Understanding a complex system involves nuances. After all, simple rules can create complex patterns; even if we understood all the capabilities and the functions of our brains, we may not necessarily be capable of explaining every outcome.

So, yes, you may understand the brain, but that may not mean squat outside of academic vantage.

Depends entirely on the industry and level of scrutiny your spreadsheet is likely to be subjected to.

In some industries, such as banking or consulting, spreadsheets are bread and butter. So, you'd better be prepared to have your models torn apart by everyone from fellow associates to senior partners (yes, they *actually* do review the models - especially when millions of dollars may be riding on them).

In those industries, much like coding, you design your models well and include a ton of documentation, include "test" sheets to validate that everything is working fine, minimize the use of "custom" macros, and keep functions at a modular, manageable level.

Did you really just compare working on a computer with taking a life?

Most veterinarians I know love animals, and it is heart wrenching to take the life of something you love.

No matter how "hard" you think normalizing a database is, it doesn't come close to look at a puppy's eyes as you give it a lethal injection, or as they try to get away.

I have volunteered at an animal shelter, and I can tell you that it is gut wrenching to see these animals in pain, and there isn't ANY comparison whatsoever.

I agree with you 150%.

Nope, that's pure and simple capitalism.

Maximize profit while minimizing cost - find the cheapest labor, and use them.

In fact, the entire premise of capitalism is built on optimizing resource expense at any cost to maximize profitability, and ergo, total available capital.

There is absolutely *no* interpretation whatsoever of socialism that would value profit over worker's rights.

I would recommend that you actually put some time into reading Marx and Engels (and of course, Schumpeter), but then I'd be talking to a wall.

This is not true. H1Bs are dual intent visas - i.e. you can be here temporarily, or you can express intent to migrate. I'd suspect that there would be a higher conversion of H1Bs to green card if it were not for the bureaucratic hurdles for getting one (need to stay with the same employer, for one).

That is really, *really* awesome.

I especially enjoyed FIRECalc's graphic view -- I mean, it's a simple calculation, but the visual impact of when you go into the red is extremely telling.

I loved those websites -- thanks for the pointers!

But it's you who sees religion where there isn't any. Why else would you call it "Calvinist"?

You should consider doing some reading, especially the writings of Max Weber -- "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".

In American history, the work ethic that places value on hard work and frugality is often ascribed to the puritans. It is by no means unique to them -- if I had brought up Asian Tiger Moms or the Jewish work ethic, someone else would have jumped on that, ignoring the rest of my argument.

But historically and culturally, the puritans were known to place a higher value on being good, hardworking people than on the ceremonies of religion. In fact, their whole idea is that being a good and useful member of society is a far better display of being "good" than going to church or confessions. In that sense, they have effectively distanced themselves from the traditional ceremonies of religion, despite the origins of the term (which is also why the new GOP has a bastardized concoction of values that admire both Jesus and capitalism).

In any event, I certainly think there is value to that worldview (hard work and frugality), your religious affiliations (or the lack thereof) notwithstanding. Perhaps I should call it the Horatio Alger work ethic, as Neal Stephensen calls it.

All right, all right. I'll stop having a beef with you.

Eh. You do realize that I am an American, right?

Dude, get that chip off your shoulder. For one, I am areligious myself, and was raised Hindu, so your comment is just silly.

I admire the Calvinistic work ethic without the religious connotation, and I am sorry you have to see religion everywhere, even when there isn't any.

You can appreciate the work ethic without subscribing to the religious view. After all, some of the hardest working communities (e.g. Asians or Jews) appreciate the value of hard work and diligence, and have nothing to do with Calvinism in the religious sense.

You are clubbing all the 1% into a single group. There's a study by Saez and Zucman of Berkley/LSE that talks about how clubbing the entire 1% into a single group is disingenuous -- The other wealth gapâ"the 1% vs the 0.01%.

Most of the 1% to .1% are nothing more than hardworking Americans with a Calvinistic work ethic who have been successful. It is easy to do the math and realize how a two income family can break into the 1% territory after a couple of decades of hard work and fiscally conservative habits. Socially and economically, they are nothing like the top .1%.

