I volunteer at an animal shelter and sometimes see cats that have neurological problems or have lost a limb or an eye. I always admire how little this seems to matter to them. They don't get depressed or sad, they just carry on playing even if they are so wobbly they can barely stand or so hobbled they have to awkwardly hop everywhere.
I have a missing limb cat. She doesn't let it slow her down, not even a little. She even somehow manages to routinely use the scratching post upright with her only front leg. She just takes everything in stride.
That's meritocracy for you. We have to select people for scarce and highly desirable positions somehow; "willing to work the hardest" isn't the worst strategy that's been tried.
No, we don't. I'm not sure even the author has a clear definition of "excessive" in mind, so we might not know even if we were all telepathic. The validity or applicability of their complaints about running is very closely tied to that definition, so it's entirely reasonable to seek clarification.
True, and a good argument for running, however using Turing and the effects on him of running as an example (it clearly led to his breakthrough scientific work as well as every other part of his life), it must be said that many people enjoy the company of women and would not be willing to become gay (from running) for a slight mental improvement.
(this is a joke comment pointing out how silly this thread is being.)
Maybe the CS people don't know set notation for the same reason that Lamport dismisses Homotopy Type Theory and Galois Connections at the 2:00 minute mark.
Why do people think that because someone is a shareholder/CEO in a company, all their deeds from that point on are purely self-interest?
Depends on the CEO and company. The behavior of a company reflects the behavior of its CEO. Microsoft and Facebook both have a a history of bad behavior.
"bad" is relative. The CEO's of the tobacco companies had a history of knowingly killing people. Microsoft was aggressively anti-competitive, Facebook was (and still is) very much opposed to privacy on the Internet.
A company is many cogs. The fact that Bill Gates was anti-competitive doesn't make him, the individual, a bad person. That's very clear from the work he's doing now. So assuming that all decisions stem from greed, from anyone, is a silly assumption.
Whether Bill Gates is a good or bad person is only a relevant question to himself and maybe some close acquaintances.
For the rest of us, the relevant point is predicting their behavior, and in that context, the phrase certainly applies. As long as he's CEO and the largest shareholder, Facebook's actions are Zuckerberg's decision and responsibility.
