Clanan

Those pirates can be quite vengeful!

Regarding Twitter's history of killing APIs and 3rd-party dev; is there a bulletproof approach to setting up such an API/service with the guarantee that it will not be killed/ruined, short of business closure? A one-sided contract, so-to-speak?

You're somewhat cherry-picking the quote. The point of that paragraph was to draw attention to the vague requirements present for unmasking:

> But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

This situation is (obviously) very political. It also illustrates well how "broad" intelligence gathering can be used as a political weapon. We all have our beliefs on the current and previous administrations, but I think it's vital to view these events from a minority viewpoint. If this tactic was used against you or your preferred political party, would it be acceptable?

This might be the start of a good approach, but I think it would largely reward popular teachers and easy classes. Back in university I would not have trusted myself to decide which were the necessary classes. With family, stress, work, etc. it would be too tempting to take the easy road. Maybe some combination of students and teachers...

Should this have some sort of warning attached? I'm not sure every company will like having their (unauthorized) employees defining their policies and values. A common controversy with unions, especially when they're forming, is employer discrimination against participants.

"To the extent that there is bias, it is slight and subtle. Opinion is labeled as such. Pointing to specific counter-examples is like identifying NASA with the failures of the Challenger -- it completely misses the forest for the trees."

Are you serious? You broadly profess the journalistic integrity of multiple institutions that have been embroiled in ethics scandals and then preemptively disallow any responses as missing the point. What a disingenuous and absurd statement.

Forgive my nearsightedness, but I would argue that a prominent newspaper has serious problems, far past "slight and subtle" bias, when its own writers are secretly giving drafts and veto power to a political campaign [0]. Keep in mind I'm not defending right-leaning publications, either. They have their own set of problems. But this ironic, constant claim that left-leaning publications are above reproach or criticism is laughable. We, the readers, must always keep them honest through our own honest critiques and feedback.

[0] http://nypost.com/2016/10/11/the-new-york-times-abandoned-it... - first that popped up in Google

I remember reading the news story about the author's accident. Very interesting/sobering to read about life since then. More on topic, I'm considering a move to NYC and the thought of navigating the city with young kids is almost stressful itself.

Tom Wheeler, former FCC chairman and cable/wireless lobbyist, fails to charitably address why his opponents did what they did. To Republicans and opponents of his FCC chairmanship, this was about regulatory authority, not "selling your data to ISPs". They believe the FTC, not the FCC, should be the main privacy regulator as it has in the past. They also contend that ISPs are already disallowed from scooping and selling data without consent, and that the FCC already has authority to prosecute, via sections 201, 202 and 222 of the Communications Act.

Not the parent but I'll chime in. It really depends on the type of games you enjoy. Mechanic-heavy ("eurogames") vs. more themed ("ameritrash"), cooperative, competitive, etc. BoardGameGeek is a great site for reference.

Off the top of my head, my wife and I enjoy: Ticket to Ride, Splendor, Ascension, Lost Cities, Settlers of Catan, Elder Sign.

I did not say what you think I said. In a topic as complex (and contentious) as weather, climate, global warming, etc. I think we should focus on understanding the science and employing civic discourse. I simply repeated what the scientist said: no conclusions yet, need more data. And in response I receive the blatant accusations of "classic denialist tactic[s]"? You think that's not toxic to discourse?

(Disclosure to pre-empt the common accusation of ignorance: I'm scientifically trained and work in renewable energy R&D.)

Already, the discussion here swings toward the climate change vs. "denialist" debate. Instead of politicizing it, maybe read the article? According to those interviewed, the trend until last year was to see more ice.

    > “It is tempting to say that the record low we are seeing this year is global warming finally catching up with Antarctica,” Meier said. “However, this might just be an extreme case of pushing the envelope of year-to-year variability. We’ll need to have several more years of data to be able to say there has been a significant change in the trend.”

Ironically, all those accusing others of being "denialists" are themselves failing to look at this scientifically, and resorting to the rudely unscientific tactic of name-calling.

My favorite response to the voucher debate is that most politicians who are against vouchers... send their children to private schools! (In D.C. at least, where public schools perform very poorly.)

Very interesting considering the post even discusses participating remotely. Politically incorrect theory: enabling people with families just isn't as sexy as helping immigrant founders.

> To make it clear, the managing partner is the guy who, if there was a war between all the lawyers, gets to wear the biggest, fanciest hat.

Anyone else desperately want to see this happen?

A few reasons which may or may not apply to this situation. I don't agree with all of them, but they're worth a discussion I suppose.

* The "cheaper" country has fewer regulations. e.g. sweatshop labor that the local workforce can't compete with.

* The organization profits from the local community, its regulations, and populace but doesn't "give back" through jobs, etc.

* The notion of patriotism: as a community, we should put our interests first (and other countries will do the same). Obviously this is a waaaay bigger topic than can be addressed in a bullet point.

