You could argue that the pursuit of leisure created Silicon Valley as we know it. Atari was a gaming company. Apple's founders cut their teeth there. And the Apple II was largely bought because it supported games. I think this is one sense of Paul Graham's saying that toy problems are at the origins of great companies. Creativity driven by the sense of fun.

Can confirm. Massive help getting through school. Huge "loans" starting my own business. A life lived without financial fear because, even when not being actively aided, knowing that rich folk "got my back" is priceless.

Honestly acknowledging this has made me much more humble in my success and much more liberal in my politics than I would be otherwise.

It's TechCrunch's reporting of them. They're not telling you - TechCrunch are. I don't know if that was their elevator pitch or from some other information.

"...while a framework will let you create standard solutions to standard problems very quickly, you always then have to add that little special sauce that makes your app unique, and that is where the frameworks can slow you down instead of speeding you up. Vanilla coding, on the other hand, is just as fast whether you're doing something "normal" or something unique to your particular app."

I've been saying this for years and always get heavy push-back by the framework proponents. I've also encouraged them to look at history. Ten years ago, it was ALL about Backbone. Then Angular came around and it was ALL about Angular. Then React came around and it's currently ALL about that. But, wait! Now Vue is starting to gain some traction. In 3-5 years it'll be ALL about Vue.

My point is this: if the frameworks are so great and all-encompassing (I've literally heard, "you can build anything with [FRAMEWORK]. You don't need anything else!"), why doesn't one of them stand out so solidly that nobody would think to create another one? Why do we, like toddlers grown tall, keep rushing to the next latest and greatest shiny object that catches our eyes?

We need to end socialism for cars, but I think this way of going about it is probably counterproductive.

Here in Amsterdam we also have an increase in car-free zones, but one effect of that is just to increase car parking pressure in the neighborhoods of those of us who live adjacent to the center.

I think the real solution is to end socialism for cars. This problem will solve itself as soon as the land being used by parking spaces isn't specifically zoned, and thus would need to compete price-wise with using the same amount of land for residential developments or shops.

It's also interesting to see how this breaks down as a political issue. E.g. in Amsterdam the generally free market party (VVD) has a notable break from their "their market will take care of it" policy of wanting more government-subsidized car parking, v.s. the leftist parties.