> Are you guys getting tired? Come on fighters you can do it.
Actually, there's a maximum number of times you can downvote someone, presumably so people can't vendetta against someone if they get their feelings hurt. So, maybe they can't do it.
Sidenote: I think Steve Pavlina created a joke word for people who are totally normal and in control, and then flip out randomly over nothing online in a comment thread - "Kittywompus." I'm not sure where the word came from (maybe he had a cat that was relaxed most of the time but then flipped out occasionally?), but it's definitely a real phenomenon.
I still don't understand the roots of it myself, on the rare occasions I get upset online I close my laptop up and go out for a walk... it's like a circuit breaker, "oh shit, I'm losing the ability to think clearly, I better get out of the environment" - I think most people have something like this, but maybe a few lack this circuit breaker?
Last I checked, the votes still go against your karma. It just doesn't display anything below -4. I think this was intended to prevent hive mind downvoting.
Advance results bring the Equus africanus asinus from Wikipedia first. Good. Basic results bring Donkey (Shrek) from Wikipedia second. Google might be onto something here .... but wait.... what is it there at number one for the basic reader... humm... "YouTube - Donkey Rapes Man". Hummm... who are our "basic" readers? ... gota think about this feature a little more.... ;) Meanwhile, a classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRm8okHhapU
This is actually a reasonably good search. It does highlight the clashes decently well.
I would like it if Google expanded this to allow you to prioritize. Prioritizing advanced reading level documents seems like it would be of value to me.
It's worth nothing that, yes, effective communication means that the document should be readable by anyone, but it doesn't seem that Google is tagging pompous, impenetrable documents as "advanced". For example, the [donkey] search comes up with "All About DONKEYS!" [1] as an "advanced" text. It doesn't seem to be difficult to read, it is just information-rich.
The search for [cheese], however, doesn't sort the wheat from the chaff like [donkey]. Gnome's Cheese project, for example, is classified as "Basic reading level", and so is filtered out from the "advanced" search.
I don't think you "screwed" anything. You can't force a relationship, and it is a waste of time to think about the email you didn't send. Had you sent it and got no reply, would you feel better? How about the email they didn't send? Maybe they are the ones who "screwed"?
If you have an idea and you learn how to implement it you might find yourself a single founder/creator.
You know what they say about those, right?
"What's wrong with having one founder? To start with, it's a vote of no confidence. It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends into starting the company with him. That's pretty alarming, because his friends are the ones who know him best." -- Paul Graham, 18 mistakes, 2006.
I disagree.
If you want to interact with carpenters, learning about carpentry, trying out carpentry (while not pretending to be an expert) helps a lot.
Put another way - its like speaking a language in a foreign country - the effort and practice is quite meaningful to those who live there.
It seems that to avoid becoming a single founder we have to have the ability to reach out and speak the language of those we want to join us.
Lawyers fight? We are not from the same hood...