askldfhjkasfhd

Back up the bus - I didn't downvote. I start a new HN account well before I ever get that invested.

There really wasn't an argument put forth beyond "he's bad at business, can't you see it's obvious". His tone and lack of content other than an unsubstantiated opinion are why there was no interesting discussion.

I never said "it's obvious" in any way shape or form, but I do believe this is my stop. Have a nice day.

The overwhelming opinion* seems to be that he's brilliant at what he does. The post said it's obvious he's bad at business. If it's really that obvious, how did everyone else get things so wrong?

A more transparent post would have said something like "Based on my world view, assumptions, and preconceptions, he's bad at business. The common narrative of Dorsey is XYZ. Here's why that's wrong."

Saying "it's obvious" when you're expressing an uncommon opinion doesn't set a good tone for a discussion. Makes it seem like "I'm smart they're dumb I don't need to explain my statement that runs counter to conventional wisdom".

* Not saying it's right, just that this is what the Twitter board / media / insiders / VCs /etc. seem to think.

I think of it like a rough heuristic. It's a coarse-grained, single metric, but it does have some meaning if you don't use it as the end-all, be-all.

Replying to your comment made me wonder: what would a better metric be? The requirements are that it has to be numeric, a single number, and represent the "success" of any company, in all lifecycles (before fit, growth, mature, yellowpages, etc.)

What would you call something made in the 3rd shift? Where they use the same materials and factory they use for making branded gear, but don't put the brand on it?

While I don't think the actual number is $16/hr per the calculations in the rest of this thread, I do feel strongly that $16-21 / hr for a largely unskilled labor force is perfectly reasonable. (Not for SF, but SF isn't the majority of the country.)

Add in the flexibility of the hours (most drivers I query list that as their #1 thing they like most), and the lifestyle provided seems very reasonable.

It's worth remembering that a lot of these folks are generally service workers. In their other work, they get paid shit (usually close to min. wage), they get treated like shit, and they are at the mercy of the schedule maker. That last point cannot be underemphasized: little fiefs of power bestowed upon the scheduler make for really ugly fast food office politics.

Can you elaborate for me? I thought those two were synonyms.

I think of it like a code linter; I won't follow every suggestion, but it's nice having another set of "eyes" to point out mistakes.

V interesting, thank you for your comment! It sounds like you have some knowledge in this area. Anything you'd recommend for me to read in the 30 minute timeframe that would level my knowledge up?

It's not just what they share. Other people share things about them.

But don't we have to create those laws, sometimes? I'm thinking about the difference between homicide degrees, which include a subjective perspective: the intent of the accused.

We do develop standards for manslaughter versus murder 1, but my understanding is that the accused killer's mindset (their "intent") is an important distinction.

Not parent, but here's how I learned to understand snapchat.

Think like a younger Millennial (18-25 right now). Their whole social lives have been in public on FB/etc. They're going through a horribly awkward time in their lives, but it's all public. When they act like an immature kid, or aren't sexy, or whatever, that is recorded for all time.

So they feel incredible pressure to be sexy/fit/cool/smart/doing interesting things. People take hundreds of selfies to find the one that meets (what they think) their peers expect.

The pressure to be cool and attractive is intense. With FB, there is no escape.

Now Snapchat offers the opposite. People can "let their hair down", not have to look sexy or be cool, because the message is just temporary.

Most of the time I want candids, not portraits. FB made everything a portrait (intended for consumption by future selves/others).

SnapChat brought it back to the present by making it temporary.

Israel is also a fairly close ethnicity, nothing like the diversity here in the US. And they are engaged in a struggle with a specific ethnicity that they can identify.

The US has so much more diversity in population and enemies that profiling would be less effective, more annoying/discriminatory, because the "us/them" divide is less clear here.

I'm way out of my league, but would it be possible to distribute a Docker container with all the boilerplate? Tutorial users could run that at the start, then do the "fun stuff".

I appreciate you taking the time to fix my misuse of one word.

> I totally get your reluctance to rely on 3rd party, but the question is more for people who already do rely on 3rd party such as AWS or Azure.

Just a little input: Amazon and Microsoft are well known companies. I (and my superiors) think they can support us. Your company that I haven't heard of is not.

It may be dumb sounding, but I won't get in trouble if I used AWS and something went wrong. How could I have known?

With an unknown company, if something goes wrong, it's on me because I selected that vendor.

Stupid perhaps, but important to understand.

The problem, as people see it, is there is a whole space of websites that use features they don't need. Think of all the 1pageapp content sites.

To borrow your comparison, people who are bothered by what I describe above see it like a website saying, "Hey, we won't work on your device unless it's HDMI because of the design choices we made!"

Generally, people assume that a plurality of marriages that aren't theirs will end.

Their marriage, of course, isn't like those.

We humans are really bad at seeing our biases.

Philip K Dick? I am def a fan of his, but that's not usually what I associate the quotation with. Can you explain how he connects to it?

It could also indicate that one's personal values do not include a complete melding of finances to be a partner.

It's acceptable in a business arrangement to be partners with unequal stakes.

In my opinion, it's useful to separate the love/trust/bonding from marriage. Marriage is a civil contract that says very little about the relationship.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

My understanding and experience is that it's more accurate to call it meta-thinking, rather than just thinking. Perhaps semantics, and the lines are not at all clear, but it's helping me find balance in my life.

That isn't to say it didn't hurt OP.

Let's not forget the college itself is making an unhealthy amount of money. It's not just the personnel, it's the universities.

I attended Vanderbilt and was incredibly proud to see then-Chancellor Gee actually eliminated teh athletic department. He believed the department had too much power because of it's revenue generating capabilities, and the only way around that was elimination.

I disagree. At least in the NFL, players are making (incredibly good) money.

In the NCAA, so many "student"-athletes are taken advantage of much more than NFL players.

I would argue that ingesting something that's super toxic is not a better solution, and is part of the reason why naturopathic remedies are not a good idea to self-appy.

Unless you have access to those spamtraps to complete the opt-in, I doubt they will actually be subscribed.

Whoa, cool, I never thought of that!

Does the amount of wattage going through the line effect how "loud" the interference is?

I'm missing something, can you help me understand?

Wouldn't ethernet cables have the same issues? Does the increased power flowing through power lines somehow amplify the signal? Is that pretty much the definition of what a power amplifier in a radio does, add juice to a signal on an antenna so it gets broadcast further?

Yes, I agree with what you said. Thank you for putting it so concisely: the proprietor's intent does matter in how I view a company.

Good intent does not necessarily mean beneficence, but it should be noted when the owner's have good versus bad intent.

Can you elaborate on how you perceive the difference between the two examples here? Being financially foolish and negligent seem both to apply to your experience.

"Was I being outright financially foolish ordering $100 bottles of Chardonnay at the club? Not at all. Was I being financially negligent ordering whatever small thing came my way that I wanted?"

Because Google will personalize your results to maximize your CTRs, which are based on previous interests and likes.

DDG doesn't do this, and when you use it to query google search, it doesn't let google do this either.