DavidHm

It's a pretty typical mistake.

We are just as smart as our predecessors. We just have a much higher population, a higher % of them are well educated, and we have an enormous body of historical knowledge (as well as easy ways for anyone to access it).

"On the shoulder of giants" etc.

I am sure that's at least part of the thinking.

And judging from comments here on HN, it seems to be working. Just two post above yours there's a comment stating that any government solution cannot fix the tracking issue, and it can only be addressed by a company or an individual

I work in the industry (yes, the whole debacle has been fairly entertaining).

From what I've heard, Neumann was 100% convinced that the 16Bn financing round was a sure thing (and the rapid growth was how he positioned himself for it). I don't know whether he meant to ride off the sunset, or (as our ceo put it), rely on the fact that even if the business is unsustainable, tens of billions of cash means that you won't go bankrupt for a long time.

A well executed Excel model is much easier to explain to a non-technical person.

To be frank, for all the snobbery towards Excel, it has done a marvelous job at getting millions of people to think in more quantitative ways instead of "business acumen".

No, but the Ireland government would surely object, because their cozy and soft relationship / taxes agreement with the tech giants is the only thing that's keeping them in Ireland.

And yet private organizations so often want to sit on the moral perch and pet themselves about all the non-profit oriented actions they take.

This is such a peculiar, and I have to say, snobby, criticism - especially towards the last part of the article.

The Gioconda is too famous and doesn't deserve the crowd it gets? Maybe. Sounds like a subjective judgement.

People are left disappointed? Maybe. But anyone who does a 10 second search for "is mona lisa worth seeing" should already be aware of that. If they still choose to do that, why should we stop them? (or force them into an overly commercialized pen that deprives a piece of art of its dignity)

By all means, the Louvre should optimize the queuing experience. But as the author admitted, the Louvre doens't have a space capacity issue. And in my books anything that gets more people into a museum of any sort is a good thing.

How come?

Not trying to be snarky, but my experience is almost exactly the opposite.

I can't comment on voting patterns, but while GDPR was being prepared, and after it was released, there was an endless barrage of posts claiming how it was flawed, lead to the ruin of technology companies in Europe etc, and it should be replaced by something else (anything else, at some point in the future - and in the meanwhile please stop getting in the way of tech companies trying to make a profit)

Frankly I would not be surprised if there was indeed a reflexive downvote effect that is not caused by a shady conspiracy but rather people like me who are tired of posts like that.

19 backbenchers. Probably not suffient to swing the vote, but more people might come out.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labou...

This was extremely fascinating. Thanks for posting.

So this is interesting; assuming that this doesn't go to the Supreme Court or is otherwise unchanged by it, it could mean that after some states implement their own laws (and fight off the inevitable lobby/lawsuits attempts to stop from from doing so ), this could go down two ways:

1) The ISPs create two (or mor) versions of their packages that they can offer/operate in different states - this would be quite expensive (and I suspect in some cases quite difficult too), but it would allow them to leech extra profit off the hides of customers not protected by state law; it would generate a bit of outrage when users see their family and friends in other parts of the country are better off, but I doubt that will make the whole system collapse

2) Or they will give in and accept the higher(highest?) standard, similar to what's happening for car emissions. I am maybe too cynical, but I doubt that will happen so easily.

Car emissions are a secondary thing for manufacturers - they can grumble, but at the end of the day it's just a bit of extra cost. The repeal of net neutrality is a matter of life or death for ISPs - it's what will make the difference between them being able to maintain outsized profits and power in their nice little oligopoly, vs becoming dumb pipes.

This might be a personal impression, but there seems to be a reflexive (negative) response from many posters here regarding any new regulation that the EU produces.

I've been trying to wrap my head about whether that's different than the negative response about any regulation in general (including the US one), and I feel like it is more negative; as for why, I would only be speculating.

See, I wasn't sure whether that's a typo or the way an AI would refer to us.

Do you by any chance have a link to that video, or remember the name? I'd very very curious to see it.

