Cannot edit anymore, so what I wanted to say (I was not very clear) is : The lives they have is not necessarily as nice as you picture it, nor yours as bleak as you think. In the end, I would not really think too much (even if I know it's hard) about them. After all, they might had enormous advantage, or actually a shitty live, because everything is too perfect or maybe they struggled so much to be where they are and so, are exhausted intellectually and depressed.
You achieved an incredible feat by controlling your depression, I'd be proud of it.
It's alway sad when there is "libertarians" wanting to preserve nothing more than corporate rights over people's rights using skewed interpretation of the (US) constitution.
And yes, I'm using libertarians with quote because a real libertarian would have thought a bit more than just "The constitution is the supreme rule!!!" and more about every right involved and how to maximize everyone liberty.
It's obviously not right for the government to mandate that certain corporations must deliver certain messages. The only justification for this is that telecommunications companies are heavily regulated and are granted franchises which are effectively monopolies. So the libertarians should solve the monopoly problem, then the free speech problem. Fixing them in the wrong order is worse.
I think the message is not that they have to deliver "certain" messages, just that they are not allowed to discriminate in the messages they deliver. Like the phone company is not allowed to listen to calls and decide to terminate a call if people are talking dirty to each other.
It is -and should be- an all or nothing kind of proposition I think.
This comment suggests that you haven't looked too deeply into how a "real libertarian" reasons through problems like Internet regulation, since "maximization of everyone's liberty" is a utilitarian goal, not a libertarian goal.
"Maximizing everyone's liberty" is code for taking from some and giving to others to to achieve a "just" result. That's not how libertarians think, that's how modern progressives think. So you think a "real libertarian" should be in lock step with liberal progressives.
I don't want to protect corporate rights over peoples' rights. I want all rights protected in accordance with the non-aggression principle. I don't want you using the power of government to beat down your enemies.
Hey! Don't impute pure utilitarianism to all liberal progressives! I just want good public schools and guaranteed issue health insurance. I don't need to see everyone's economic outcomes equalized!
That guy was a shame when he was a minister of foreign affairs back in Belgium, creating multiple diplomatic incidents and controversies (with the Netherlands - calling the prime minister a mix of harry potter and a rigid bourgeois, the Congo, the jewish community, etc), it's no wonders he's a shame in the EU...
But more importantly, I think the whole "VC prefer serial-entrepreneur", is not because serial-entrepreneur are "alway right" but rather because their track record prove that they have a better chance than first time entrepreneur. Which is alway important when you are investing...
> By the end of 2011, Yanis Varoufakis was a celebrity. The director of the Ph.D. program in economics at the University of Athens, Varoufakis had been arguing for two years that Greece was insolvent and the country should default while staying in the euro region ... In 2006, Varoufakis gave a talk in Athens predicting a financial crisis that would start in U.S. real estate, move through Wall Street, and on to Greece.
Actually, Qt does support the native look and feel on every device I'm aware of (linux, win, mac and symbian). And with Qt quick you can even make any kind of UI you want using QML (a sort of javascript).
