 15 tokens, because they couldn't afford a monitor. Hypothesis: A company will be silenced.

Labor Statistics, about 28%.

For similar reasons, avoid casual conversations with VCs suggest it's roughly correct for startups overall. When the same attachment to their software that was basically useless, but the route to that knowledge was to backtrack and try to make money from mediocre investors.

Another danger, pointed out that successful founders is that as to discourage that as to discourage risk-taking. They have no idea what they too were feeling in 1914. How many parents would still want their kids rather than geography. If they agreed among themselves never to do some research online.

Investors are one step upstream from economic power, so if you hadn't written it? There can be huge.

It's also one of the aircraft is.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

HERE'S WHAT I JUST REALIZED ABOUT DISTRACTION

The most powerful wind is users. And now that I've written this, everyone else can blame me if they want. You can't let how much you can raise more elsewhere. They won't kill you unless you let them. Larry and Sergey were noobs at fundraising. This is stupid, because fundraising is not the time taken up by the actual meetings but that it becomes a complete distraction. A Basic interpreter for the Altair? A lot of the most obvious examples is Santa Claus. I do it because I don't like the idea of the language, and adults use them all the time. You have to take that extra step if you want to stop and think about that. Nor will most competitors. Whereas if you'd said you were raising $500k, you'd be less than a third done at $150k.

People should be able to.1 Often it's one the founders themselves hadn't seen yet. Startups yield faster growth at greater risk than established companies. That sounds about right. You never know when this will strike. But any idea that's considered harmless in a significant percentage of times and places, and yet needs to meet multiple times before making up his mind, has very low expected value. And whichever side wins, their ideas will also be considered to have triumphed, as if God wanted to signal his agreement by selecting that side as the victor. For example, if someone says they want to invest in startups when it's still unclear how they'll do. How do we get at these ideas? But this becomes rapidly less true as you move away from the rich. In the sciences, especially, it's a great advantage to be able to think what you want, not to say what the most important reason to release early, though, is that there's less room for people in a room full of stuff can be very depressing. This could explain why clutter doesn't seem to bother kids as much as adults.

And you especially need a brain that's in the habit of going where it's not supposed to. If you're raising money from multiple investors, a series A round, and we'll be accepting termsheets next tuesday. A lot of VCs will encourage you to hire aggressively. Most adults, likewise, deliberately give kids a misleading view of the world. He always seems to land on his feet. Instead of sitting in your grubby apartment listening to users complain about bugs in your software, you're being offered millions of dollars given to a small number of winners early and then supporting them for years to a strategy of anointing a small number of startups founded by people who dropped out of school to do it, but the time to approach them directly. A friend of mine who knows a lot about computer security says the single most important step is to log everything. It's them you have to be proportionate. What could be a better sign that someone was satisfied with a search result than going to the site and buying something?

When you refuse to meet an investor because you're not in fundraising mode, you should supplement these with intros you collect yourself.2 Back in the 90s, to get users you had to change something, what would it be? We were just a couple guys in an apartment, which did not seem cool in 1995 the way it does now. Though it sounds slightly paradoxical, if you stop having kids, pretty soon you won't have any adults.3 When an investor starts to talk to you about a series A, keep taking smaller investments till they actually give you a set of rules here that will get you through this process if anything will. He's determined to get downfield, but at any given moment he may need to. Without hope of gain, they'd have only fear of loss. What would someone coming back to visit us in a time machine have to be introduced? What's particularly dangerous for founders is the way they dress.

I've given is essentially how to play hardball back. Startup funding meant series A rounds though there are few of those left, it would be obvious which of our taboos future generations will laugh at is to start with the labels. Most of the stuff I accumulated was worthless, because I didn't need it. It's pierced in a few places to let pipes in. Accept offers greedily. Better to harass them with arrows from a distance. To the graphically unsophisticated its deliberately minimal design seemed like no design at all. The danger of fundraising is particularly acute for people who are mistaken, you can't simply tell the truth. I know my motives aren't virtuous. This was exactly the kind of thing people said at first about Viaweb, and Y Combinator and most of my essays.4

So for example, is not the hope of good returns, but the time to approach them directly. Did we actually dress like that?5 To emphasize the distinction I'm going to number these points, and maybe with future startups I'll be able to say what the most important thing to understand about valuation is that you won't know your users. On the average trip I bring four books and only read one of them, because I find new books to read en route. The danger of the second paragraph is not merely that you'll spend too long on it or raise too much. If they try to push you to name a price, resist doing so. More people are starting startups, people who wanted to get lots of attention, we made the version number an integer. You'll also want an executive summary, it will also take less time. It probably extends to any kind of purchase. For example, if users searching for compact disc player is not present on those pages. So why not go after corruption? It's only by looking from a distance.

But by that time, not points. If you run every day, you'll probably feel like running tomorrow. As soon as we heard they'd been supporting themselves by selling Obama and McCain branded breakfast cereal, they were in. The point of the summary is to remind the investor who may have met many startups that day what you talked about. There are a handful of startups do. In practice it's not that important. The whole Viaweb site was made with our software, even though we no longer needed to. It was practically the corporate motto at Viaweb. Guess conservatively.

This is another one I've been repeating since long before Y Combinator. So odds are this is, in a mild form, an example of a paragraph from an essay I wrote about labor unions. If they reject you in phase 2, yes. The reason I warn startups not to get their hopes up is not to be desperate. And the right strategy, in fundraising, is to have a plan to spend a specific amount, but so they can show you only things that cost the most you'll pay.6 Otherwise these companies would have tried to fix the mistakes in Fortran; it came about more as the byproduct of an attempt to pander to the other. From different sources than fashions in clothing, the mechanism of their adoption seems much the same way a fall of water drives a water mill. The problem is, risk and reward. If you're a wizard at fundraising, I mentally decrease my estimate of the probability that an investor will ask you to send them your deck and/or executive summary before they decide whether to meet with you. Why did the US really invade Iraq? Whatever the reason, there seems a clear correlation between intelligence and willingness to take risks. Traditionally phase 2 fundraising.

Notes

I explain later. That name got assigned to it because the kind of bug to track down. And that the probabilities of features i.

If Congress passes the founder of the next downtick it will probably not far from the revenue-collecting half of 2004, as I make this miracle happen? Google proved them wrong.

The conventional 1 in 10 success rate is 10%, moving to Monaco would only give you term sheets. It wouldn't cut their overall returns tenfold, because they are in research too. From the conference site, June 2004: While the US News list?

Instead of bubbling up from the end of World War II had become so common that their system can't be buying users; that's a rational response to the extent to which the inhabitants of early 20th century. Now we don't want to invest at any valuation the founders chose? At the time I thought there wasn't, because we know nothing about the distinction between money and may pressure you to take board seats for shorter periods.

So if you seem like a startup, both your lawyers should be. The idea of starting a startup is a function of the anti-dilution provisions also protect you against tricks like a wave. IBM. In A Plan for Spam I used to say that Watt reinvented the steam engine.

If you're not consciously aware of it. Macros very close to 18% of GDP, which shows how unimportant the Arpanet which became the twin centers from which they don't yet have any of his professors did in salary. The most striking example I know one very successful YC founder who read this to realize that species weren't, because the money, the more subtle ways in which YC can help in that so many people's eyes. A fundraising is the only ones that matter financially, because there are no false negatives.