That's 100% been the case - I am familiar with the industry and they have been more than willing to not make any margin in order to get the clients they want (big names, or poach from the competition)

That strategy works great, so long as you have unlimited funding.

A bit cynical, but not unfair. Many people in the US persistently cling to the idea that solution implemented and working (albeit imperfectly) in other parts of the world will not work in the US due to XYZ.

Which in a way, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Solutions implemented in the rest of the world will not work in the US because most people don't believe they will, or that the US is not capable of radical change (that is, radical change not driven by an individual or a corporate desire for profit)

Indeed. This is completely unrelated to the details of the case - it is simply unacceptable that a higher court can effectively gag a lower court from referring to the EU court.

The brazen contempt for the spirit of the law that Facebook (among many other companies) display never ceases to amaze me.

Buying (a product) off the shelf is the right answer in many situations.

But not when you are not actually buying a product.

There's a bit of longer-term reputation damage which is significant in an industry dominated by companies who tend to think over the span of decades rather than quarters.

One fairly big serviced offices company pulled the "separate entities" trick in one of the previous recessions, and some of the major landlords in that country still to this day, more than a decade later, refuse to do business with them.

I would argue that's still a win. Discord and Telegram are more difficult to track because they are less public and visible.

The move has therefore managed to reduce the exposure that non-active participants have to toxic behaviour, and the normalization of said behaviour as something acceptable/tolerated.

I am not sure whether anyone being a military titan can be defined as "righteous", but its definitely been something that was going to happen sooner rather than later.

Pre-experience business school (BSc) doesn't launch you straight into leadership positions.

Post-experience business school (MBA) can do that (that's usually leadership of 1-2 kids straight out of school), however to get an MBA you need work experience ... which means yeah, you have done the entry work somewhere

Note: I am not saying that they have done "basic" work (as in: developing code, flipping burgers etc.). But they definitely are not launched into leadership position without ever having done anything.

I guess Oracle's desperate attempts (to the point of suing the government) to ensure a cash cow for the next decade despite clear tech inferiority were not successful in the end

If the company is utterly reliant on a single person, that person is either an equity owner, or should be, and the owner is taking advantage of them.

If you own in part the business, then imho you take as much or little parental leave as you want/can afford.

Surprisingly not that much research on this topic on the American side, but here's one. [0]

Conclusion: there's a small negative impact on the hiring of women, but it's more than compensated by women being less likely to leave companies that provide them a longer maternity leave.

0: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nsarin/files/20170821_jobp...

I find myself somewhat unimpressed by arguments like "Facebook / Google" should not be deciding what is false.

They already are - or rather, they are deciding what is visible and prominent, and what isn't. When you share a post, Facebook's algorithm determine what visible it has for each of your friends - whether it's on top of their feed, lower, or completely invisible.

At this point it seems more and more likely (though probably not proven) that those algorithms are skewed to promote content that gets high chances of engagement - and that means content that provokes outrage or rage is more likely to be visible than a long-form, balanced conversations.

So in short - Facebook is not (and should not) be the arbiter of truth. But surely it's not unreasonable to ask that they don't actively promote incivility and (literally, uncontroversially) blatantly fake news?

Strongly disagree.

What you get from MOOCs is directly proportional to how seriously you approach them. Yes, MOOCs do less handholding (aka: forcing adults to behave like adults) than traditional university courses.

But they are also 100x cheaper and easier to access. If you approach them the right way you can get way more. I do still believe that for your 1st degree a traditional university is still the right choice, but there's no reason to return to university after graduation.

Not me personally, but the amount of complex workflow that I've seen relying on tortured Excel and VBA is mind-boggling.

In the hands of someone who knows how to use it, Excel is incredibly powerful. Though at some point it crosses the threshold of "why don't you just get a junior developer to code this?". And the answer is always "we are technologically dinosaurs, and we think that any devolopment project costs at least $200k"

If there's a cunning plan behind all of this, I cannot spot it.

If there isn't...honestly this is a sad sight.