But:moment('2015-25-10 2:00', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm').isDST()moment('2015-25-10 3:00', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm').isDST()
That's not correct in my TZ. Confused.
It's the test spec that's wrong. On the day DST ends, the hour from 1:00 to 1:59 is repeated twice, which gives you 25 hours. When DST begins, that day is only 23 hours long. MomentJS isn't doing anything strange here.
Currently using a MS Optical Mouse 200.
I don't game (apart from Minecraft) so I don't need a $150 gaming mouse with adjustable weights and extra programmable buttons.
Seen that first hand happen. Someone at old work was enamored with "startup world". Read too much HN perhaps... Then came up with an idea for a startup. Right off the bat, could tell it was a forced idea. It was like they sat down and given a task of "come with an idea of a startup in 5 minutes" and they came up with one. It just seemed, well ... artificial. You can almost tell how they went about it in their head "Ok maybe Uber, but like for dogs. So they can go to a park play chase...". It was that kind of thing. However, the amazing thing is it didn't matter! They convinced management to spend money on him and his startup. I believe they are still bankrolling him and his idea 3 years later, while everyone there looked at each other with a look disbelief.
One can argue the startup is good enough, if you can convince some investor to invest in it. You don't need customers, a good idea, profitability, a market, etc etc. You need a dumber investor than you, who will bankroll you and you are done. After that you can always claim you were a CEO of a startup for the rest of your life, and do talks and presentations about it, put it on your resume and so on. It just feels good, you are part of something cool and exciting.
I would say that yes, startups (as a whole) are likely diluting their own markets. When a startup notices a real pain point and tries to solve it, but cannot make a sustainable business out of it, it shakes the customers' trust in trying an unproven company. This can have negative consequences.
Think of it this way: currently, people have faith in the 'startup brand'. A potential customer's internal monologue may be something like: "Oh a startup is trying to solve this problem that I have? They're probably doing something really innovative and they're inevitably going to build a successful company because of it." After the same customer gets burned a couple times by a new company shutting down, they're not going to be as likely to put their faith in the next new company that comes around the block. The 'startup brand' to them comes to mean a bunch of naive kids who will fail in the next year or so. Even if this company can do it better than before, it may not be worth the risk of frustration/headaches/delays that using the old startups' software has caused them in the past, so they choose to not try the new product. This makes user acquisition a lot harder, and I'd imagine that it would be a net negative (when compared to a scenario where the weak startups didn't try to start a company).
There are just so many decent looking projects being posted to Product Hunt every day, and even traditionally crappy-looking mainstream sites like Paypal, GoDaddy, or ESPN actually look decent these days. I just can't imagine a successful new startup that doesn't have solid design people... Not just back end devs who 'have an eye for design', but devs who can fire up a vector tool and make custom graphics if they need it.
It doesn't matter there are other 10^n distracting ideas, the real need of consumers will still be there.
For example, Theranos may be a distraction, but that doesn't change the underlying problems and demand for better healthcare.
The reason companies ask you to sign a non-compete is not to protect company secrets, it's more like they want to keep salaries down in an area.
The notebook with sample queries and visualizations:
Is there a good way to find the story to which a comment belongs? This dataset raises the issue of recursive query (e.g. "with recursive" in SQLite or PostgreSQL, or "connect by" in Oracle). The only approach I see in BigQuery is specifying a fixed level with something scary like:
SELECT p0.text, s.id, s.title FROM [fh-bigquery:hackernews.comments] p0 JOIN EACH [fh-bigquery:hackernews.comments] p1 ON p1.id=p0.parent JOIN EACH [fh-bigquery:hackernews.comments] p2 ON p2.id=p1.parent JOIN EACH [fh-bigquery:hackernews.comments] p3 ON p3.id=p2.parent JOIN EACH [fh-bigquery:hackernews.comments] p4 ON p4.id=p3.parent JOIN EACH [fh-bigquery:hackernews.stories] s ON s.id=p4.parent WHERE REGEXP_MATCH(p0.text, '(?i)bigquery') ORDER BY p0.time DESC
FYI, you named a column a reserved sql keyword ('by'). For future reference, and for others reading this: this is bad database design and makes it harder to use the table. You can get around this by wrapping the column name in brackets, like:
>select ... where [by] = ...
