asdfasdfa11112

I think of emojis as the written equivalent of body language and other non-verbal communication.

Aren't flights priced based on value and supply and demand, not the direct cost of a providing the flight?

Tufte says to set aside 1/3 of your meeting time to have everyone read the agenda and relevant information at the start.

Depending on the device, I would say. Maybe if it were phrased, "Do you regularly see annoying popups that ask you to update your software?"

Shoot, I guess even that is a poor wording. I do know, however, that every time Apple pushes an iOS update, I get a text from my mom to see if she should accept the update. (She got an iphone last summer for the first time, and does not know how to install apps.)

Engineering is a discipline of taking a problem you cannot solve, breaking it into component problems that you figure out how to solve.

Is FB keeping users in their comfort zone, or have users clearly and regularly indicated they want their ideologically safe spaces?

If the latter, any attempts FB makes will be create an exodus, lose-lose.

OTOH, if a site monetizes primarily through its email list, they may not care if people who don't sign up see their content.

There are similarities in the selection criteria used by 419 scammers.

I've had this experience as well. I'd love an opportunity to chat with someone who runs these click farms for a living, so I can understand their motivations a little more clearly.

I can't wrap my head around why someone would run a bot farm to click on my FB ads. It's not like AdSense, where they're getting a cut. I've read a theory it's to hide the bot accounts from Facebook's bot-detectors. But if people like in your experience can easily ID the obviously fake accounts, FB can (using the same criteria you mentioned).

I get FB has moral hazard to allow bot clicks, because they get paid. But if they're so sophisticated as to require fake engagement on ads (which is why I care -- I'm getting charged!), wouldn't they also be monitoring the simple heuristic you provided?

This could be explained by Facebook requiring bots to make them money to not get banned, but I don't think there's sufficient evidence for such a conspiracy just yet.

In the end, all I care about is how much I put into FB ads, and how much directly attributable revenue that generates. The fraud might hide otherwise profitable campaigns (ones that don't break even), but frequently this isn't the primary concern. (My concerns are usually, "does this part of Lake Facebook have any fish I can catch?", followed by the step 2 of optimizing the campaign to get a positive ROI.

Except that also serves as a placeholder for your turn to speak. I frequently find myself taking an extra second to think before I speak only to have my turn pass me by, because someone else started up right away.

I don't share your opinion that because other people have it worse, you cannot be dissatisfied.

Historically, ice was actually towed (stowed and sailed) from the Northeastern US to e.g. India, and other hot climates.

It was a huge industry in the northeast in the 17th(? I think) century. Got this info from an awesome documentary called the Science of Cold.

But now you're making a subjective statement about the pay. Without context (supply, demand, how much revenue you generate for your employer), how to determine what is highly paid?

I fully reject the idea that more hours should be a requirement for good pay.

Further, as a startup founder myself, I don't want my employees working much more than a 40 hour week. I have found* I prefer the work produced by someone with work-life balance, than someone who works all the time.

* subjective sampling of colleagues/coworkers/direct reports/hires.

Interesting point, I hadn't realized there were manufacturing/assembly lines for food. Makes sense.

Do you think it's likely we'll see robots making high quality goods like this, or will they always be commoditized and (my opinion) fully disgusting?

Robots clearly do well with mechanical items like cars. There doesn't seem to be any immediate reasons they can't make an artisan sandwich. Maybe it's a limitation of ingredient spoilage / exposure to air during the process?

Curious what you think -- will robots making food continue to be McDonalds level, or will we have good food coming from machines?

Wasn't the original discussion about robots replacing human labor? A single human can do those things.

I think it's another discussion whether we can make robots who each do one thing well. Roomba, etc.

Besides the space constraints with multiple robots, I think it's clear there are significant advantages in having just 1 entity that can perform all the required cleaning tasks. Much like single-purpose hardware has given way (mostly) to software, except in areas with interesting requirements (GPu etc.)

