Readit NewsOk, so why didn't other countries have "cheap and plenty of VC money" at the same time? Why not the UK, or Germany, or Japan?
Of all the rich countries that existed in the world at the time, why did only the US develop a Silicon Valley type of situation?
It was never about money -- plenty of other countries had rich investors. It was about willingness to take risk. US venture capital was unique in the world at that time, and it was because of their culture.
Successful projects have a tendency to stop being simple as time goes by. Users start asking for more features, scaling issues crop up, etc, etc.
Me: "I am looking for a tech co-founder; the startup is at an ideation stage, and I have already talked to people who have shown interest in the project. I think having a tech co-founder at this stage will help a lot."
Listener: "How much are you paying for the role?"
Me: "This is an equity-based role because the startup is at an early stage."
Listener: "So you want people to work for you for free??"
This doesn't matter if the listener is an engineer or not. In the UK, there is little understanding of how very early stage startups work. It is equity based, that concept does not go down very well with the population.
Hearing the word ideation would cause an allergic in people who are sensitive against Americanisms.
British are also notorius for their indirect way of expressing their thoughts and feelings. Instead of saying they do not believe in your idea or your ability to execute it, they'd prefer to use compensation as a get out.
Probably the most common kind of transfer among languages is loanwords: think of the many many foreign loanwords in English for example. It's easy to see how this happens. You learn a foreign word that has some convenient meaning, there's no good equivalent in your native language, so you start using the foreign word if you think the person you're talking to will know it too.
But in the Altaic languages, you see similarities in abstract structure, without much apparent sharing of words. Altaic languages have a certain strictly head-final syntactic structure, where the verb is the final element in the sentence, you have postpositions coming after nouns, lots of freedom to drop and reorder arguments of verbs, etc. They all have agglutinative morphology with case marking that creates long complex words. They all have, or show historical traces of, some kind of vowel harmony.
All these abstract commonalities happen with only very little sharing of words. You can line up a Korean sentence with its Japanese translation almost morpheme-by-morpheme, and yet those morphemes are all totally unrelated to each other.
It seems really odd that you could have a set of languages that share their abstract structure without sharing content. And Altaic isn't the only example of this kind of thing: you also see it in the North American native languages, which share a strongly head-initial head-marking structure, nearly the exact opposite of the Altaic languages, despite a lack of cognates among their morphemes. It's almost as if what was transferred among the languages was an aesthetic, rather than individual words.
We don't really understand how this happens. My best guess is that it happens in situations of massive multilingualism, so that certain habits of articulation and sentence formation get shared across languages within the mind of a multilingual speaker. It's something I'd like to understand more.
There's a language called Gagauz, spoken in Moldova. It has a Turkic vocabulary and Indo-European grammar. It was, in its infancy, likely to be a Romanian substrate, Cuman superstrate creole.
An Proto Altaic substrate with various superstrates must have played out quite a few times.
I thought everyone/ most UK people would know the real answer and after asking around it appears it's not clear cut.
Anecdotically (asking about 8 people from the UK) 5 people thought bonfire day was celebrated for Guy Fawlkes being captured. (ie killed for trying to burn down parliament) but a few (3) of the 5 people I asked where mostly guessing and was not really sure.
Every state in the US is an "at will" state, meaning a company can fire you with no reason as long as it isn't discriminatory towards a protected demographic.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/at-will-emp...
Which raises the question, what's up with the UK? Modern country with internet access and a good transportation network, not to mention a century-old central media establishment with basically one accepted dialect, but they've still got almost-mutually-unintelligible dialects in places fifty miles apart.