Ultimately tech is a tool to help automate and solve people’s problems. You want to get close to the people your solving problems for so you can get feedback and figure out how to do your job. Your organization may not do this for you. I spend a lot of time on forums listening to my users, and do a lot of extra testing to make sure I’m solving there problems and not making new ones.

Pure capitalism favors the wealthy and the unscrupulous. That is if there are no laws in place protecting peoples rights then the business owners have little incentive to treat there employees well (they will trade short term profits over long term stability.

On the flip side a pure communist system favors the lazy since there is little to no reward for doing more than the minimum. That is to say the status quo is unchanging.

This is why we have government, to correct the selfish nature of capitalism, while hopefully still retaining the innovation and drive that it produces (winner take all is a strong motivator).

This only works in the long term if government is fair and balanced, looking out both for the interests of business and society (the poor, the environment, the common spaces, etc). And where an idea like socialism actually strikes a good balance between both extremes.

The idea that the markets will sort themselves out is a fever dream thought up by the right. The markets will quickly consolidate into monopolies and then exploit there power. It is only fair competition that produces benefits. And that is an unstable balance that must be carefully maintained by outside forces (government).

I fully understand how scary it is to try to talk to someone in a language your just learning. I’m shy and hate talking period! But it is one of those things where you have to allow yourself to make a fool of yourself.

Trust me, most people are very happy you are trying to learn there language and will be exited by anything you can produce. If you do find someone who is rude or offended by it, give them up as a bad job and shake it off. And never be embarrassed to say “I don’t understand”. We assume the people who know the answers are the smart ones, but the people who admit they still need to learn are in fact the geniuses.

Besides, unless your using Google translate, then your English comprehension is plenty good enough. It is time to face your fears and make a fool of yourself. The rewards are worth it!

I agree with the first point completely. The apps are usually good for practicing vocabulary, but languages are dynamic, and change based on what was previously said. Talking to someone, anyone, is going to get you up and going a lot faster. Granted, finding someone willing to spend hours talking to you when your just learning can be hard. Look for apps that try to hook learners up.

I’m not sure where you are, but try to find an English community. If your in an English speaking country that is basically any community. If your not then look around for where the English expats hang out. When I was in Cameroon we had an “american club” that everyone was a part of. Having a common interest helps a lot in motivating everyone to talk together.

In a pinch you can force yourself to watch English television, possibly with subtitles. This helps your comprehension but lacks the back and forth of actually talking.

Intelligence is a collection of multiple things. Curiosity is a contributor, but far from an integral part.

Someone can be a brilliant mathematician, capable of computing complex equations that would stump most computers (metaphorically at least), but they may utterly lack creativity and curiosity. In any definition of intelligence we would consider them highly intelligent.

On the flip side someone may be completely filled with curiosity about the world, but lack the intelligence to read or write.

Technically that is a learned skill, this is why intelligence is really a fairly useless measure. What is intelligence? Memorizing lots of facts? Having loads of education? A built in understanding of the world that others lack (common sense)?

I think what really matters is that you find the thing in life where you fit, rather than worrying about how we measure up. I have known very intelligent people who were worthless human beings, and simple minded people who made the world more special every day. We focus too much on being smart, it is one of the least important attributes.

I agree whole heartedly with this. The worst thing you can do is drift into your first job and give up. It does not matter where you start, or what direction you end up going. What matters is that your searching around trying to find your place and not just coasting hoping an amazing life will jump up and find you.

I know it is not your question but… Everyone says pockets for women’s fashion but that is not the most important. At least here in the US the most important is having proper sizes on clothes.

For the most part men’s clothes let you pick things right. You know your waist and inseam for pants, and often have a proper size for shirts and collars.

Women’s fashion often has no size other than the ambiguous s/m/l/xl indicator and teen/woman’s/plus often use the same tag to indicate wildly different sizes. On top of that, when close use a measurement it is not grounded in reality, so a 14 at one shop may be a 16 at another, and neither are a direct measure of your waist. Finally women’s pants only come in 3 lengths (petite, tall, or not specified) and it is difficult to find most combinations.

The best thing we could do for fashion in any sex is to standardize sizes globally and make them all based on a tape measure measurement. That way you could buy 32x30 pants online knowing they will fit, no matter the brand.

I was a young programmer during the dot com boom. Old school companies like sears and newspapers were scared of the internet. They would occasionally try something small and half hearted on the web but never really tried to figure it out.

Sears is a great example. 20 years before the web they had a functioning mail order service with stores and warehouse all over the US. They were very close to what a modern Amazon is, without the web presence or rapid delivery. If they were brave they could have been Amazon, selling online and delivering to there extensive store network.

Newspapers had a very busy classified section. That could have been moved online easily enough. But they wanted to charge for there classifieds, while eBay or Crageslist let you post for free, making money off of add revenue or a broker fee.

They also were very popular with local advertisers, and could have transitioned there newspapers online for free with the same local advertisers. Instead they tried to charge or resisted being online at all, leaving room for other services like yahoo (later Facebook and Google news) to fill in the news business.

Finally if they had been smart they could have made a news sharing service among the papers (nexus, etc) that could have forced Google news to pay a small fee every time they shared a story, providing a steady revenue service.

I see a time in the future where traditional papers fully die, and something new rises from the ashes. My guess is it will be a return to local news, but with a very small staff running the whole show online.

My grandparents grew up on the depression. They had a very simple life. They had a tv on wheels that lived in the closet and only came out once a month or so to watch a football game. They had a radio they turned on to listen to classical music while working. And they had a newspaper and magazine subscription.

They woke up early, tended to there chores and to the garden. Then they would eat a leasurly breakfast with lots of little plates and saucers (egg cups, juice, coffee and water glasses, etc), basically it was an activity that took an hour. Then more chores.

My grandma always had a project going, making cookies for a neighbor, helping someone find a job. My grandpa would spend most of the day in his workshop repairing lawnmowers or building fun inventions (solar ovens, bird houses, etc).

Lunch and dinner were also big presentations that took an hour. It was not always a lot of food, but they took a lot of time with it. After diner they would sit in two chairs side by side reading books or more often than not just sitting quietly. Neither talked much, they were just content to be.

They ran some errands occasionally, but there only big event for the week was going to church. I don’t remember them ever going out to dinner or even to a friends house, though they did have friends who stopped by.

Mostly they were content to do very little. They were never bored, or at least they were content to be bored. I think the one big negative all technology has brought us is that we’re restless if we can’t find something to do. We don’t enjoy just sitting and listening to life.

I can envision a world where Nintendo has a certification program for smart phones. They could have minimum specs, a special security chip, and probably some tactile controls. This would allow them to more aggressively make cellphone games that feel like console games, without relying on third party controllers or using simplified controls.

I don’t see them making a whole cell phone platform. OS development is not there strong suit, console makers have been fairly bad at this in the past (there focus is speed and minimal overhead).

My guess is they will continue on with a switch style tablet for several more generations. Unless something new like AR or VR really takes off, I don’t see a lot of incentive to innovate anymore.

Yes and no. Newspapers could be read the next day, after the original purchaser was done with it. And it was easy for a restaurant or business to share newspapers among many clients. Plus of course radio still provided free news that was quality.

The big problem now is that the best news sources are the most locked down. And the worst news sources are the most open. So it is difficult for a quality piece to make the rounds. Even if a link to an article could be shared for free, even if the website was locked down, things would be a lot better.

Finally newspapers charged for the cost of printing but made money off of advertising and classifieds. There is very little cost (per view) to digital publishing. If newspapers had embraced the Web 20 years ago they could have been Facebook or eBay, rather than having all there core revenue fall away.