I like to use Twitter to analyze HN datasets. It's mostly limited to links, because that's what I'm after mostly.
https://twitter.com/newsycombinatorhttps://twitter.com/HackerNews..And a few other accounts. Try to avoid Bitly wrapped links.
Use something like Greptweet to harvest the tweets and parse out any noise.
 http://demo.redash.io http://demo.redash.io/queries/667/source#table
I'd be interested to see a list of people who submit a lot. I submit too much - about one submission per day - and I'm curious what percentile that puts me in.
Now for someone to analyze github <-> HN correlations.
It's profitable and worth something to buyers. The engineering team alone would be worth a fair amount per head in terms of recruitment. You can delegate the leg work to brokers if you don't want to spend that much time on an acquisition.
It's not important to have an exit per se (though nearly any transfer of assets can be called an exit). The experience of running a business (a profitable one at that) is a positive signal to future partners/investors.
Try to get yourself to a place where you are running the company and aware of what is going on, but doing nothing else than telling people what to do. Maybe you could bring yourself down to 10-20 hours per week? Then you could use the extra time to focus on finding an exit or building the next thing.
What good reasons must you have to shut down $250,000 of profit monthly, lay off 4 people, when it can be ran by someone else?
I would not be surprised if the absence of collapsible threads were a conscious design decision. To put it another way if returning to the same thread again and again was considered a user behavior to be slightly discouraged, then your anecdote indicates why no collapsible threads could be a feature rather than a deficit.
Thinking about why a designer would wish to raise the cost of returning to the same thread again and again: the cost is still rounding error when the reason is a compelling and collegial exchange of ideas and relatively high in relation to other places on the internet where people type into boxes when the motivation is pouring gasoline on the embers of insults, bullying or trolling. Or just ordinary XKCD386.
Another habit it discourages is a clique of people who hang out in a few threads for prolonged periods (say a week or more) engaging in 'insider' tribalism. Instead it may encourage people back to the front page and the content. On Hacker News, interesting topics recur when people make new submissions of additional information instead of prolonged based on the same information and position defending.
None of which is to say that this is in fact fact or to in any way imply that these habits or motivations or behaviors apply to you individually. I think it's more of design to avoid tragedies of commons.
Here's what I listen to : http://blog.wirdd.in/post/131088231061/what-do-you-listen-to...
Also, sometimes I'll listen to Coffitivity instead--times that I'm looking for some background noise but I'm tired of the usual playlists. It's a looped recording of various public places. Eventually you get to notice the loops, but its still pretty solid.
Some examples of musicians I'll play during the day: Dave Brubeck, Cindy Bradley, Four80East, Vince Guaraldi.. E-40, Kanye West, Neyo, Tony Bennett, Andy Williams, Gipsy Kings..
I'm pretty much all over the place depending on my mood. Sometimes even Willie Nelson music makes it into my queue lol.
Typically I will enqueue a whole genre in Winamp then play it on repeat shuffle. Also good when mindlessly browsing the web.
> How can I tell if I have programming aptitude?
I have a friend who's a painter. She's a visual artist with a fair deal of success; she can actually live out of her art (and by that I mean she actually sells her paintings for a living, she doesn't just design logos to buy her a little time for her real occupation on Friday evenings).
We were gathered at her house for a gig and waiting for the guitarist to show up (as usual), and while we were each rehearsing various bits and pieces, she sat on an armchair across from me and casually picked up a piece she had almost finished, and began applying some finishing touches. I'd never seen her painting before, so after I picked up my jaw from the floor, I passingly remarked that I'm a little envious on anyone who has a talent for drawing.
(Background: my depth perception is basically shit because of a limp eye. The only reasonable drawings I ever made where in Geometry classes).
Her reply was along the lines of dude, look, the ones who have a talent for this are the likes of Picasso and el Greco. Everyone else, even those of us who paint a lot better than anyone else you can find on the street, just practiced a lot.
She then proceeded to show me a couple of things she had drawn when she was a kid, long before she decided she wanted to do that for a living. Surely enough, they looked much like any other kid's drawings. They were a little less "hurried", as she obviously loved doing it and spent more time on a drawing, but were otherwise indistinguishable from other childrens' drawings. Even later ones, from around the time when she had decided she really liked this, weren't exactly breathtaking.
tl;dr: You have the "programmer aptitude" if:
a) You're a frickin' genius who can talk to computers as if they were kindred spirits, but then I guess you wouldn't be asking this if you were, orb) You like programming enough that you can do a lot of it, and can tolerate spending that time looking at your programs with a critical eye and seeing where you failed and what you can improve.
