1. kaže, da na pravem dogodku predavam bolje kot na katerikoli vaji doma
2. recept za impresioniranje komisije: multidisciplinarnost, po možnosti s stroko, ki se večini zdi blazno komplicirana (npr. računalništvo)

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

Najbolj pa mi je bil všeč stavek, ki lepo pade v večno debato med mano in mojo drago o pavšalnih prijateljstvih:

The subconscious nature of emotional mirroring might explain one of the more curious findings in their research: If you want to be happy, what’s most important is to have lots of friends. Historically, we have often thought that having a small cluster of tight, long-term friends is crucial to being happy. But Christakis and Fowler found that the happiest people in Framingham were those who had the most connections, even if the relationships weren’t necessarily deep ones.

Kljub vsemu, tole je ogabno:

Fyi, predstavlja otoke Galapagosa.

Večini sem že povedal v živo, ampak vseeno: danes sem dal uradno odpoved v svoji investicijsko bančniški službi. Če bi hotel navesti en sam razlog, bi rekel: rad bi nekaj ustvarjal. V resnici je razlogov več: delo je veliko preveč birokratsko za moj okus, glede bližnje prihodnosti za industrijo sem resno pesimističen, ves finančni svet se mi je zameril z etičnega vidika – za denar, ki ga iz realne ekonomije poberejo finance, je premalo dodane vrednosti. Zelo milo rečeno.

Ja, vem, nekateri ste mi to povedali že davno. Ampak po drugi strani je vse to prišlo zelo jasno na dan ob (po moje) še trajajoči Veliki recesiji. Malo več sreče s tajmingom bi pa lahko imel, mar ne?

Kam grem? V podjetništvo. O ustvarjanju nečesa svojega sanjarim že predolgo in treba je poskusit. Skozi leta programiranja se je nabralo veliko idej, zdaj bom pa kako tudi realiziral.

Zakaj odločitev objavljam na blogu? Za motivacijo. Javna zaobljuba me bo prisilila bodisi nekaj narediti, bodisi dojeti, da sem poskusil, a ni šlo¹.

Zakaj porazom naproti? Ker je v podjetništvu iluzorno upati, da ti bo uspel prvi met. Če vzdržiš več zaporednih porazov in se iz njih še kaj naučiš, pa imaš možnost uspeti. Vsaj tako pravijo.

PS. Naslovnice WSJ nisem ustvaril sam, nisem tako samovšečen. Sem pa dovolj, da mi je smešna in jo objavim.

1. ali pa bom zapis enostavno zbrisal in se delal neumnega.

Vir: Save paper & ink printing only what you want « PrintWhatYouLike.com

Pa se mi ne, ker sem nekaj dni pred tem bral o tovrstnem spamu:

The purpose of the spam is to trick recipients into responding to answer the questions. The questions and their responses are actually a system of gathering data to compile a series of “Answer your questions” websites run by “X Media Partners” which generate revenue from Google adverts placed alongside the answers…

The main person behind this spam operation appears to be a Canadian named “Doug Collins” who also goes as “Ryan Collins” and “Amanda Collins”, of 30 Gooderham Dr., Georgetown, ON L7G5R6, CA. When Spamhaus investigated these ‘random question’ spams, we found that in each case the identical questions were used by the websites above and the answers sent back by recipients who had fallen for the spams were also on these same websites. To verify this, Spamhaus answered one spam from “winstonfinancial@gmail.com” which asked “How to pack teenagers for europe?”. Our answer, word-for-word including intentional mispellings appeared as if by magic a few minutes later on the website www.goftp.com.

Je pa izvirno, ni kaj.

POPRAVEK: pozabil link na zapis, od koder izvira zgornji opis. se spodobi.

POPRAVEK 2: očitno tega Skype sporočila nisem niti prebral do konca še enkrat berem in se mi zdi, da ne gre za omenjeno spam inovacijo ampak za povsem običajno vsiljivo trženje neke fantastične naložbene priložnosti (TM)

Primer: Na nekem blogu preberem določen zapis in me zanimajo odzivi nanj (poleg komentarjev). Najprej grem iskat v Google Reader po svojih feedih¹. Kot iskalni pojem uporabim kar URL zapisa, saj vsak odziv na zapis zagotovo vsebuje povezavo nanj. Fail. Poskusimo z namenskimi iskalniki. Google Blog search: fail. Technorati (nad katerim sem sicer že davno obupal; zdi se, da pokriva le tehnološke bloge): fail. Pa poskusim z navadnim Googlom, kjer lahko z napredno poizvedbo iščem po straneh, ki vsebujejo določen link. Fail.

Ampak stvar je v tem, da jaz vem, da obstaja vsaj en blogovski zapis, ki je odziv: komentira in direktno linka na originalni zapis. Pa poiščem po naslovu tega odziva v Googlu. Google ga najde, torej je indeksiran, in v njem je seveda tudi link na prvotni zapis. WTF?

Pozna kdo kak boljši blog iskalnik oz. način, kako se spopasti z opisanim problemom?

1. več o tem drugič, ampak v Readerju imam namerno veliko več feedov kot jih lahko preberem, s folderji pa jih uredim v tiste za branje in tiste, ki so samo za iskanje

“Strokovnjak” uporablja Help, laiku je to pod častjo.

Definitivno velja za vse Microsoft Office produkte, pa tudi širše (http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/).

1. Spet ena beseda, ki mi manjka v slovenščini: samostalniška oblika glagola godrnjati. Godrn? Predlogi dobrodošli.

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.

And here’s the real punch line. After playing an intimate role in four historic bubble catastrophes, after helping $5 trillion in wealth disappear from the NASDAQ, after pawning off thousands of toxic mortgages on pensioners and cities, after helping to drive the price of gas up to $4 a gallon and to push 100 million people around the world into hunger, after securing tens of billions of taxpayer dollars through a series of bailouts overseen by its former CEO, what did Goldman Sachs give back to the people of the United States in 2008?

Fourteen million dollars.

That is what the firm paid in taxes in 2008, an effective tax rate of exactly one, read it, one percent. The bank paid out $10 billion in compensation and benefits that same year and made a profit of more than $2 billion — yet it paid the Treasury less than a third of what it forked over to CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who made $42.9 million last year.

Toplo priporočam branje celote.

Malo populizma, vendar zelo zabavnega in usmerjenega v pravo smer (po mojem skromnem mnenju, seveda).

In če smo se že spravili na Goldmana, Jon Stewart po mojem dobro ujame sentiment javnosti:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Pyramid Economy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day