I think Zuck is too full of himself. People often get confused that their success means that they are wise, and that we should listen to them. Should we as well follow the thought leadership of drug cartels and the Saudi monarchs?
This is not the comment to be fighting this battle with.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/business/media/teen-vogue... for those that are curious.
This is NOT the hill for citation fanatics to die on.
[edit] also another comment had already provided a citation, in fact the citation you provided, so you or I providing the citation was unnecessary so I don't understand your point
>All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to international electioneers.
This is disinformation, laundered with the trust of the first comment.
The ask was: "Citations to your references would be appreciated."
It's true that a citation is not needed, but including one adds value, in that it increases efficiency.
> Just disputing that a citation was appreciated for that claim in this forum.
There is no word to replace required that wouldn't be open to your complaint; e.g. needed, necessary,
Yes, a citation would always be appreciated, but it's gate keeping to ask people to always provide citations when not truly necessary.
Appreciated is an appropriate word, you subconsciously swapped in required.
A citation is required if the goal is to maximize constructive communication - if that's the goal, of course.
The original comment:
> Citations to your references would be appreciated. It's the first step to overcoming the state of internet disinformation, as well as helping society overcome the fear of missing out just because someone doesn't already know your references.
This request (and it's just that, nothing more) seems reasonable.
This subsequent comment exchange:
>> All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to international electioneers.
> This is disinformation, laundered with the trust of the first comment.
...specifically: "laundered with the trust of the first comment" seems like perfectly valid criticism, and arguably adds to the "onus" (or value in) for the original person to provide a proper citation, in order to minimize misunderstanding.
And then here is where I see a problem arises:
> Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum.
You are criticizing someone for saying a citation is required, but it is you that introduced the idea of it being a requirement into the conversation - which is what I pointed out (perhaps not as eloquently as I should/could have).
Your subsequent reasoning:
> I deliberately swapped so you could see how that word doesn't work
...doesn't make sense to me. Replacing the original word with a new one that has a distinctly different meaning, and then criticizing OP for the new meaning of the sentence, doesn't make sense to me.
Am I misunderstanding somehow?
Words have distinct (non-interchangeable) and broadly accepted meanings, independent of either intent or personal preferences for what the meaning should be. I have merely interpreted your words according to the broadly accepted meanings, have I not?
Facebook is behind getting the highest bidders elected all around the world.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-21/inside-th...
I'm sorry we didn't participate in this conversation in the manner you wanted us to.
When in Rome...
I could, I guess, go back to running mailing lists or manual methods of keeping track of contact details and sending things directly to people.
But short of that there's no easier way for me to keep up with friends who are distributed around the planet.
If the UX sucks, it means it takes more time and energy to do the same thing, it means that I will not be doing the same thing, I will end up sending to less people or less information. Which means that facebook effectively allows new types of communication which would otherwise not even exist.
It's about the connection itself, it's about the energy and attention one puts into the relationship, not whether one allows oneself to use facebook for it or not.
This assumption is based on what?
Pretending Facebook is useless is like pretending GM doesn't make cars. Sure, maybe you don't like GM cars but they fill a genuine need for a lot of people.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/business/gm-cars-dropping-pro...
When a billionaire claims to predict the future they're not just making a prediction, they're really telling you what they plan to invest in.
AR is a little different because it's not a product; Facebook's AR apps might fail, but Zuck's vision could still succeed if Facebook create (or acquire) tools for creating an AR ecosystem.
all they really need is a collection of millions of AR-related patents allowing to sue any entity doing anything AR-related
Google search was minimalist. Android followed everyone else in the market, and hasn't iterated core UX much since. G Suite office apps were acquired, and mostly cloned Office online. Same with Gmail.
Maps is about the only heavily-used app, and I wouldn't call its design revolutionary (or even good).
Chrome is about the best example I can come up with, and it's mostly iterated and improved on the back end.
Maybe I'm missing something major? But it's not a market they compete in or are particularly good at.
(This isn't to say that the initial lift of desktop apps to the web wasn't a technical tour du force; just that blue sky GUIs have never been something they're known for)
That's a feature.
> Maybe I'm missing something major
Yes.
Two of the largest online social networks to date have emerged from the highly-selective university space: Usenet (UCLA, Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, UI, Rutgers, etc.), and Facebook (once: literally Harvard).
Google+ might have been able to grow from its tech roots. My sense is that Google's marketing-and-advertising focus (and community), as well as gross mismanagement, doomed its attempt, nudged with some active antipropaganda from other sources, notably Facebook. That's not to say it would have succeeded, but there were numerous self- and externally-imposed injuries.
All he does is telling what he plans to invest in. But given his privileged position, that's almost as irrelevant as what he is going to have for dinner tonight, if his plans for the next decade do not address the urgent and burning issues that keep the rest of humanity awake at night in earnest.
I'm sure AR "is the future" in a decade. But then you'd have to ask to whose benefit and to what ends.
If a billionaire makes swiping statements about the social good, then I expect a proper argumentation that shows an understanding about the vast complexity involved, and their according responsibilities. Not vapid filler that reduce the issues to a mere generational conflict such as:
> Today, many important institutions in our society still aren't doing enough to address the issues younger generations face -- from climate change to runaway costs of education, housing and healthcare. But as millennials and more members of younger generations can vote, I expect this to start changing rapidly. By the end of this decade, I expect more institutions will be run by millennials and more policies will be set to address these problems with longer term outlooks.
That would also solve the problem of death for humanity.
This doesn't stop the possibility that Zuck actually is full of himself.
Yes? Maybe not follow them morally, but a drug cartel lord will have more insight in leading a multi-national organization than me.
Wow, you just described like greater than 99% of the internet.
Search engine results these days is like taking a metal detector to the city dump.
We might as well use Taleb's idea of Lindy to find good information. Unfortunately, the internet hasn't been around long enough for anything published direct to web to qualify.
Luckily internet gives us easy access to books that are a bit older :)
I don't read blogs. But I love the internet for being one heck of a library.
To be fair, the Saudi monarchs are in the thought leadership business. Their influence over Islam is important to them and a lot of effort goes into it.
Drug cartels, as far as I'm aware, don't really care what you think.
VR talk with Mark Zuckerberg (bit nsfw): https://youtu.be/q2LIXcbDiZA
It will be a difficult battle for privacy when AR becomes mainstream. They will have reasons to track your surroundings and every body movement. :(
Depending on your definitions of "exactly" and "good".
I think a better question is something like: might it plausibly result in a net better outcome than some/all alternative approaches? I would say the answer to that question is definitely yes.
Please stay on topic and refrain from ad hominems that add nothing to the discussion. If you have disagreement with his predictions, focus on that in your reply.
Your comment adds nothing to the discussion and just lowers the quality of discourse. It's a shame it is the most highly voted comment.