False. Obama held several "private sessions", often inviting only left-leaning journalists [0]. I think people are conflating "press gaggle" with official press briefings.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/obama-holds-off-...

Isn't that the point, though? By writing this open letter they're effectively holding the company accountable in an extreme, public way. I would hope a company would treasure such investors since they're willing to offer such "tough love".

Gasp, you mean people of opposing beliefs actually have a reason for those beliefs and aren't just (all) idiots!? This is a great example of the impact of an echo chamber. It suddenly becomes an enlightening event to learn that opponents aren't actually monsters or bogeymen.

I, for one, hope one result of these sorts of "revelations" is the re-emergence of the importance of real tolerance. Not the pseudo-acceptance that is the mainstay of today, but the belief that we should be free to harbor opposing views without being immediately attacked, exiled, shamed, etc. And not just for the current winners (or losers), which is the boomerang we're seeing now.

This behavior is reinforced by current child-rearing and educational practices as well. Think about how much emphasis is placed on blind confidence, self-esteem, extroversion, etc. (at least in the U.S.). So it makes sense that confidence would be rewarded later in life when society defines it as a key metric before then.

I recall reading a book which posited that this shift to confidence over other "interior" characteristics (e.g. virtues) was due to the post-war consumerism boom when salesmanship became a lucrative career. What makes a good salesman? Confidence.

The problem with focusing on passion as a driving force is that it reverses the direction of how professional "passion" is often developed - through experience. I can't find the source now[0] but I recall reading about research investigating professional passion in college administrators. It found that passion was directly related to work years. In other words, experience and advanced skills bred more confidence and passion over time.

The other problem with making passion a mandatory requirement is that it's selfish. Passion has nothing to do with providing value, which is largely what yields professional success. Most people are passionate about their fun hobbies, but that doesn't mean they should pursue them professionally. If an employee isn't passionate about coding but gets the job done, then what's the problem?

[0] Study Hacks blog by Cal Newport, maybe?

Is anyone else put off by this obsession with "solving" fake news? As if we can simply throw technology at such a contentious and controversial issue and then trust the results. It reads to me like the goal is censorship, where only "approved" articles/authors are allowed, all in the name of "fact checking". Never mind that it's incredibly easy to cherry-pick facts or exaggerations to target "offensive" articles (by both/all sides).

This is true of practically every company. It's a liability issue - companies are afraid that feedback will be used in a lawsuit, so their favored course of action is to say nothing.

I see very little value for the company in agreeing to something like this. A user could still sue (even after signing the form) by claiming the given feedback is discriminatory or something similar. No company would voluntarily take on that sort of liability when there are countless alternatives.

Nice strawman. As usual, opponents of the enlightened are nothing more than rabid, racist idiots.

Not sure what your first comment means. My point is simply that many entities pass themselves off as these open platforms for diverse opinions, when in reality they will target and/or censor those they disagree with. Is this a good thing sometimes? Obviously, e.g. with illegal things. But it can also be a dangerous habit. This isn't about pointing fingers at specific people or companies, but about recognizing that this is human and no one is above the temptation.

This U.S. election has been an important inflection point in displaying the bias and application of bias by "apparently" disinterested entities like Twitter, reddit and the like - places that claim to advocate diversity and openness, yet struggle to do so in the face of conflict. I hope this spawns a renewed push for education into why things like freedom of speech and tolerance are so important.

It all goes back to people being people. For us humans it's too easy to break the rules because we think we know what's best, etc. As the saying goes, history too easily repeats itself. Castro's passing is perhaps ironic in the timing.

Drugs also have a large societal impact, apart from the personal body impact. When one or two people are addicted, it's largely "their" problem. But when a larger number of people are addicted, it can have a huge effect on the local economy, society, etc. There are some recent articles that profile small towns undergoing this issue.

(No idea if this relates to the burglary analogy, but I thought it would be a helpful point.)

Why do we focus so much on the educational method, and whether or not teachers can tackle it? Here's the key line in your comment:

    What he missed though was the ability to calculate quickly...this I had to get him to do at home...

I think the biggest problem in U.S. education today, and why us throwing money at it isn't working, is that parents do not take a "leadership" role in their child's education. Common Core was fine because you eliminated the weak points. But I think it's far more common for parents to abdicate responsibility for educating their children to schools and teachers. And society basically reinforces this idea. Many of my successful, educated friends are barely involved in their kids' educations, only making sure homework gets done, yet they don't realize they could do so much more! Schools and teachers don't (and can't) care more about your children than you do, so I think we need to see a re-centering of responsibility back onto parents.

And yes, I know the common response is that many parents simply do not have time to be more involved. But the average American watches >2 hours of TV daily (never-mind Facebook usage), so I think parents would be more involved if the "system" incentivized and encouraged it.

You're right, my comments definitely skimmed the topic. I was more addressing the parent's comment that we should look at the over-arching issue here, and not just this specific case.