I dunno, my aunt still makes a good living programming for the AS-400, as she has done for multiple decades.

I'd love to read more about this, without all the general Jobs fluff. Any recommendations?

I don't think the fact that developers make hundreds of thousands of dollars means they have to put in more work.

They are being paid to create a certain amount of value, and capture what is generally a small fraction of it.

How does your logic scale? If a dev making $200k per annum has to put in 10 hours a day, does an executive making $600k per annum have to put in 30 hours per day?

I am appreciative of both the summary and the original comment. Please don't feel like your thunder was stolen -- your breakdown was fantastic and taught me quite a bit about a situation I was mostly unfamiliar with.

IME not all but many.

I got more from his comment than yours, even with a steep "spam" penalty. Sometimes the sheriff is worse than the criminal.

Because my comment otherwise adds nothing, here is a random fact: the French courts of 17/18th century had to invent the first "a/c" because of their clothing. Air was wafted over blocks of ice to cool it down, then continued fanning to the court.

Fashion brought us A/C.

Now 34. For me, realization that group interactions were not what i like.

I used to have e.g. 64 friends, i would hang out with 8 at a time.

Now, I maybe have 8 friends, hang out 1-1. Can't have more and actually know them.

Depth, not breadth. That is my 30s.

I also think the shouting of "liar, misogynist, ..." -- that type of reaction by people, to call others names -- is a component of what led people to vote for Trump.

I'm afraid those aren't my initials. I'm in California, just been enjoying the hell reading through your posts that you nicely collected into an index recently I stumbled upon.

Your arguments are intriguing. I was tempted to fire off half thought through replies to what initially struck me as gaping holes in logic, but am glad I did not. The more I read, the more I realize that I need to put more effort into understanding what you're really trying to say before I can begin to evaluate it.

Almost a "see it as the painter intended" moment. Anyhow, thank you for your writings, for although I don't know yet if I agree with anything you said, it's certainly exposed me to new perspectives I hadn't considered.

edit - and yes, I do promise to read the books listening to your recommendation.

Would you say that Gene Wolfe's books mentioned bear thematic similarity in this sense to the Foundation series? Trying to build on something I already know.

I can think of a few reasons.

1 - they might give you big bags of cash

2 - they think they can be the ones to turn it around (what, execs, big egos? unrealistic expectations? complete faith in their self as savior of mankind? surely you jest.)

3 - their career doesn't end at twitter

It does not, but it is a useful benchmark to evaluate the claims of a swimmer with below average times who insists they become team captain.

"Calling people out" is not a technique to help people grow. It's ridiculing them after applying a label from a distance.

The more people insist it was racists and sexists behind the vote, the more they miss the point. Part of the Trump vote was reacting sharply to the labeling + ridicule technique.

There are other options. Learn more about why they feel the way they do, understand them. These are (most of our) countrymen, fellow humans at the very least.

Education, understanding, compassion. Not ridicule.

To add on, part of the galvanizing force that created the political block (those tens of millions) was they don't like GP's exact attitude!

People really, really, really, don't like it when you deny or trivialize their experience. I think it was the final straw that led to the Trump victory.

This creates an intractable problem when their job is deemed too dangerous for a civilization to allow to continue.

If someone's job is their identity, and their job harms others, what are some other possible solutions? (Retraining runs into similar issues as you mentioned -- coal miners don't want to become keyboard jockeys, they want their sense of pride and self worth for doing the profession they trained for.)

At the risk of sounding like I'm speaking for all Americans, I think most Americans are more comfortable with a politician spending their own money to get elected rather than be influenced by someone else's money.

How many Americans are aware that most of that money isn't Trump's, I'm not sure. But he's a billionaire! and he's against special interests! So how would a man like that just turn around and take contributions?

sigh.

There are good things that can come from this, however. We shall wait and see. My prediction is that Trump is the most bombastic, blowhard of a president, but his actual policies end up being mild.