The pitfall in b) is that it will consistently make you feel like a failure, but hey, that's life man.
If so, you will be good at programming. If not, you most likely won't.
With that said, there are many coding sites out there where you can compete against others. TopCoder and HackerRank are two that come to mind off the top of my head.
You don't necessarily need to enjoy programming. But if you're also not particularly interested in the results of programming, or the ways that you might get better results, it's probably not for you.
I don't know of any particularly good tests for aptitude, I suspect general intelligence is probably more predictive than anything else.
My advice would be: don't compare yourself to external measures or compare your skill with other people. Focus on and enjoy the process of learning (because there's always more to learn).
I know I am a good programmer because when I finally solve the problem it feels good! My brain just releases all these bliss feelings and I go "oh my God, I nailed it!"
That feeling only comes once every several hundred hours of programming. I am routinely faced with technical problems to solve that are completely overwhelming, and that means I have to slog through confusion for weeks on end. If I didn't have that desire to get to the end goal I would probably give up.
I think you should look for what has given you that feeling in the past. If it's building something that works, lining up all the numbers (to 5 decimal places), or cracking a tough problem programming might be very fulfilling to you.
There are problem sets out there with time limits. You might even get some if you interview for jobs. But if they give a time limit of 2 hours and you solve it in 1, does that show aptitude? Maybe the average is 10 minutes! But then aptitude is more than just lines of code per hour, especially as the problems being solved become open ended and more complex. Maybe you too got the initial thing mostly working in ~10 minutes but spent the other 50 testing it and uncovering edge cases that would break your peers' quick solutions. So if you have a distribution of results you need to take them with a grain of salt, especially since experience can dominate aptitude so often. (http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/posts/old-age-and-treachery.h...) I don't care what your IQ is or how fast you can type, if you start writing a parser from scratch to solve some problem that is trivially solved with regular expressions, the regex user will beat you.
So if you're going to compare yourself to others, you need to try factoring out things like experience by comparing yourself to those with similar levels of experience. Programming competition prep at school is a great way to do it, since presumably you've all had about the same classes, are around the same age, and with many trial problems you can determine who is consistently doing well (aptitude) and who might have had good/bad runs simply due to having or not having a piece of knowledge. Another thing to try is a friendly 'competition' like Ludum Dare a few times. Your goal is to make the best game you can make in 48 hours. http://ludumdare.com/compo/ When it's done, you can compare with your peers, especially ones that look to have a similar level of experience and made similar decisions as you (language, libs, etc.).
Do you like solving problems? How stoked are you when you figure out the cause of your bug? Would you pursue it even if it wasn't lucrative?
Project Euler has some good puzzles, they are somewhat math related but cover a lot of interesting concepts and can be fun to work through.
Previous hn discussion:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8741868
If you haven't given up in a month, you're cut out for it. Persistence and a willingness to constantly learn are more important than your ability to do mental gymnastics.
I'm not sure if timed problems are a good way to assess yourself. Being able to solve programming problems quickly comes from (1) experience from having solved lots of problems before and (2) experience with your languages and environments. If you have a lot of aptitude but little experience, you may not be able to solve problems quickly.
"What's the fastest way to tell if I'm cut out for, and should pursue programming?"
I don't know if there's a fast way that can give you a meaningful answer. I'd suggest spending some time (at least several months) learning more about programming, working on some problems you're interested in, and seeing whether you become a better programmer over time.
Get going with it. Find an open source project that interests you and contribute. There are a few things that are bad about github but as a platform it really allows you to find issues in software you're interested in, fix it and then submit that fix.
If you work for someone that's ideally the situation you're in, you're working on a software problem that interests you implementing new features or fixing bugs and submitting them.
Do you like putting things together and taking them apart?
Are you disciplined enough to organize lots of tiny little things into something big over a long period of time without getting bored and giving up?
Can you see the forest and the leaves all at the same time?
If you answered yes to all of this, then you have what it takes. I say this to anyone else that answered yes, I don't care if you know 0 programming, but if you can do the above, you have what it takes to become a very good programmer. Programming is about putting little things together, organizing them, and at the same time seeing the big picture (forest) while seeing the small pictures (leaf on a tree). It's not magic or difficult.