The surge in 1% is entirely attributable to the growth in capital of the .1% while the rest of the 1% has in fact stagnated. The "middle rich" (1% - 10%) are in fact losing ground to the top .1% (i.e. capital is flowing upward) while the 1% to .1% have merely succeeded in holding on to their wealth.

Most government policies favor the really rich and *punish* the hardworking upper middle classes. In fact, I would argue in favor of Reagan-esque tax policies for these folks, who are for the most part well educated, successful individuals in banking, law, medicine, technology, consulting and so on. These are the ones who are really building the economy, but the ones who are being punished by the government and vilified by the mass media who club them with the truly wealthy.

Imagine a successful husband and wife earning $150k/year, working in a white collar job (lawyers, doctors, consultants, IT -- take your pick). According to the IRS, making $343k/year puts you in the top 1% (by income). But what about wealth? Well, that's supposedly $8.4MM.

Some simple math will make it evident that a husband and wife earning (an average) of $171k for 40 years (assume raises and lower starter incomes are factored into the average) who save 15% of their annual income, with a starting principal of $10000 will have ~$5.4 MM at the end of their careers. Assume that they invested in a home that cost $300k early in their careers, whose value has gone up 5X in the 30 year time that they had to pay off the mortgage. Assume that they more or less maxed out their 401K, giving them $17,500.00/year for 40 years each, which is ~$1.4MM. At best, they have $8.4 MM, assuming market crashes, children's education, and life threatening diseases didn't wipe out their savings.

However, by virtue of having $8.4 MM, suddenly, these people are being placed in the *same* category as someone with enough capital to buy legislation or pay an army of Cravath lawyers. That is not factoring in any smart investing in what's been a pretty bullish run (minus the recent crisis) or basic fiscal conservatism.

Your argument is silly because it completely discounts cost of living.

I live in Boston, and rent is just one portion of your expenditure. Taxes, childcare, private schools, parking, and even your average restaurant bill are all significantly higher. This winter, I paid more to shovel after one storm in Boston than my friends did to have someone shovel all winter in Cleveland.

My salary would get me a middle class living in Boston or SFO, a lower middle class living in NYC, and an affluent upper middle class living in most of the midwest.

Blanket statements that anything about X makes you rich (or super rich) is plain ridiculous. Heck, I'm in NYC as I'm typing this and I'm pretty sure you'd get a shoebox for $1500.

See, the problem with your example is that understanding a particular tech (i.e. Java, C#) != logical thinking. A lot of people are great at understanding how to integrate Spring and Hibernate and muck around with configurations, but suck at logical thinking. A lot of people are great at logical thinking and problem solving, but for the life of them can't (or won't) bother themselves with APIs and the like.

Hire someone who's studying "real" CS (i.e. lots of discrete math, graph theory, data structures etc), engineering, or the hard sciences (math, physics, chemistry etc) and you'll see that unless they studied at no-name college, they can easily solve logical problems.

On some level, I can't help but think that the article you linked to is full of shit. Or at the very least, a hyperbole.

Computer Science grads and PhDs cannot do basic loops and recursion? Yeah right. Unless they studied at University of Phoenix or DeVry, any school worth its salt will teach you math and computational logic for comp sci degrees.

Is it true for someone who's studied, say, literature, and wants to program? I can see that happening. But the legitimacy of the whole piece is affected when they make blanket statements that the majority of the comp sci grads can't or that people with master's and PhDs in comp sci cannot solve simple problems.

There's no data there other than anecdotes, and I'll dismiss it for the hyperblow that it probably is.

I chose $10 - $20 in apps, because it really depends on whether or not a new app captures my attention.

However, I spend much more than that on music and media. Like a song I heard on the radio? Shazam it and buy it. Does someone just remind you of a favorite album from your childhood? Buy it.

Our first baby was born just a few weeks ago, and lately, I've been buying lullabies, nursery rhymes, and similar music/apps.

Given how inexpensive apps are, I am boggled at how many people refuse to spend any money on them.