To op: for me i find sheer stubborness is how i code. Im not sure if that makes me a good programmer (i have only released one piece of software, took me 4 months to get to where i am, and a long way to go).
I started out loving the results: in my softwares case, the computer understanding what i said and doing that action, then i began to really enjoy how i did it: i just finished expanding it internally to be able to listen to multiple things and perform those actions at the same time.
For me, once i figured out what i wanted todo, not just exercises, that really drove me. I think ive learnt more in the last 4 months, than the previous 8 years of tinkering.
I know your not asking how to code, but this is what is convincing me that i should be programming. Alas i an English teacher, but it pays the bills, and lets me program after work.
If you like it, and are ready to put in the effort - just keep learning and you will become a good programmer.
There's no magical mysterious "talent", there's just intelligence, work ethics, and skill.
To cut through the noise, here's a suggestion: pick up a copy of "The Little Schemer", perhaps you'll find it at a library, or possibly on-line. It's a very easy and fun book to get into. Start answering the questions, if you're still at it past page 60 or so, you just might be a programmer. Get all the way through the book, then you definitely have the interest and ability.
As a bonus, if you do pursue programming you will have learned some very useful things, and if you decide to do something else, you saved yourself a fair bit of anguish.
Math-heavy but interesting
2. Clojure koans (http://www.4clojure.com/)
Here you're good if your solutions are close to the best solution - which is often short and readable (= elegant?)
There are probably similar koans for other languages and I'd also strongly recommend a functional language (because it frees yourself from the shackles of imperative and OO thinking, but YMMV)
I think pg has a quote online somewhere to the weight of "if you're spending time thinking about whether you're smart enough, you're most likely smart enough."
There's plenty of different types of software development too; some require a stronger programming ability than others. If you enjoy solving problems, and making life easier for other people, then it's something you'll get to eventually with enough persistence.
I think how "good" you are at something is a very subjective thing... That said, have you tried programming competitions and projects like HackerRank, TopCoder, the ACM-ICPC, and Google's Code Jam?
PS: if money is not your main motivation, I'd worry more about finding interesting questions/problems that you enjoy solving rather than questioning your aptitude for it.
I have this theory where people who do these things are good programmers, since they will check their commit a lot of times until it is perfect to push. But maybe this is more about mastery than having an aptitude for it. :)
It's a bit like zen..."If I work very hard and diligent how long will it take for me to find Zen." The Master thought about this, then replied, "Ten years." The student then said, "But what if I work very, very hard and really apply myself to learn fast -- How long then ?" Replied the Master, "Well, twenty years." "But, if I really, really work at it. How long then ?" asked the student. "Thirty years," replied the Master. "But, I do not understand," said the disappointed student. "At each time that I say I will work harder, you say it will take me longer. Why do you say that ?" Replied the Master," When you have one eye on the goal, you only have one eye on the path."
You should have at least one of the following, preferably two or all:
1. A prototype or minimum viable product with proven market demand, users and strong traction numbers.
2. A solid idea backed up by a strong, proven team of founders. For example, MIT or Stanford PhDs with heavy domain experience in AI research. Or a pair of founders who have exited one or two startups before.
3. Recommendations from YC partners who will vouch for you and your application.
My opinion based on observation is that that list is in order of importance. You will probably not get the third option unless you have one of the other two.
10b. If the task is too long in time or too boring you may set an egg timer for 45 to 60 minutes and make the relaxation break.
The standard "sound" advice echoing around HN would be to make something [analogous to a rough sketch] and put it in front of users. Obviously, it probably won't be the finished product produced by a giant business...or even something which can be reproduced efficiently. But it will be enough that people who 'get it' will 'get it' if there's an 'it' there to 'get'.
For a non-technical person this means understanding enough at a high level to make a reasonable judgement about feasibility...enough physics to know the difference between sending a satellite into LEO versus shooting nuclear waste into the sun. In other words, there's some level of technical due diligence that cannot be outsourced and still be considered due diligence...just ass-covering, and that's only useful in bureaucracy and useless for a startup.
Silicon Valley is a good place for you to go when you need to get in touch with other tech companies. But in order to find skilled developers you don't need to go to Silicon Valley at all. I'm living in Austria and I know that there are excellent developers right here (and I bet the same is true for Germany). You just have to know where to find them. And once you found them you need to start talking to them. I know its hard to tell total strangers about your big idea, but it needs to be done. You don't need to worry about someone stealing the idea as long as you and your expertise are still required. If the developer you told about the idea wanted to do it without you, he would face exactly the same problem as you do right now. He would need to find someone like you. And convince him of your idea. So why should he bother stealing the idea in the first place if he could just join you?
So, where do you find people that have a technical background and are also prepared to take some risks?Go to coworking spaces. That is where you find people that may be working as freelancers or in small teams up to 3 or 4 people (if the team gets bigger than that its often cheaper to rent an office for your own). But maybe you shouldn't just walk in there and distract people from their work.From time to time such coworking spaces host events. Usually they post about it somewhere on the web. And usually the people that work at the space go to such events. So this would be an ideal chance for you to talk to people that are both talented and not bound to a fixed job. My advice: Go there.
And now a suggestion concerning investors and money: Consider public funding. There are many funds that you don't have to pay back and in contrast to an investor the funding organizations don't ask for shares.
There's no 'economic value' to an idea until its executed. So you're in the right direction. You need a team and funding, and that's where most of the critical work happens.
Forget that about somebody stealing your idea. That simply doesn't happen. You know, I had software with basically same features as the first version of Twitter at least 6 months before Twitter appeared. And look were Twitter is today, my software is definitely not. And I'm not sorry because I'm well aware how things work. It's not the idea that counts, it's all together, the complete process, people and product, every single thing counts, idea is just a tiny, tiny part of it all. There were some cases in history where idea was everything, but they are so rare that you can easily consider them to be statistical errors.
For that: you might want to think about applying to tech startups directly even if they don't advertise remote jobs (as long as you actually are an extremely good match though and a good way to tell is if the job advertisement is simply a restatement of your resume.) The reason is: a lot of startups are open to this kind of arrangement to the right applicant (and I really do mean the right applicant here.) For example, if the job advertisement is for say - a PHP developer and it doesn't specifically state remote work, then its unlikely they will be open to that kind of arrangement simply because there isn't exactly a shortage of high quality local applicants (PHP is very common.)
On the other hand: if you're applying for a highly specialized job and you can make a persuasive argument as to why you would be an ideal match for the company - the company may be open to your offer. In the end: the only way to know for certain is to ask which you should definitely go for if you specialize.
http://workingnomads.co is a curated remote jobs board with fewer listings than remoteOK. There are 9 from the past 24 hours.
Both of those only let you search by title, rather than the details from the descriptions.
Do you have a specific type of company in mind?
- If you're interested in Linux kernel activity in particular, sign up for LKML updates so you have a constant feed of "ooh, what's that" to keep up with, although following everything in realtime might be a bit of an overload.
- It's good to have a passing idea of how the major distros work - if you have enough familiarity with a system to at least comfortably spin it up in a VM easily and quickly, it makes it that much easier to test how the occasional obscure edge case is handled in a given environment. If you're writing at the systems level (eg, background daemons, systemd vs sysvinit et. al.) this will probably come up reasonably frequently.
- I've learned that some languages can actually be almost as fast as C nowadays - in http://www.gopherjs.org/blog/2015/09/28/surprises-in-gopherj..., a small test algorithm that computes pi using 1 billion iterations runs in 6.434s when compiled with gcc -O3, and the same code written runs inside Node.js in 6.549s - 105ms difference, arguably nil.
- Real-world applications do undeniably introduce latency in the most optimized of environments, but capable, speedy CPUs are approaching such ubiquity that scripting languages are an extremely viable choice for a lot of tasks.
- I understand that IllumOS - the now community-maintained open-source project that used to be Solaris - has awesome kernel-level debugging facilities. This might be interesting.
If you're developing something with React, Chrome will provide a better experience since React dev tools plugin is only available for Chrome. I'm not aware of some tool that is exclusive to Firefox, so I don't have a reason to favor it.
Make sure clients show you the same respect and consideration you are giving them. If they do not, walk away and find another. They are out there, do not disrespect yourself so much as to think they aren't.
Why would you do that? Why would anybody not take you up on the discount?
>totally different project doubling the workload for the wrong estimation, which downed my hourly rate to less than $30
Here is how I would respond to that 100% of the time:
i've taken jobs similar to what you described - scope changes after the fact, no payment until 30-45 days after completion (though if its multi thousands, i ask for half down)
The difference being I maintain a day job; freelance to me is a bonus - money for vacation, nicer things, etc...
Sucks to get burned like that, but to me, thats a normal client... 1 mans trash is another mans treasure ?
If the real number is higher than that, then you should just stay elsewhere.
Every investor is different but I would be more likely to invest in a startup where the founder parted with some small amount of equity to conserve cash.
You can structure the deal as a cash investment where you then turn around and pay the cash as rent; later investors don't even need to know the reason for the investment. It sounds like a great way to build momentum (having an investor vs. no investors as yet).
Your "friend" isn't offering you anything "free."
Caller ID is broken. It is trivial to spoof your own phone number because the receiving network assumes your honesty. You can tell them pretty much anything as far as your caller ID number, and they will relay it onto their customers.
Things can be done, but they are expensive and require everything to work together. The networks need to start a catalogue of who owns number blocks and then check inter-network calls to check that caller ID numbers are within the blocks provided (and bounce the call if they're not).
Additionally smaller interconnection networks (i.e. those that provided VoIP to telephone network interconnects) need to start putting caller ID information into their outgoing calls rather than allowing clients to do it, they can then verify that the client owns the number before allowing it.
The TL;DR: In the US only an act of congress can fix the current situation, but such an act would be expensive for phone companies and they have enough lobbying power to kill it dead.
So in answer to your concern: No. Verizon cannot stop someone spoofing your phone number, and in order to fix it for you they and other phone companies need a massive retrofit.
So no, it's not the carrier's fault, and it's not something they can control.
Designing an authentication/verification system is non-trivial but not impossible. There's just little political-will to actually do it.
As a side note, this is why you should always set a passcode on your voicemail box. Many folks have their voicemail set to skip passcode-authentication when they're calling in from their own cell phone number. The problem is: if someone spoofs your number and calls into your voicemail box, they've got unfettered access.
If I had a choice, I'd dump VZW in a hearbeat.
Anybody can generate custom outgoing caller ID numbers. That's not really a "spoof," that's just lying about who you are when you make a call.
Most phone "spoofing" would be if someone cloned your phone number and the phone was registered multiple times on the same network, so when you got a call, one or more of the phones would ring at the same time.
If you go iPhone, they have iMessage for texting which costs $0 on pre-paid but you both need to have iPhones. Use WiFi where you can (home, work) and find a pre-paid option for other times. iMessage is handy if a lot of her friends have iPhones.
If her usage pattern doesn't involve lots of streaming movies or streaming audio then you really don't need a costly plan.
My wife is non-technical and the iPhone is wife approved. Her mom (in her sixties) just got an iPhone and she can use it too.
Serious answer. As suggested why not let your wife decide what would fit her needs best?
As most said, unless it's a surprise gift, let her decide.
If it is a surprise, try to get her feedback in more subtle ways (I'm pretty bad at that, but I guess asking about her girl friend's phones or something).
In general, it depends on your money availability, general use case, IT ecosystem at your house or where she'll be using it, etc.
If money is no objection, she won't be using it for programming-related stuff or obscure hobbies, can afford apps, etc. or you have a heavy Apple ecosystem, then the iPhone is probably the best bet.
If money is a concern, then it can be either an Android-based system or Windows Phone.
For the very low-end smartphones, I recommend Windows Phone, some Android smartphones are terribly underpowered and deliver an awful user experience.
Personally, I have an Android device because it's the one that fits my needs the most (but I do use it for programming), and my country is 90% android smartphones so I'll have every app available.
That can be a drag if you like having the latest and greatest apps. Other than that, Android is awesome.
its just personal choice in the end
But if I must answer: iPhones seem to be extremely popular amongst women in particular (if you look at the demographics, women like iPhones, Samsung Android phones, and then everything else is a distant third).
The subject is very vague. Everyone's definition of evil is different. I am a flawed human being but evil no based on what it means to me.
"Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one- one that would do nobody any harm."
Two Gun Crowley:
"I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man."
As others in this thread, I don't assign a goodness index to people around me, my model of them is much more complex than that, based on evolutionary psychology, mainly.
As for myself, I try to maintain a love for the self, in a way, trying to reassure myself that my system 2 thinking will be there for system 1, irrespective of whatever failures I may be experiencing. That's not really compatible with my definition of evil.
But to hear that I am an asshole or other like term is just a note anymore. Generally I work really hard to prevent those terms, so when they are given to me, I wear them as a sign I did the right thing.
I don't buy into the concepts of universal good and evil, or arbitrary morality.
There are just a series of events that occur.